value / criterion pairs for the humanitarian aid resolution

This post consists of value and criterion pairs for the March-April 2014 LD humanitarian aid resolution, which states:

Placing political conditions on humanitarian aid to foreign countries is unjust.

These ideas are intended to kickstart your own thinking. Feel free to adapt them for your own purposes. I can't claim they'll win you any rounds, but if they do, be sure to give me 80% of the credit, more or less.

Also, this is a work in progress, so feel free to suggest additions in the comments.


Trending Affirmative

Value: Justice (defined morally)
Criterion: Preserving human dignity.
Humans are worthy of fundamental respect and have inherent worth. Regardless of role or station, we have a moral obligation to preserve human dignity. Political conditions have the potential to deny aid to those who need it most, use humans as bargaining chips and human suffering as leverage, and, if based on partisan bickering, are a moral obscenity and an affront to human dignity.


V: Justice
C: Protecting Human Rights
If protecting human rights is essential to justice (or morality), and if PPCoHA leads to the loss of human rights (as thousands or even millions suffer and die when aid is denied), then PPCoHA is unjust.


V: Justice
C: International Law / International Human Rights Norms
Since the resolution does not specify a particular society, we can't be 100% certain which rights must be protected. Best, then, to look to the prevailing standards of international law--the rights that people across societies, cultures, and even times have agreed are essential. Is this criterion open to attack? Certainly. But it also presents a clear, highly defensible set of rights.


V: Justice
C: Deontology, especially the 2nd Formulation of Kant's Categorical Imperative
Kant argues that as humans are autonomous moral agents, it is wrong to use them as mere means to an end. Political conditions do this by treating suffering and dying humans as bargaining chips for a nation's purposes.


V: Justice
C: Retribution
In this view, withholding aid for political reasons is a punishment. If this is a correct reading of the situation, it violates a fundamental principle of retributive justice. Innocents should not suffer for the sake of their country's leaders, since they are not due punishment.


V: Justice
C: Rawls's "Law of Peoples"
Rawls's "Law of Peoples" is an attempt to apply his contractual reasoning to international relations. The seventh and eighth rules are most salient: "Peoples are to honor human rights," and "Peoples have a duty to assist other peoples living under unfavorable conditions that prevent their having a just or decent political and social regime."




Trending Negative

V: Justice
C: Social Contract
The resolution uses the phrase "is unjust," which can (should?) be defined in moral terms. The moral obligations of the State are based on its contractual duties and limits. The contract (in most classic formulations) requires no positive obligations toward the citizens of other countries. (There may be negative duties--to not violate the human rights of foreigners--but humanitarian aid is not a moral obligation for states.

A potential "turn" exists if the social contract is linked to consequentialist reasoning (i.e., the State has to act in a way that benefits its citizens or keeps them secure). If unfettered humanitarian aid improves the donor nation's security, it might have a moral obligation to avoid political conditions.


V: Prudence (defined as carefully weighing political options; see Morgenthau)
C: Political realism
The idea here is that nations act in their best interests, independent of overarching moral considerations, charting a careful course in a chaotic, Hobbesian world. Justice isn't a proper description of international relations, so the resolution is a category error, analogous to claiming that numbers are too heavy, or colors are too fearful. (Be aware that some judges hate political realism. I mean really, really hate it.) Realism can also be turned, potentially, in the way the Social Contract argument can be turned, if realism is discussed in terms of its consequentialist impacts, rather than in its inherent approach.



Could Go Either Way

V: Justice
C: Consequentialism (or Utilitarianism, Act or Rule)
Any case predicated on a body count, a dollar figure, or any other quantifiable metric of success is essentially consequentialist. If justice is defined morally, and the State looks to consequentialism as a way to decide whether its actions are moral, then consequentialism can work as a criterion for justice. However, this seems like a weaker link (as it makes justice into a matter of majority rules). Also, any affirmative would have to beware of potential turns.

value and criterion pairs for the Private Military Firms resolution

The Private Military Firms resolution presents plenty of framework options for the Aff and Neg.

Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives.

The following list of Value and Criterion pairs is neither conclusive nor comprehensive. Rather, it's a set of suggestions to spark your thinking. Feel free to share your bright ideas, constructive criticism, and questions in the comments.

A work in progress.


Trending Affirmative

V: National Security
C: Pragmatism / Bolstering defense forces
We ought to value national security because the resolution concerns whether PMFs can reasonably or legitimately be used to attain military objectives. Hence the oft-used "toolbox" metaphor: to maintain security, we have to keep all the necessary tools at our disposal. Limiting our options could be expensive, counterproductive, or disastrous to our military efforts. This position will likely clash with advocacies based on freedom or human rights, since valuing security as paramount tends toward oppression.


