simple explanation of lincoln-douglas debate€¦ · web viewlincoln-douglas debate’s namesake...

MonumentMembers.com

INTRODUCTION TO LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATESEASON 20 RELEASE #1 BY CHRIS JEUB

Lincoln-Douglas debate’s namesake comes from Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas from the 1860s. Most refer to Lincoln-Douglas as “LD” debate, or perhaps “values” debate. This preseason document introduces you to the most exciting competitive event of Lincoln-Douglas Debate. We are going to cover:

Simple Explanation of Lincoln-Douglas Debate The Reason for Lincoln-Douglas Debate Leagues and Resolutions for Season 20 Resources for Members Need More? Buy Monument Libraries! Sample Download

Simple Explanation of Lincoln-Douglas DebateLincoln-Douglas debate resolutions are published by participating leagues. Students planning to participate in tournaments will prepare in their schooling to write affirmative and negative cases

Copyright © Monument Publishing. This release was published as part of Season 20 (2019-2020) school year for speech and debate material.

of 19

MonumentMembers.com

responding to the resolution they will be debating. At the tournament, postings show which side the students will be on. They enter the room, introduce themselves to the judge or panel of judges, and then go through speeches to commence the debate round. The judge renders a balloted decision and awards speaker points to the debaters.

The Reason for Lincoln-Douglas Debate

As stated, the “Lincoln” and the “Douglas” in the name from LD are Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. The two competed for the senate seat of Illinois in 1858. As part of their campaigning they scheduled a number of one-on-one debates throughout Illinois. The debates became quite popular, attracting thousands of people to gather and hear the two politicians argue over political issues of the day. Slavery — or, at least, whether Illinois should be neutral in the divisive issue of the times — was one such issue that separated the candidates. Lincoln lost the election, but historians credit the Lincoln-Douglas debates as training grounds for Abe’s successful run for the presidency which followed.

In the same spirit, Lincoln-Douglas debate students participate in one-on-one debates for judges. Most leagues differentiate from the political nature of the original debates and focus instead on the values of the debate. Some areas of the country and some collegiate leagues adopt “Lincoln-Douglas Policy,” meaning they adopt policy resolutions within a one-on-one format.

Monument believes there is much to be gained from learning value debate. The league assigns a resolution of value, meaning there are reasons both sides can give to justify the side they are arguing. The debaters persuade the judge to either affirm the resolution (that is, declare it is right) or negate the resolution (declare that it is not right).

At the time of this release, we are riding on the coattails of Season 19. The following value resolutions were run last year, along with an explanation of how they appeal to values:

“Resolved: When in conflict, governments should value fair trade above free trade.” The affirmative will show conflicts where fairness is more important than freedom in trade. The negative will do the opposite.

“Resolved: Criminal procedure should value truth-seeking over individual privacy.” When prosecuting and trying criminals, the truth is more important to the affirmative than individual privacy; the negative would say the opposite.

“Civil Disobedience in a democracy is morally justified.” The affirmative will come up with scenarios which will justify a civil disobedience to unjust laws, and the negative will come up with the opposite.


of 19

MonumentMembers.com

We’ll get to Season 20 soon, but for now, pause and reflect on what debaters learned from this activity. You can imagine the discussions that followed these debates. All three resolutions challenge the conscience of the debaters, pushing them to embrace values that transcend conventional wisdom or even stated law. Students will explain complex philosophical dilemmas and advocate for wise decision making based on values they articulate. Lincoln-Douglas debate trains young people to not only do what is right, but to give a reason for what they choose. Arguably, there are few better activities that encourages a student to think through the choices they make from day to day than Lincoln-Douglas debate.

The Structure of Lincoln-Douglas Debate

LD debates are one-on-one timed sessions over the course of approximately 45 minutes. Here’s how the round unfolds:

1. Affirmative Constructive (AC) - 6 min.The affirmative gives a prepared six-minute speech presenting her case to the judge. This is followed with a three-minute cross-examination.

2. Negative Constructive (NC) + First Negative rebuttal (1NR) - 7 min.The negative builds a case of his own within the seven-minute timeframe, but also leaves time to rebut the affirmative’s case. This is followed with a three-minute cross-examination by the affirmative.

