The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Resolved: The United States is justified in intervening in the internal political processes of other

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/8/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,123 times Debate No: 31103
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




This is the New LD topic, and I need an aff case and practice for tomorrows tournament lol. The format.. like I mentioned, will be in LD Format.

Resolved: The U.S is justified in intervening in the internal political processes to
countries to attempt to stop human rights abuse.

Because human rights abuse is inevitable and would therefore only cause
unnecessary pain, you negate. I value morality. My criterion is virtuism.

A virtue is a positive trait or quality deemed to be morally good and thus is valued

as a foundation of principle and good moral being. Or is otherwise considered

"moral excellence" as defined by Miriam Webster Dictionary.

We have all felt the beauty of human virtue, and we all know that there are
reasons for humans to be virtuous, both for our personal benefit and that of
others. We are undeniably in the position where we must act wisely, for we have
no choice; we are here on the Earth and logic is some kind of universal constant. If
there is more to our intelligence and existence, if there is another level upward of
social interactions between beings, it will undeniably be less stained by crime
slander and malice than the world we know is.

Contention 1: It is necessary we do not intervene because we virtue

The Stoics taught that destructive emotions resulted from errors in judgment, and
that a sage, or person of "moral and intellectual perfection", would not suffer such
emotions. So therefore, the human abuse is considered the destructive emotion,
and the errors of judgement made by the abusers. The U.S, in order to achieve
moral and intellectual perfection, must not interfere in such acts in order to
preserve self-interest. Why must we value virtue over everything else?

Seneca, a well-known stoic, for his books on self-help and guidance states,

Virtue is sufficient for happiness.

Virtue is the only good. Everything else, is not good, and is "external" to

Reason is what is natural for humans, and so virtue is the perfection of reason.

Therefore we can conclude that in the U.S"s attempt to achieve happiness, virtue
is our only means of doing so and they only means of doing so for a morally
perfect society.

Contention 2: As a society that tries to reach moral perfection, we must
focus on caring to our own society rather than that of others.

Contrasting arguments usually question this point of view, asking how we, as a
society comprised of people just like the ones getting abused in another society,
can turn our backs to these "crimes".

Strive to become virtuous, even where this is very difficult, to try to rise above
being concerned with money, health and everyday matters that tend to claim our

A contractarian moral theory states that an action (practice, social structure, etc.)
is morally permissible if and only if it (or rules to which if conforms) would be
agreed to by the members of society under certain circumstances.

Virtue consists in a will that is in agreement with Nature.

So we gather that virtue, the only good, all that is sufficient for happiness, is the
perfection of reason in which to not intervene in the political processes.

Contention 3: Virtuism is agreed upon by the general public in accordance
to the social contract.

For each individual to agree to the terms of the social contract, which are to
subordinate his or her individual will to the "general will": that is, to commit to
doing only what the general will permits.

Why does the general will always will the common good?

Jean-Jaques Rousseau genevcan philosopher argues that

implementing the general will always promotes the common good.

Based in shared interests: At least some of people"s interests are shared. Selfpreservation,
for example, is in everyone"s interest. The common good is the promotion of these

Rousseau suggests, that
The only way for an individual to try to promote his own good by a vote is by trying to
promote the common good. Thus, if, as we can expect, each individual votes for what he
believes serves his own individual good, then he also votes for what he believes best
serves the common good, which is just.

Thus you vote in the Neg.


I'm an LD debater as well. I'm assuming we'll have regular LD format: Resolutional interpretation, Value, Value Criterion, Contention Level Arguments