V: National Security and/or International Stability
C: Preserving Hegemony
If PMFs help the U.S. maintain military superiority and economic clout--and thus the global balance of power via American hegemony--then they're warranted. The hegemony argument suffers from a couple pitfalls: first, it may not be true (in a multipolar world full of dangerous nonstate actors and nontraditional, asymmetrical conflict, can the U.S. even stake claim to be a hegemon?), and second, even if it's true, whether hegemony is good is another matter entirely--racism, ethnocentrism, or patriarchy, anyone? Benevolence is often solely in the eye of the benefactor.


V: Prudence (defined as carefully weighing political options; see Morgenthau)
C: Political realism
The idea here is that the US must act in its best interests, which are independent of overarching moral considerations. Rather, the U.S.'s goal is to preserve its own power, charting a careful course in a chaotic, Hobbesian world. Realists generally denounce grand state-building / democracy-spreading schemes, however, so there may be a "turn" available: that realism demands a massive scaling-back of American military activity abroad.


V: Justice or Governmental Legitimacy
C: Constitutionalism
The Constitution not only provides a justification for national defense, but seems to permit the use of Private Military Firms. So far, I have yet to see a compelling analysis that PMFs are unconstitutional; if you've found one, pass along word.


V: Societal Welfare or National Security
C: Capitalism / Free Market
PMFs, like any other business, provide jobs to hardworking Americans (and foreign nationals). Further, PMFs are constrained by market forces, which keeps them from acting too recklessly or abominably (lest they lose clients). If you're debating in a progressive region and run this type of argument, expect to face the "Cap K."


Trending Negative

V: Peace
C: Reducing "Warism," Preventing Future Conflict; Pacifism; Isolationism
Duane Cady describes warism as "the uncritical presumption that war is morally justifiable, even morally required." PMFs incentivize conflict, since they have a financial stake in providing security or goods in war zones. When the war ends, PMFs have to move on to the next opportunity. Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial complex" anticipated this sort of perpetual conflict machine.


V: Justice or Morality or Governmental Legitimacy
C: Social Contract
The resolution uses the phrase "is justified," which may be defined in moral terms. The moral obligation of the State is based on its contractual duties and limits--and its monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Subcontracting this to PMFs is a dangerous policy, since PMFs are accountable to stakeholders who may not even be U.S. citizens or have the U.S.'s best interests in mind. In contrast, the U.S.'s citizen-soldiers have strong commitments to the U.S's military objectives; it's the focus of their recruitment, their training, their everyday life, and the entire command structure.


V: Justice or Morality
C: Just War Theory
If PMFs don't meet the criteria of jus in bello, we negate.


V: Freedom
C: Reducing the power of the state and/or corporations
The seemingly ever-expanding influence of corporations and states on individuals--and of corporations on states--means that we risk becoming a paternalistic plutocracy that defends its own interests in the guise of national security. Globalization, corporate welfare, financial bailouts... and PMFs, all in an unholy alliance.


V: Justice or Morality or Human Dignity
C: Protecting Human Rights
Thesis: If protecting human rights is essential to justice (or morality), and if PMFs (especially security firms) violate rights with impunity, then we must negate.



Could Go Either Way

V: Societal Welfare (or Morality or Life or National Security)
C: Consequentialism (or Utilitarianism, Act or Rule)
Any case predicated on a body count, a dollar figure, or any other quantifiable metric of success is essentially consequentialist (and perhaps utilitarian). Not that there's anything wrong with that.

value and criterion pairs for the juvenile justice resolution

The NFL LD resolution for January / February 2011 offers all kinds of interesting possibilities, since it considers potential distinctions between adults and juveniles in the U.S. criminal justice system.

Below is a list to get you started in your analysis. In the comments, suggest your own, or critique these offerings. Remember two things: that the resolution concerns those charged with violent felonies, and that we're dealing with serious crimes, not minor offenses, which may affect arguments about the ability of juveniles to be rehabilitated.


V: Justice (defined as "to each their due," or a similar concept)
C: Retribution
Trending AFF. If the aim of the criminal justice system is to punish the guilty, then we must determine the proper punishment for guilty parties. Retribution (or its philosophy, retributivism) offers a moral justification for punishment, as well as a limit: proportionality, based on the principle that the punishment must fit the crime. The Aff argument, in a nutshell, is that adult crimes (violent felonies) deserve adult punishments. For one view of retributivism, see here.


V: Societal Welfare or Justice
C: Rehabilitation
Trending NEG. If the purpose of the justice system is to rehabilitate criminals, then perhaps the juvenile justice system offers better prospects for young offenders. This, of course, presumes that the juvenile justice system is founded on the principles of rehabilitation--which, historically, it is.


V: Societal Welfare
C: Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is quite possibly the closest allied moral framework with democracy. After all, if the goal is the greatest good for the greatest number, what better way, societally, to achieve this than through democratic means? If the ultimate aim of a democratic society is its own well-being, then utilitarianism offers a way to determine whether treating juveniles as adults in the criminal justice system either adds to or detracts from overall happiness. More specifically, the utilitarian theory of criminal justice is based on the beneficial outcomes of punishment: preventing future crimes through deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. However, in the wider context of utilitarianism, punishment is counterproductive if its costs outweigh the benefits. Any statistical argument about rehabilitative outcomes or deterrence is most likely utilitarian in nature. The weakness of utilitarianism, of course, is that it offers no internal constraints on punishment.