3. First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) - 4 min.The affirmative refutes the negative’s speech within four minutes.

4. Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR) - 6 min.The negative refutes the affirmative’s speech within six minutes.

5. Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) - 3 min.The affirmative has the last word on the debate within three minutes.

Notice that each speaker gets the same amount of speaking time and the affirmative gets the first and last word. Both sides get to lead (ask) and follow (answer) cross-examination.

Lincoln-Douglas debate is “value” debate: philosophical in nature, not political or necessarily factual (or truthful). Students are tasked to analyze the resolution within the framework of a value. They have a burden to prove how their value best upholds or negates the resolution, depending on which side they are on (affirmative or negative).


of 19

MonumentMembers.com

At the time of writing and publishing this preseason document, I am at the Stoa National Invitational Tournament of Champions (NITOC) in Texas. The resolution Lincoln-Douglas debaters at this tournament are running is the same as the one mentioned above: “Resolved: Criminal procedure should value truth-seeking over individual privacy.” There are many Monument Members here at NITOC who have been prepped throughout the year with weekly downloads for competition. They have been delivering cases and opposition briefs that have kept them primed week-in and week-out.

In fact, there are several different cases and applications debaters can run. It is no wonder that so many Monument Members are here at the grand-finale tournament of the year for their league. Check out some of the titles of our releases, all dealing with the resolution on preventive warfare:

Stoa Lincoln-Douglas Release #01: “Resolution Overview” (INFO) (8/6/2018)- This lesson starts by defining and explaining criminal procedure, privacy, and truth-seeking. From there, it examines some potential values and criterions behind the sides of the resolution.

Stoa Lincoln-Douglas Release #02: “Resolution Strategies” (INFO) (8/13/2018)- This lesson examines both sides of the resolution by examining relevant information and unique first-thoughts. While also giving some helpful tips to improve strategy.

Stoa Lincoln-Douglas Release #03: “Philosophies of the Resolution” (INFO) (8/20/2018)- This informational article gives some insight on the philosophical aspects behind this year's Stoa Lincoln-Douglas resolution. To debate this year’s resolution, you must understand transcendent principles, not just precedent.

Stoa Lincoln-Douglas Release #04: “Applications” (INFO) (8/27/2018)- This informational article covers different court issues and the dealings of criminal procedure to give an idea and foundation of where to start when writing cases for this year's Stoa…

Stoa Lincoln-Douglas Release #05: “Justice” (AFF) (9/3/2018)- This download is the first Affirmative case for the Stoa 19 Season! The value for this case is justice. It argues truth-seeking gets justice and privacy NEVER gets justice and…

Stoa Lincoln-Douglas Release #06: “Human Rights” (NEG) (9/10/2018)- This download is the first Negative case for Stoa Lincoln-Douglas debaters! It gives definitions, application and contentions formatted into a case that provides the value of human rights.


of 19

MonumentMembers.com

Stoa Lincoln-Douglas Release #07: “Social Contract” (AFF) (9/17/2018)- The key to persuasion (and this is true in any Lincoln-Douglas debate resolution) is to make your side seem like the emotional—yet reasonable—choice, and to shift the rhetorical debate to…

Stoa Lincoln-Douglas Release #08: “Innocent Until Proven Guilty” (NEG) (9/24/2018)- This negative case provides reasoning and applications for a value centered around the phrase, "Innocent until proven guilty". The case argues that the valuing of truth-seeking over privacy is an…

And that was just through September! Each one of these releases went deep into analysis of one of the resolutions, and members studied them week-in and week-out. We continued releasing all the way through the year, getting kids ready for competition with cutting-edge materials on the topic.

We are doing the same for Season 20 with releases for NCFCA, NSDA, as well as Stoa leagues. New to Season 20: We are releasing ALL our material by Christmas. This will give members even more material to study to help prepare them for competition. Let’s get into the details of Season 20.

Leagues and Resolutions for Season 20

There are several leagues that students participate in. These leagues establish their speech and debate events, the rules for each, and the resolutions Lincoln-Douglas debaters will be debating. Monument Members are allowed access to source material written specifically to NCFCA, NSDA, and Stoa. There are unique characteristics between NCFCA and Stoa (two of the largest homeschool leagues) and the NSDA (the largest league in the nation, including both homeschool, private and public schools). Take note:

National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA) adopts two resolutions they run in September-October. The first is the same every year but allowed only for novice debaters (certain restrictions apply), the second for varsity debaters written and released in August. The rest of the year’s resolutions are divided into two-month topics (November-December, January-February, March-April, and a topic specific to Nationals in June).

National Christian Forensics and Communications Association (NCFCA) and Stoa (a Greek term, not an acronym) adopt separate resolutions that are run all season long. Both leagues announce their resolutions at their national tournament. Stoa comes first in May, NCFCA in June.

As you can imagine, the issues and values resolutions cover can get overwhelming, but don’t get too far ahead of yourself. Focus on the league you are competing in and the dates of your tournaments. Set


of 19

MonumentMembers.com

your eyes on those resolutions and your preparation should go smoothly. In fact, memorizing your resolution should be the first task in your preparation.

At the time of this release, the following resolutions are set for the coming academic year:

NCFCA: “Resolved: Preventive war is ethical.” NSDA: The novice resolution is “Resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally

justified.” The varsity resolution for Season 20 will release online on August 8, 2019. The rest of the year typically release on the 1st of the month prior to the month of competition.

Stoa: “Resolved: Culture ought to value assimilation over multiculturalism.”.

You only need to study the resolution that is offered by your league. Some students participate in more than one league, or they venture out to another league for a tournament or two. This can be done, but you’ll be studying a totally different topic. This kind of fun is reserved only for expert debaters.

Unless, of course, you utilize the power of your Monument Membership. Tons of time and effort is saved with our resources.

Monument Member Resources

Monument Writers consist of championship debaters and sometimes their coaches. They are a team of professionals who publish cases and opposition briefs for debaters to utilize in their rounds. We call this “source material,” prepared documents that students can use to help validate their claims within rounds. Our authors are paid to do the heavy lifting and research, pull it together in a “brief,” and Monument publishes the material in an organized fashion for members to access.

Here’s how the Monument Member receives source material at MonumentMembers.com. You receive a weekly email every Monday morning at 7:00 a.m. The email lists all Monument releases for that week. New to Season 20: We will be releasing all source material by Christmas 2019, as opposed to trickling it out to members through the springtime. This should give you all your materials before the most heated debate tournaments kick up. If you missed a Monument Monday, or if you want to reach back into the archive for the year, simply visit the Lincoln-Douglas debate category on the website. Be sure to check out the “Quick Links” page under debate. We list all current downloads in one area to make it easy to download the source material.

Beware: Study the material! Some debaters merely download the material and file it away for competition. These debaters are seldom in final rounds at tournaments. The purpose of the source material is to “model” the champions, not “copy” the champions. Take time to read through the


of 19

MonumentMembers.com

material, touch it up to meet your needs, and get to know what the Monument Writers have already studied. They spent hours and hours to prepare the document, so give them the respect of spending some minutes studying what they prepared.

If you form the consistent habit of studying the download every single week, there will be nothing stopping you from crushing it at the next tournament. You will know more than the best of them! But it takes the habit of studying the downloads and knowing the material.

Need More? Buy Monument Libraries!

New to Season 20 is access to a boat-load of more source material and other resources, a collaboration of two decades of curriculum building by our parent company, Monument Publishing. The Monument Libraries consist of:

1. Monument Archives. We have been creating member material since 1998. Resolutions repeat themselves and source material from years before can be extremely helpful. These sell for $30 each at the publishing site, but you get access to all of them for free! Current Value: $1,430.

2. Monument Textbooks. We have traditional textbooks covering all sorts of speech and debate strategies. You get instant access to a complete library of texts written by top-notch coaches and competitors. And future editions, too! Current Value: $350.

3. Monument Camp Audios. I’ve been running camps for decades, and I typically put a lapel mic on the teaching coach. Get access to hundreds of camp audios recorded over the years. Current Value: thousands!

Here’s the best part of the Monument Libraries: it lasts for ever! That’s right, access will never go away. As you move through junior high and high school, perhaps through college or coaching, you will have access to all this fantastic material. This is an incredible deal.