V: Justice
C: Rawls' first principle of justice (or, more generally, the Rawlsian social contract)


V: Justice
C: Equal protection of the laws
Trending AFF. Juveniles charged as juveniles may not have all the rights and protections of adults (most notably, the lack of a jury trial). Is this just?


V: Justice (defined in terms of morality)
C: The Categorical Imperative
Trending AFF. According to Kant, moral actions are good in and of themselves. Furthermore, Kantian theory applies to all rational agents--criminals and law enforcers alike. Those who punish criminals are bound by moral obligation to punish them to the fullest. This argument, of course, hinges on whether juveniles are fully rational agents. Oh, and warning: many people misunderstand Kant and the Categorical Imperative, so make sure you do the research first.


V: Justice
C: Governmental Legitimacy / the Social Contract
Trending AFF. A government that oversteps its bounds with unjust laws--even those that are initiated through democratic processes--has violated the Social Contract, which is a rough approach to balancing rights claims as a precursor to the formation of a State. Any State that, through some loss of sovereignty, can or will no longer enforce the law, has violated the Contract, and is no longer legitimate. If juveniles aren't fully punished for committing violent felonies, perhaps the State has not fulfilled its obligation to protect the public and enforce the law. Furthermore, if juveniles' privacy is protected in the juvenile justice system, the public won't/can't know about potential felons in its midst.


V: Individual Rights
C: Reducing state power
Similar to the argument above: we live in an age of ever-expanding state power. The justice system in the United States is a well-oiled machine, grinding individuals to powder. Does treating juveniles like adults give the state more power? Or less?


V: Justice
C: Constitutionalism
Trending NEG. In the United States, the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, is the ultimate standard of justice. Is treating juveniles like adults Constitutional? At least in one respect, no: juveniles aren't to be given life without parole or a death sentence. But what about otherwise? Is it cruel and unusual punishment to throw a juvenile in adult prison? Or, on the other side, do juveniles deserve a "speedy and public trial," which isn't guaranteed in the juvenile justice system?


V: Virtue
C: Virtue Ethics
Trending NEG. Why not? By the doctrine of parens patriae, the State may intervene when juveniles run afoul of the law, and their parents are nowhere in sight, morally speaking. What if the role of juvenile justice is not to punish, or even rehabilitate, so much as to educate in virtuous conduct?


V: Justice
C: Moral Responsibility / mens rea
Trending NEG. To be punished for a crime, a criminal must be morally responsible for it. Are juveniles charged with violent felonies as morally responsible as adults?


V: The Future
C: Optimism
Trending NEG. Juvenile Justice preserves optimism in two ways: one, it retains hope that juveniles can be reformed, preserving their potential future (with the possibility that past crimes can be "wiped out" when the offender is old enough, with no permanent criminal record dogging the offender for the rest of his or her life. Two, it prevents juveniles merely charged with violent felonies from having their reputation destroyed by a sensationalistic media.


V: Societal Welfare
C: Communitarianism / Education
Trending NEG. "It takes a village to raise a child."  The community has an interest in ensuring that children grow up well and whole.  The juvenile justice system seems predicated on this concept, which requires a decidedly more active approach by the State in educating and enculturating youth. Seen in this way, the juvenile justice system is an extension of the education system (or a parody of it, in a more cynical view, or indistinguishable from it, in the most cynical view).


V: Justice
C: Jury Trials
Trending AFF. The jury is a foundation of criminal justice in a democratic republic.  By denying juveniles jury trials, we not only fail to educate them about the values of the community (since criminals are punished not only by officials of the State, but by the people themselves), but prohibit the community from having its proper role in weighing the facts and determining guilt.  Community standards evolve over time, and there is no more efficient way to adjust to evolving standards than direct community input in the application of justice.

value and criterion pairs for the illegal drugs resolution

The NFL LD resolution for November / December 2010 offers many options for frameworks.

Resolved: The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice.

The following list--a work in progress--should be taken as a set of suggestions. You might have better ideas, and you know what you know, and what you'll need to research. If you have any brilliant ideas or questions, feel free to share in the comments.

I've separated the pairs into three groups.


Trending Affirmative

V: Justice (defined as "to each their due," or a similar concept)
C: Retribution
Some varieties of retributivism match well with the Affirmative argument that drug abuse itself is not a crime, and hence punishing it is as such is immoral. For the dissenting view--that drug abuse could represent a violation of "equal liberty for all," and its punishment justified on retributivist grounds--see here.