This is a separate purchase from your yearly Monument Membership. Be sure to add this and start studying. Find out more information at https://monumentmembers.com/libraries.

Sample Download

The following sample download was written by Joel Erickson, an excellent debater and writer for the Monument Member team. The download was written specifically for the NCFCA Season 19 resolution, “Resolved: When in conflict, governments should value fair trade above free trade.” As the introduction explains, Joel wants to negate this resolution, claiming governments have the responsibility to protect free trade. His opposition brief, which comes after, gives credentials to the


of 19

https://monumentmembers.com/libraries

MonumentMembers.com

idea that governments should protect fair trade instead. You will see that, by studying both sides of the case, you will be set up nicely if the arguments come your way in a tournament. You could even run the case in a debate round yourself.

Note: We are releasing all our content by Christmas 2019, rather than trickling it out through the end of the school year. This is new to Season 20. Opposition briefs used to be released later in the year, but this year our writers are writing them as they write their cases. They will be released together during Season 20.

This first download is free, but spending the extra amount to receive downloads every week throughout your year of competition will help prepare you for excellence. Don’t miss out on your opportunity to succeed.

Join MonumentMembers.com


of 19

https://monumentmembers.com/join

MonumentMembers.com

GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITYNEGATIVE CASE BY JOEL ERICKSON

The resolution explicitly mandates you debate within the confines of a government actor. This case attempts to leverage every implication of that.

First, the vast majority of AFF applications outside protectionism (which is defensibly distinct from fair trade) concern private auditing organizations like Fair Trade International, which ensure that producers in developing countries treat their workers humanely. Shelve the issue that the resolution doesn’t even encompass this because trade and employment law occupy different domains—the government actor point alone is enough to beat it. Private organizations are products of the free market, which supports your side. Establish this framework in the resolutional analysis, then hammer the point in your second contention that your side accrues all the benefits of your opponent’s.


of 19

MonumentMembers.com

Second, within the well-established social contract tradition, governments have very particular obligations to their citizens. In the context of a government actor, elevating these moral obligations as the value makes logical sense. With this value framework secured, the AFF position is bankrupt—governments intervening in development countries to stop overseas producers from mistreating their employees does not cohere with the government’s narrowly demarcated responsibility.

Hence, this case relies upon a streamlined, philosophically intuitive premise. Defend that premise and the resolutional analysis and you win the round.


of 19

MonumentMembers.com

GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBILITY

Government causes problems, but freedom fixes them. That’s why I negate the resolution and stand with free trade.

Let’s consider two pivotal points of background…

Resolutional Analysis 1: Government’s PerspectiveThe resolution frames this debate with three words: “Governments should value.” This means that you make your decision to emphasize fair trade or free trade from the perspective of the government. This isn’t about particular policies, but rather philosophical priorities. You’re deciding what the government should believe about trade.

Resolutional Analysis 2: Fair Trade Does Not Encompass Private Organizations. There are two reasons for this.

Reason 1: Separate Ideas. A debate requires two separate, non-overlapping sides. Private organizations are a part of the free market, so saying that private fair-trade organizations are better than free trade is like saying that spaghetti is better than pasta—it just doesn’t make sense.

Reason 2: Government’s PerspectiveLike I mentioned earlier, we’re debating from the perspective of the government, not the perspective of private organizations. Defining fair trade as private auditing organizations that promote fair trade does not uphold the resolution’s requirement.

Value: Governmental ResponsibilityWhenever we compare two things, we need a standard by which to compare them. My opponent is using an inferior standard to compare free trade and fair trade. Hence, I propose an alternate standard and some reasons why you should prefer it to my opponent’s standard. That alternate value is Governmental Responsibility. Whichever side better upholds the basic responsibility of government ought to win this debate. Here are two reasons to prefer this value of Governmental Responsibility to my opponent’s:


of 19

MonumentMembers.com

Reason to Prefer #1: Government’s Perspective.If we’re debating within the context of government, we must consider the government’s responsibility first and foremost. Whenever a government decides or adopts an idea, it should be within the scope of its responsibility.

Reason to Prefer #2: Ethical Objective.Keeping the government focused on its responsibility keeps the government focused on acting ethically.

Criterion: Citizen’s Rights

You’re likely wondering what the government’s responsibility is. According to John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, governments are instituted to do nothing more than protect the life, liberty, and property of the people within their borders. Think of it like a symbiotic relationship—we give the government taxes, and in return, they protect our rights. In other words, the only legitimate function of our government is protecting our rights. That’s the responsibility we’re talking about today.

I have two arguments (or contentions) to show how free trade and fair trade interact with this responsibility of government. Let’s start with my first contention...

Contention 1: Fair Trade Outside Government’s Responsibility

According to my opponent’s definition, fair trade concerns ensuring that producers in developing countries receive fair prices for their services. We already clarified that this requires regulation. Think about our government regulating trade in Indonesia to make sure that everything is “fair.” Does this regulation align with government’s responsibility? Well...

Does this regulation protect the life of American citizens? Nope.

Does this regulation protect the liberty of American citizens? Nope.

Does this regulation protect the property of American citizens? Nope.

Fair trade fails the test of government’s responsibility, which creates unnecessary government regulation. On the other hand...

Contention 2: Free Trade Aligns with Government’s Responsibility

Free trade involves no governmental regulations on trade. When our government prioritizes free trade, it upholds its basic responsibility because it does not unnecessarily regulate things outside its scope.


of 19

MonumentMembers.com

It’s a pretty simple formula—if regulation in a particular area violates the government’s responsibility, then removing regulation upholds that responsibility. Fair trade falls outside government’s responsibility, like I demonstrated in my first contention. Therefore, free trade, through removing regulations, honors that responsibility.

When the government values freedom, you get freedom and fairness. When the government values fairness, you get neither. Let’s recap: To make a long story short, fair trade generates unnecessary government regulation. Free trade removes regulations, and as a result, honors government’s basic duty and accrues all the benefits fair trade proponents want. Prioritize free trade, and get both fairness and freedom. Thanks.


of 19

MonumentMembers.com

OPPOSITION BRIEF: PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT

1 – GOVERNMENT OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS (see sections in introduction)

Government’s Purpose Involves Respecting Rights

Henkin, Louis. "Rights: American and Human," Columbia Law Review vol. 79, no. 3 (April 1979): p. 413. HeinOnline, https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/clr79&i=429.

In the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, states undertake not only to respect but also to “ensure” those rights, apparently against private as well as government interference. A state is obligated to adopt such measures as may be necessary to give effect to these rights. For one example, the Covenant provides that the inherent right to life ‘shall be protected by law.’”

Philosophical Analysis (compel your opponent to agree to these axioms in cross-examination):

People are morally obligated to respect the rights of others, regardless of their national identity. Warrant: Contradictory Position Absurd. While there may be a couple exceptions to this principle (like war) denying a human obligation to respect rights removes any moral compass for the debate and creates an unlivable world.

Governments are comprised of people. Warrant: Contradictory Position Absurd. Our government officials aren’t aliens or robots.

An individual’s obligation to respect rights does not change when he or she becomes a government official. Warrant: Nuremberg Trials. (See cards on Nuremberg below.)

Impact: Governments must respect all rights.

Warrant: Nuremberg Trials Background

Judge Philippe Kirsch [President of the International Criminal Court], “Applying the Principles of Nuremberg in the ICC,” Keynote Address at the Conference “Judgment at Nuremberg,” held on the 60th anniversary of the Nuremberg judgment. 30 September 2006. https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ed2f5177-9f9b-4d66-9386-5c5bf45d052c/146323/pk_20060930_english.pdf

Previous war crimes trials by national courts had focused on minor defendants for isolated and well ‐ established violations of the law of war. At Nuremberg, not only military leaders, but also high ‐ level officials and even private citizens faced trial for some of the most serious crimes known to humanity. We all owe a great deal to those who made the Nuremberg trials happen, including Robert Jackson, Thomas Dodd, Whitney Harris, Ben Ferencz and Henry King.