V: Liberty or Autonomy
C: Mill's Harm Principle
Liberty is the basis of human rights and flourishing. Its close cousin, autonomy, precedes any sort of societal or law-and-order consideration, because it is the foundation of human rights and societal order. If the Aff can show that drug abuse is a separate moral matter from drug manufacture or trafficking, then people have a right to hurt themselves through drug abuse. (If they hurt others, we already have justification enough for punishment.)


Trending Negative

V: Health or Societal Welfare
C: Paternalism (via Utilitarianism)
One Aff strategy will be to declare that drug abuse is a "victimless crime." To a paternalist, this is irrelevant; the state has a responsibility to keep folks from harming themselves. (A utilitarian justification exists: one's suffering, or even lack of productivity, inevitably affects society.) The danger, of course, is a slippery slope to tyranny. A paternal state is seldom satisfied with the limits of its power.


V: Societal Welfare
C: Upholding Moral Standards
Morality is good because it holds society together. (There may be social contract implications lurking beneath the surface of this structure.) If the core value of a society, then we are justified in punishing those who commit offenses against morality.
Strategy for Success: This criterion respects differences across societies, since the resolution doesn't specify any particular society. However, it also leaves one open to the attack that morality is difficult to define and agree upon, even within a society.


Could Go Either Way

V: Societal Welfare
C: Utilitarianism
The utilitarian theory of criminal justice is based on the beneficial outcomes of punishment: preventing future crimes through deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. However, in the wider context of utilitarianism, punishment is counterproductive if its costs outweigh the benefits. Any statistical argument about treatment outcomes or deterrence is most likely utilitarian in nature.

Strategy for Success: Be sure to show how Util leads to SW. Watch out for the "50.01% can kill 49.99%" response, an oversimplification of Utilitarianism. Learn about the nuances and varieties of the moral philosophy. They're worth exploring.


V: Human Rights / Justice
C: International Law / International Human Rights Norms
Since the resolution does not specify a particular society, we can't be 100% certain which rights must be protected. Best, then, to look to the prevailing standards of international law--the rights that people across societies, cultures, and even times have agreed are essential. Is this criterion open to attack? Certainly. But it also presents a clear, highly defensible set of rights (and jurisprudence as evidence). It's worth looking into the international perspective on drug offenses, and whether it supports a public health or a mixed approach.


V: Justice
C: Rawls' first principle of justice (or, more generally, the Rawlsian social contract)


V: Justice
C: Equal protection of the laws


V: Human Rights
C: Locke's Social Contract


V: The General Will
C: Rousseau's Social Contract


V: Justice (defined in terms of morality)
C: The Categorical Imperative
According to Kant, moral actions are good in and of themselves. Furthermore, Kantian theory applies to all rational agents--criminals and law enforcers alike. Those who punish criminals are bound by moral obligation to punish them to the fullest.
Strategy for Success: Many people misunderstand Kant and the Categorical Imperative, so make sure you do the research first.


V: Justice / Societal Welfare
C: The Rule of Law
The Aff could argue that criminalizing drug abuse leads to a War on Drugs, that dehumanizes drug abusers, empowers criminals, sets children against parents and parents against children. This diminishes respect for the law, which is the closest approximation to real justice in a given society. Further, diminishing the rule of law has wider social consequences. (Or, on the Negative, would decriminalizing drugs via a public health approach do the same? Do we risk a slippery slope to drug-fueled, soporific anarchy?)

value and criterion pairs for the nuclear weapons resolution

The August/September NFL LD resolution for 2010 offers many options for frameworks. The following list should be taken as a set of suggestions. You might have better ideas--and you know what you know, and what you'll need to research. If you have any brilliant ideas or questions, feel free to share in the comments.

Note: I'm publishing this list before the analysis is complete, to spur your thinking. More coming soon!

Let's recall the resolution:

Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

Often I like to separate V/C pairs into advocacies--those that trend Aff or Neg. However, it seems that many of the arguments cut both ways, as you'll see below. So we'll go straight to the pairs.

V: Human Life
C: Reducing / Deterring Conflict; Preventing Extinction; Environmental Protection; Utilitarianism

V: Morality
C: Fulfilling obligations to the future

V: Justice or Morality
C: Just War Theory

V: Justice or Morality or Gov't Legitimacy
C: The Social Contract
The key to this kind of case is strongly establishing the moral obligations of states.  Since the resolution concerns "ought," which, in a philosophical context, is most commonly defined in moral terms, and since the agent of action appears to be states, the Aff or Neg can argue from a contractarian perspective: that the only rules that bind states, morally speaking, are those of the Social Contract.  Which one?  Well... that's where it gets interesting.  A Hobbesian will definitely argue differently than a Rawlsian.

V: Freedom
C: Reducing state power

V: National Security
C: Deterring Conflict; Preserving the balance of power; maintaining military dominance

The Negative can concede that a world without nuclear weapons is better than one with: but that is not our world, and never will be; Disarmament is a utopian dream, and a dangerous one at that. So, if states must protect their citizens--a key argument that the Negative might want to get the Aff to concede to in CX--then they must fend off potential nuclear (or conventional) attackers. And besides, possession doesn't require use.