of 19

https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ed2f5177-9f9b-4d66-9386-5c5bf45d052c/146323/pk_20060930_english.pdf


https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/clr79&i=429

MonumentMembers.com

Warrant: Nuremberg Trials Impact

Judge Philippe Kirsch [President of the International Criminal Court], “Applying the Principles of Nuremberg in the ICC,” Keynote Address at the Conference “Judgment at Nuremberg,” held on the 60th anniversary of the Nuremberg judgment. 30 September 2006. https://www.icc-cpi.int/nr/rdonlyres/ed2f5177-9f9b-4d66-9386-5c5bf45d052c/146323/pk_20060930_english.pdf

The Nuremberg trials rested on two fundamental principles. The first principle is that individuals can and should be held accountable for the most serious international crimes. The judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal famously declared, “Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.” Ensuring accountability is important in itself, but it is also important because allowing impunity for widespread or systematic atrocities can have serious consequences for international peace.

Government’s Purpose Involves Protecting Rights, Social Contract Edition

Tuckness, Alex, "Locke's Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/locke-political/

The most direct reading of Locke’s political philosophy finds the concept of consent playing a central role. His analysis begins with individuals in a state of nature where they are not subject to a common legitimate authority with the power to legislate or adjudicate disputes. From this natural state of freedom and independence, Locke stresses individual consent as the mechanism by which political societies are created and individuals join those societies. While there are of course some general obligations and rights that all people have from the law of nature, special obligations come about only when we voluntarily undertake them. Locke clearly states that one can only become a full member of society by an act of express consent (Two Treatises 2.122). The literature on Locke’s theory of consent tends to focus on how Locke does or does not successfully answer the following objection: few people have actually consented to their governments so no, or almost no, governments are actually legitimate. This conclusion is problematic since it is clearly contrary to Locke’s intention. Locke’s most obvious solution to this problem is his doctrine of tacit consent. Simply by walking along the highways of a country a person gives tacit consent to the government and agrees to obey it while living in its territory.

Philosophical Analysis:

Although social contract theory usually intended to justify nationalist sentiment (e.g. government only concerned about its own citizens), this distillation demonstrates its international applicability.

Pure autonomy is unsustainable for everyone. Warrant: Self-evident. If I’m allowed to maximize my freedom, I can override your freedom by, say, killing you. This eventuates in anarchy.

Governments required for sustainable freedom. Government infringes upon our autonomy to ensure that everybody can enjoy the greatest degree of autonomy.

Applicable internationally. The international sphere is fundamentally anarchical, which requires institutional infringement on the rights of everyone—including sovereign states—to maximize rights for everyone. Warrant: Realism and Liberalism. (See below evidence.)


of 19

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/locke-political/



MonumentMembers.com

Warrant: Realism and Liberalism

Korab-Karpowicz, W. Julian, "Political Realism in International Relations", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2018 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/realism-intl-relations/

In the discipline of international relations there are contending general theories or theoretical perspectives. Realism, also known as political realism, is a view of international politics that stresses its competitive and conflictual side. It is usually contrasted with idealism or liberalism, which tends to emphasize cooperation. Realists consider the principal actors in the international arena to be states, which are concerned with their own security, act in pursuit of their own national interests, and struggle for power.

2 – GOVERNMENT OBLIGATION TO PROTECT RIGHTS PROACTIVELY

Capability to protect entails obligation to protect

Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Philosophy and Public Affairs vol. 1, no. 1 (Spring 1972), pp. 229-243. https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm

My next point is this: if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it. By "without sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance" I mean without causing anything else comparably bad to happen, or doing something that is wrong in itself, or failing to promote some moral good, comparable in significance to the bad thing that we can prevent. This principle seems almost as uncontroversial as the last one. It requires us only to prevent what is bad, and to promote what is good, and it requires this of us only when we can do it without sacrificing anything that is, from the moral point of view, comparably important. I could even, as far as the application of my argument to the Bengal emergency is concerned, qualify the point so as to make it: if it is in our power to prevent something very bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything morally significant, we ought, morally, to do it. An application of this principle would be as follows: if I am walking past a shallow pond and see a child drowning in it, I ought to wade in and pull the child out. This will mean getting my clothes muddy, but this is insignificant, while the death of the child would presumably be a very bad thing.


of 19

https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/realism-intl-relations/