But it risks use, the Aff will counter, and raises the stakes of any potential conflict. Add to that the risk of accidents, theft, and the instability of collapsing nuclear regimes (the rise of a nuclear black market, say, after the fall of Communism), and it just might be that national security is better served through conventional weaponry.

Besides, the costs of developing / purchasing and maintaining nuclear weapons means that proliferation is necessarily limited. Furthermore, with international cooperation / enforcement regimes, IF states made a concerted effort to eliminate nukes, it could be done.

Lastly, National Security as a value might be troublesome: any nation that values security above all risks becoming a police state.


V: Peace or Human Life or Morality
C: Reducing "Warism" / Promoting Peace / Pacifism / Disarmament

Warism is "the uncritical presumption that war is morally justifiable, even morally required," according to Duane Cady (whose newly revised text on the subject I'll be reading as soon as I can get a copy through the local college library--hopefully as soon as it's published).  A state that possesses nuclear weapons is itself possessed by warist thinking, which will inevitably promote conflict.

V: Prudence or Security
C: Political Realism / Military Realism

value and criterion pairs for the jury nullification resolution

The following is a list of possible value / criterion pairs for the jury nullification resolution.

A couple questions to kickstart your thinking: Why would we have checks on government? Why do we have jury trials, anyway? Why not just have judges decide innocence or guilt?

A work in progress. Suggest your own pairs in the comments!


Trending Affirmative

V: Justice
C: Governmental Legitimacy / the Social Contract
If nullification is a "just check" on government power, it's because of the nature of government's relation to its citizens. A government that oversteps its bounds with unjust laws--even those that are initiated through democratic processes--has violated the social contract. Nullification, then, is a peaceful form of revolution. (You might compare these V/C pairs to those I wrote up for the vigilantism resolution a year ago.)

V: Democracy
C: Popular Sovereignty
At its core, the U.S. strives to be democratic. Popular sovereignty--the idea that the people rule--is the foundation of democracy. Jury nullification places power in the hands of the people, the power to declare that the law is unjust, and that the government has overreached. Combine with arguments that institutions have been corrupted or have stagnated (undue corporate influence, special interest groups, etc.) and you can be the Noam Chomsky of jury nullification.

V: Individual Rights
C: Reducing state power
Similar to the argument above: we live in an age of ever-expanding state power. The justice system in the United States is a well-oiled machine, grinding individuals to powder. Nullification jams the gears, protecting individual rights--especially of those who are unable to afford the best attorneys. (The War on Drugs makes this problem acute; see Paul Butler's Let's Get Free. for a former prosecutor's take on the practice.)



Trending Negative

V: Justice / Democracy
C: The Rule of Law / Due Process of Law
It takes only one nullifier to hang a jury trial. This has the potential to jam the gears of justice, which is one of the primary reasons juries are never instructed about the power of nullification. Furthermore, it's patently unfair and undemocratic for one person to thwart societal standards.

V: Justice
C: Deontology
Because of a little process called "voir dire," a potential nullifier is likely to have to lie--after all, no prosecutor is going to let a person who reviles the drug war stay on a jury in a drug case. But deontological ethics--especially Kant's--forbid lying, even for the sake of the good. (Here it helps to define "justice" as "moral rightness.")

V: The Rule of Law
C: Respecting legal expertise
Ordinary citizens, God bless 'em, don't understand the complexities of the law, questions of constitutionality, and the like. Although the United States has democratic aspects, it is ultimately a constitutional republic, which resists the fickle fervor of the masses. Leave legislation and judicial review to those who are not only appointed, but qualified to do them.


Going Either Way

V: Justice
C: Constitutionalism
In the United States, the Constitution, as the supreme law of the land, is the ultimate standard of justice. Is jury nullification constitutional? There's no right to it--the practice comes from common law--but it's not clearly unconstitutional, either. Essentially, the Supreme Court's few rulings on the subject say that it's a power juries have, but that jurors have no right to be told about it.

V: Societal Welfare
C: Consequentialism / Utilitarianism
If we should evaluate governmental actions--and checks on government power--in the light of their societal consequences, is jury nullification justified?

value and criterion pairs for the economic sanctions resolution

A work in progress. Suggest your own in the comments.

Remember that this is one of those "affirming a negation" resolutions: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.

Trending Affirmative

V: Justice
C: Rawls' Difference Principle (or the Veil of Ignorance?)
Sanctions punish the worst-off by limiting economic growth or keeping critical goods out of the hands of those who need them most.

V: Justice
C: Protecting Innocents (variations on a theme of Just War theory) or Deontology
The gist of the argument: innocents are punished by sanctions; for various reasons, this is wrong. In Kantian ethics, persons are never to be used as a mere means to an end. Arguments can also be made based on retribution or proportionality; innocents should not suffer for the sake of their country's leaders, since they are not due punishment.

V: Prosperity or Societal Welfare or...
C: Capitalism / Free Market
Sanctions interfere with the free market. This stunts overall economic and technological development, increases conflict, reduces the pacifying power of globalization, etc.

Trending Negative

V: National Security
C: Pragmatism or Realism or somesuch
I heard the "toolbox" metaphor employed a few times this weekend: we have to keep all the necessary tools at our disposal. Declaring that we ought not use sanctions limits our options to, essentially, inaction (which is immoral), diplomacy (which is weak), or war (which is often far too costly).

V: National Security or International Stability
C: Preserving Hegemony

V: Peace or Life
C: Preventing Proliferation
Sanctions can keep weapons, especially nuclear weapons, out of the hands of dictators. Even if they're not 100% effective, they are less costly--and less likely to cause spectacular "blowback"--than war.

V: Governmental Legitimacy
C: Social Contract
States are beholden only to their own citizens. There may be practical reasons for avoiding sanctions, but no inherently moral duty for the state to forgo them.


Could Go Either Way

V: Societal Welfare (or Morality or Life)
C: Consequentialism (or Utilitarianism, Act or Rule)
I've already seen arguments on both sides: that sanctions are ineffective and thus waste precious time, energy, and resources; that they benefit organized crime; that they strengthen tyrants; that they hurt average citizens, leading to other ills. On the other hand, I've seen Negs argue for "targeted" or "smart" sanctions; the claim is that they're more effective and don't punish the wrong people. I've also seen it argued that sanctions are more effective at the "threat stage" (and therefore must be used from time to time to keep their deterrent effect). Some are arguing (as per above) that, when faced with intractable opposition, the basic choice is between sanctions or war, and the costs of war are too high. In short, if you choose consequentialism as a criterion, prepare for a potentially back-and-forth round full of twists and "turns."

V: Peace
C: Pacifism or Isolationism

value / criterion pairs for the immunization resolution

LD casewriters studying the November/December compulsory immunization resolution might consider the following value and criterion pairs. (Have your own ideas? Suggest them in the comments!)

See also: my guide to some useful philosophers, plus a way to consider the criterion in LD debate.

A work in progress.

V: Societal Welfare
C: Act or Rule Utilitarianism
As I've mentioned elsewhere, many affirmative cases will use either explicit or implicit utilitarian reasoning. It's easy to figure out why: compulsory immunization, from the state's perspective, violates autonomy in order to keep the herd immune, and reduce suffering and death. Of course, some may argue that Mill's nonpaternalistic utilitarian scheme, via the harm principle, supports the negative, but that's what makes it fun.

Note: a potentially fruitful line of argument might be an analogy based on the infamous Trolley Problem. Also, see here for a deeper look at utilitarianism as a moral criterion.


V: Governmental Legitimacy
C: Social Contract
Because the resolution concerns compulsory immunization, making the agent of action the State, social contract theory comes into play. Change your value to "societal welfare," and you can make arguments based on contractarian reasoning as well. (My initial thought is that Hobbes or Rousseau are your best bets here.)


V: Freedom
C: Reducing Biopower
Foucault, anyone?


V: Autonomy
C: Deliberation
Without autonomy, humans are slaves, robots, or worse. Autonomy is the core of human freedom, rights, and responsibilities. Compulsion is a direct affront to autonomy; deliberation (especially deliberative democracy) uses dialogue and education to create change. (As you can probably see, this is a Negative approach.) Potential philosophers: Arendt or Habermas.


V: Autonomy or Humanity
C: Kant's Categorical Imperative
The Neg might argue that compelling someone to take a (potentially risky) vaccine in order to protect the herd is a classic case of using someone as a mere means to an end. If so, Kant says no.


V: Life
C: Utilitarianism
A fairly straightforward setup.


V: Justice
C: Rawls' "Original Position" or "Veil of Ignorance"
Compulsion is always a matter of justice. But with competing rights claims--and competing visions of the right--how can societies agree on what justice means? John Rawls' "veil of ignorance" offers an interesting form of a moral criterion, especially given Rawls' biography. Does compulsory immunization in the service of public health meet this standard?


V: Societal Welfare or Life
C: Negative Utility


V:
C:

value / criterion pairs for the exit exam resolution

The Sept/Oct exit exam resolution asks us to consider the features, aims, and methods of American public education.

The following is a list of some potential value/criterion pairs for either side of the resolution.

Remember that some of these pairs work best for one side, and that one of your main obligations is to prove your value superior to that of your opponent.

Also note that this is a work in progress. Don't see a pair you like? Suggest one in the comments, and I'll add it to the list.

One of the primary questions, when choosing a core value, is whether you should go with a value inherent in the resolution (and thus easy to warrant), or a larger value that might be "more valuable," but a more tenuous link. That's why I've divided value/criterion pairs into three categories.

Values Inherent in Education

V: Academic Rigor / Achievement
C: Universal high standards

V: Academic Rigor / Achievement
C: Accountability (Public accountability?)