MonumentMembers.com

Precedent: Armed Humanitarian Intervention

Robert Hoag, “Armed Humanitarian Intervention,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://www.iep.utm.edu/hum-mili/#H2

The term ‘humanitarian intervention’ came into common use during the 1990s to describe the use of military force by states or international organizations in response to genocides, “ethnic cleansing,” and other horrors suffered by peoples at the hands of their own governments. But cases of armed interventions are not new. Several times during the nineteenth century European powers intervened militarily in various provinces of the Ottoman Empire to protect Christian enclaves from massacre or oppression (Bass). Following World War II there were many military interventions sometimes dubiously described as ‘humanitarian’, including by the United States in Latin America and France’s 1979 use of military force in its former colony, the Central African Republic. Other cases remain notable foci of scholarly discussion: India’s 1971 military intervention in East Pakistan, now Bangladesh; Vietnam’s 1979 intervention into Cambodia; and in the same year, Tanzania’s intervention into Uganda. Later cases include uses of military force to protect Iraqi Kurds, and interventions in Somalia, Haiti, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, among many others. The 1994 genocide in Rwanda focused attention on the consequences of failing to intervening, because external military force was not deployed to prevent the killing of nearly 1 million people in just three months of violence.

Impact: If we deem something as drastic as military intervention appropriate sometimes, we surely consider intervention with far less collateral damage that also protects rights appropriate sometimes.

3 – FAIR TRADE UPHOLDS AFOREMENTIONED OBLIGATION

Fair Trade Creates Conditions for Protecting Rights

World Fair Trade Organization, “10 Principles of Fair Trade.” https://wfto.com/fair-trade/10-principles-fair-trade

“Principle Four: Fair Payment. A fair payment is one that has been mutually negotiated and agreed by all through on-going dialogue and participation, which provides fair pay to the producers and can also be sustained by the market, taking into account the principle of equal pay for equal work by women and men. The aim is always the payment of a Local Living Wage. Fair Payment is made up of Fair Prices, Fair Wages and Local Living Wages. Fair Prices. A Fair Price is freely negotiated through dialogue between the buyer and the seller and is based on transparent price setting. It includes a fair wage and a fair profit. Fair prices represent an equitable share of the final price to each player in the supply chain. Fair Wages. A Fair Wage is an equitable, freely negotiated and mutually agreed wage, and presumes the payment of at least a Local Living Wage. Local Living Wage. A Local Living Wage is remuneration received for a standard working week (no more than 48 hours) by a Worker in a particular place, sufficient to afford a decent standard of living for the Worker and her or his family. Elements of a decent standard of living include food, water, housing, education, health care, transport, clothing, and other essential needs, including provision for unexpected events.”


of 19

https://wfto.com/fair-trade/10-principles-fair-trade

https://www.iep.utm.edu/hum-mili/#H2

MonumentMembers.com

Fair Trade Prevents Infringement on Rights

World Fair Trade Organization, “10 Principles of Fair Trade.” https://wfto.com/fair-trade/10-principles-fair-trade

Principle Five: Ensuring no Child Labour and Forced Labour. The organisation adheres to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and national / local law on the employment of children. The organisation ensures that there is no forced labour in its workforce and / or members or homeworkers. Organisations who buy Fair Trade products from producer groups either directly or through intermediaries ensure that no forced labour is used in production and the producer complies with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and national / local law on the employment of children. Any involvement of children in the production of Fair Trade products (including learning a traditional art or craft) is always disclosed and monitored and does not adversely affect the children's well-being, security, educational requirements and need for play.

Principle Seven: Ensuring Good Working Conditions. The organisation provides a safe and healthy working environment for employees and / or members. It complies, at a minimum, with national and local laws and ILO conventions on health and safety. Working hours and conditions for employees and / or members (and any homeworkers) comply with conditions established by national and local laws and ILO conventions. Fair Trade Organisations are aware of the health and safety conditions in the producer groups they buy from. They seek, on an ongoing basis, to raise awareness of health and safety issues and improve health and safety practices in producer groups.


of 19

https://wfto.com/fair-trade/10-principles-fair-trade

MonumentMembers.com


of 19

simple explanation of lincoln-douglas debate€¦ · web viewlincoln-douglas debate’s namesake...

Documents