V: Morality
C: Moral education / Socialization

V: Self-sufficiency
C: Increasing personal autonomy and educational choice / freedom

V: Personal Fulfillment
C: Well-rounded education / educating the whole child

Values to Which Public Education is Instrumental
In other words, what education is good for.

V: Societal Welfare
C: Equality of opportunity

V: Societal Welfare
C: Educational excellence

V: National Security
C: Educational excellence

V: Democracy
C: Educated citizenry

Values not necessarily inherent to education, but which are individually or societally important

V: Justice
C: Rawls' difference principle / reducing inequality

V: Democracy
C: Local control of education / Community Standards

V: Economic Stability
C: Workforce preparation through education

value and criterion pairs for the vigilantism resolution

Regarding the March / April resolution. A work in progress.

Suggest your own in the comments!

For the Aff

V: Justice
C: Preserving autonomy
Preserving individual autonomy--including the ability to exercise discretion in going after villains--is a necessary route to justice when the government has failed to enforce the law. Autonomy precedes any sort of societal or law-and-order consideration, because it is the foundation of human rights and societal order.

V: Justice
C: Social Contract
The Social Contract is a rough approach to balancing rights claims as a precursor to the formation of a State. Any State that, through some loss of sovereignty, can or will no longer enforce the law, has violated the Contract, and is no longer legitimate. Thus, not only do individuals reserve the right to seek justice outside the State, but the State also cannot bring any claim against those who protect themselves or their community by doing so. In this way, vigilantism and civil disobedience are two sides of a coin.

V: Justice
C: Popular Sovereignty
Vigilantism, as the resolution would have it, is justified when the government has failed--arguably to a significant degree, since we're debating the "general principle," as the rules of LD state--via notions of justice, which is achieved by recognizing that ultimate sovereignty lies in the people, not the State or the law.

V: Justice
C: Utilitarianism
A utilitarian view of justice is founded on two principles of effectiveness: deterrence and incapacitation. Both fail when criminals neither fear the law nor face its consequences. Thus, utilitarianism justifies vigilantism when the government has failed to enforce the law.

V: Justice
C: The Categorical Imperative
Punishing the guilty is a categorical imperative. A Kantian would argue that if one of the last two people on earth, surviving the apocalypse in a concrete bunker, knew beyond a doubt that his fellow survivor was an escaped murderer, he would have duty to execute the evildoer. This justice-over-all approach warrants vigilantism in the face of failed government enforcement.

For the Neg

V: Justice
C: The Rule of Law
Affirming the resolution threatens the rule of law, since it prescribes no real minimum for the government's failure to enforce its statutes. Allowing vigilantism to flourish devalues the very institution of the law, which is the closest approximation to real justice within a given society.

V: Societal Welfare
C: The Rule of Law
If vigilantism is justified, similarly to the argument above, the rule of law is at risk, and society is a few steps removed from anarchy. The proper response to an ineffective or apathetic government is to reform its institutions, not to tear apart the social fabric.

V: Justice or Dignity
C: Protecting Rights
Vigilantism offers no protections of due process rights, no checks on cruel or unusual punishment, no accountability to any exterior force. Suspects--or even known criminals--are still humans, deserving of fair trials and humane treatment.

value and criterion pairs for the international criminal court resolution

Here are several value/criterion structures to consider for the January/February resolution, "The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity."

I'll try to group them by relative "fit" to either side, Aff or Neg, but in some cases they'll work for either.

This is a first draft; as I go along, I'll add analysis.

Feel free to suggest your own--which I'll tack on at the bottom--or critique the various offerings in the comments.

Affirmative V/C Combinations

V: Justice (or morality)
C: Protecting Human Rights
Thesis: If protecting human rights is essential to justice (or morality), then prosecuting "crimes against humanity" is an obligation for all nations.

V: Justice
C: International Law
Thesis: International law offers the most universal criterion for justice possible in the "real world."

V: Justice (or Human Rights)
C: Cosmopolitanism
Thesis: if justice (rights) claims are universal, we cannot let provincialism dictate policy, and thus global citizenship is a moral imperative.

V: Human Dignity
C: Protecting Human Rights
Thesis: If protecting human rights respects human dignity, then the U.S. should take a crucial step to protecting rights globally.

V: Peace
C: International Law
Thesis: International Law offers the surest possible route to peace. (A variant might involve "democratic peace theory.")



Negative V/C Combinations

V: Governmental Legitimacy
C: Constitutionality
Thesis: Violating the Constitution by submitting to the jurisdiction of the ICC (Or something like it) would make the US government illegitimate.

V: Governmental Legitimacy
C: National Sovereignty
Thesis: a government that cedes its sovereignty to an international body is no longer legitimate.

V: Democracy
C: National Sovereignty
Thesis: Democracy requires citizenship and constituencies that are only achievable in a sovereign state. (Furthermore, many nations do not have jury trials, an anti-democratic feature made part of the framework of the ICC.)

V: Prudence (defined as carefully weighing political options; see Morgenthau)
C: Political realism
Thesis: The US must act in its best interests, which does not include ceding sovereignty to the ICC or limiting its actions due to the threat of prosecution. (Use against any cases based on universal moral principles.)

V: Pluralism / Diversity
C: National Sovereignty / Critical Theory
Thesis: The ICC is an instrument of globalization, which not only threatens global tyranny, but to continue to wipe out indigenous cultures or language groups, and continue the homogenization of the globe.

value and criterion pairs for the felon voting resolution

Here are several value/criterion structures to consider for the November/December resolution, "In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote." Each value is chosen under the assumption that it could be defended as the core value of a democratic society.

I won't say which goes with either side; many, if not all, could apply to either Aff or Neg. That's determined largely by the arguments and evidence you assemble.

This is a first draft; as I go along, I'll add analysis to every offering.

Feel free to suggest your own--which I'll tack on at the bottom--or critique the various offerings, in the comments.

V: Human Rights
C: International Law
A democratic society, to be truly democratic, must uphold human rights. (You can figure out why.) Since the resolution does not specify a particular society, we can't be 100% certain which rights must be protected. Best, then, to look to the prevailing standards of international law--the rights that people across societies, cultures, and even times have agreed are essential. Is this criterion open to attack? Certainly. But it also presents a clear, highly defensible set of rights (and jurisprudence as evidence).

V: Freedom
C: Protecting Human Rights
Perhaps human rights themselves are only means to a greater end: freedom. Once you explain why freedom is the ultimate value of a democratic society, you can explain why prserving rights is essential to human freedom. Note that this structure works well for Aff or Neg; you have to provide the reasoning for either.

V: Justice (defined as "to each their due," or a similar concept)
C: Retribution

V: Justice
C: Another applicable criterion for punishing felons

V: Justice
C: Rawls' first principle of justice (or, more generally, the Rawlsian social contract)

V: Moral Pluralism
C: Tolerance

V: Societal Welfare
C: Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is quite possibly the closest allied moral framework with democracy. After all, if the goal is the greatest good for the greatest number, what better way, societally, to achieve this than through democratic means? If the ultimate aim of a democratic society is its own well-being, then utilitarianism offers a way to determine whether felons' suffrage adds to or detracts from overall happiness.
Strategy for Success: Be sure to show how Util leads to SW. Watch out for the "50.01% can kill 49.99%" response, an oversimplification of Util. Learn about the nuances and varieties of Utilitarianism.

V: Autonomy
C: Respecting Human Rights

V: Human Dignity
C: Respect for Autonomy

V: Justice
C: Equal protection of the laws

V: Societal Welfare
C: The rule of law

V: Human Rights
C: Locke's Social Contract

V: The General Will
C: Rousseau's Social Contract

V: Societal Welfare
C: Upholding Moral Standards
Morality is good because it holds society together. (There may be social contract implications lurking beneath the surface of this structure.) If the core value of a democratic society, then we are justified in punishing those who commit offenses against morality.
Strategy for Success: This criterion respects differences across societies, since the resolution doesn't specify any particular society. However, it also leaves one open to the attack that morality is difficult to define and agree upon, even with in a society.


V: Justice (defined in terms of morality)
C: The Categorical Imperative
According to Kant, moral actions are good in and of themselves. Furthermore, Kantian theory applies to all rational agents, which are the foundation of a democratic society. Felons are rational agents, and must adhere to the Categorical Imperative. Those who punish them are bound by moral obligation to punish them to the fullest.
Strategy for Success: Many people misunderstand Kant and the Categorical Imperative, so make sure you do the research first.

V: The Common Good
C: Deliberative Democracy
The resolution concerns the aim of a democratic society, and the balanced or opposed interests of innocents and criminals. If deliberative democracy is the moral means to the common good, and felons threaten the deliberative process when they are allowed suffrage, then we ought not allow felons the right to vote.
Strategy for Success: Requires quality research and a quality debater. Not for beginners.

I think that reader Anand's analysis here is better than my hastily conceived idea. (Scroll down through the comments to see the discussion.) Anand writes,

Jim, I think we agree that deliberative democracy isn't directly applicable.

But I was just thinking about it, and one could argue that since the resolution is discussing what felons ought to have in a democracy, it requires a picture of what a democracy ought to be.

Obviously a democracy can exist regardless of whether felon can vote. So the challenge is showing that enfranchising felons leads (or doesn't lead on the neg) to a more ideal democracy.

Therefore, if you can show that your conception of an ideal democracy is more ideal than your opponent's, and if your ideal demands felon suffrage, you should win.

I don't think that I'm necessarily using deliberative democracy, but my case will have a strong Rawlsian framework with additional analysis on punishment and ideal democracy from behind the veil.

V: Freedom
C: Libertarianism / Minimal State