I affirm. To interpret the resolution:
Justified means permissible. For example, I am justified in drinking a bottle of water after I run because I am thirsty, but it doesn"t mean I have an obligation to do so. Also, justified concerns the specifics of situations because different things are justified in different circumstances. For instance it"s justified for me to have a hammer in my toolbox even though hammers aren"t useful in all situations. The resolution isn"t a categorical statement that all political interference to stop human rights violations are good, but rather that it is permissible in certain circumstances like a tool in the toolbox. For the neg to win, my opponent must prove that the action of the resolution is not permissible at all. As long as intervention isn"t prohibited, you affirm. I value maximizing societal welfare, the general wellness and safety of a society, because life and then safety are prerequisites to all else. To achieve this, government needs to prioritize the safety and right to life of its citizens above all else because if someone doesn"t have life, then other rights don"t matter. Life is a prerequisite to all else, including other rights, so right to life encompasses the other rights. The right to life also outweighs other rights in terms of reversibility. If the government kills someone, that"s irreversible , but if the government takes away, say, free speech, it"s reversible. On top of that, if right to life is taken away, there are no rights at all because it"s a prerequisite. Lastly, humans are interested in survival above all else, like any living creature, so only when there is no threat to their safety can they worry about morality. If we maximize societal welfare, then people can actually concern themselves with morality. Also, different actors have different ethical obligations. Each agent has a distinct set of duties and responsibilities because our identities alter our ethical obligations. A jury in a court room is obligated to seek truth while each lawyer is obligated to protect their clients. The governments concern is first and foremost protection for the aforementioned reasons and because that"s why it exists. Thus my framework precludes any NC framework. Note that because I only need to show permissibility, under my framework the neg needs to show affirming actually hurts societal welfare in order to win. Contention 1: Even though I don"t need to argue that the U.S. has an obligation to affirm the resolution, if I show it to be true, I still win because all obligatory actions are permissible and thus the resolution is justified. Singer:
"I begin with the assumption that suffering and death from lack of food, shelter, and medical care are bad.
[I]f 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... [I]f 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. The uncontroversial appearance of the principle just stated is deceptive. If it were acted upon, even in its qualified form, our lives, our society, and our world would be fundamentally changed. For the principle takes, firstly, no account of proximity or distance. It makes no moral difference whether the person I can help is a neighbor's child [is] ten yards from me or a Bengali whose name I shall never know, ten thousand miles away.

So because the U.S. is obligated to help whenever it is in position to do so without excessive sacrifice, it is justified in the principle of intervention unless Neg shows that intervention considerably hurts the U.S. Thus, you affirm
Contention 2: a) Upholding Human Rights and preventing dehumanization through intervention maximizes national security INTERVENTION HAS A POSITIVE EFFECT ON RIGHTS. This is statistically proven, William:

"four models measure whether any intervention involving the U.S. has a positive effect on political rights. Using the data compiled by Vllasi (2009) results in a positive but not 16 statistically significant relationship. Using the data compiled by Peceny (1999) results in a positive and statistically significant relationship for political rights. The next four models in Table 1 measure whether U.S. intervention in general has a positive effect on civil liberties. Using the data compiled by Vllasi (2009) shows that under one estimation procedure there is a positive and significant relationship, but under the other this is not the case. This shows that there is sensitivity to the way in which U.S. interventions are measured. In sum table 1 shows that U.S. intervention is positively correlated with increases in both political rights and civil liberties, but the significance depends on both the measure of U.S. intervention as well as the estimation procedure used. How U.S. intervention is measured is important in examining the relationship between interventions and its effect on democratization which will be discussed later."

So clearly, affirming leads to effectively upholding human rights.

b) Nations respecting human rights engage in less war, Sobek:

David Sobek 2, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science at Louisiana State University, Et al, August 2006, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 68, No. 3, p. 519-520.
"Our analyses provide strong support for the argument that governments which respect human rights at home are less likely to become involved in violent international disputes with one another. These findings are independent of the conflict dampening impact of democratic institutions and generate policy recommendations that are clear and do not require costly attempts at regime change: a premium should be placed on pressuring states to improve levels of respect for human rights within their countries. Groups such as Amnesty International are not only humanitarian organizations, but also sources of international peace."

So, intervention and protection of rights decreases warfare and thus increases the national security of the U.S.
c) Intervention is self-defense given that the abusers threaten the United States, like North Korea. Human rights abuses occurring across the world are a threat to the United States. Affirming is good for societal welfare in the U.S., thus you affirm.
d) EFFICACY DOES NOT MATTER because the U.S. still has a right to self-defense. For example, if 6"5" 250 pound boxer tried to mug me, I still have the right to fight back even though I won"t win.

Contention 3: Dehumanization, the degradation of people by treating them as things is the single worst impact possible Berube:

"[dehumanization"s] potential danger to the quality of life and the fabric of civilized society is beyond calculation. Behind the genocide of the Holocaust lay a dehumanized thought. To quantify the impacts dehumanizing ethics may have had on humanity, it is safe to conclude the foundations of humanness which would be foregone. When we calculate the actual losses and the virtual benefits, we approach a nearly inestimable value. When people become things, they become dispensable. When people are dispensable, any and every atrocity can be justified. Once justified, they seem to be inevitable for every epoch has evil and dehumanization is evil"s most powerful weapon."

Rights prevent dehumanization, and all subsequent atrocities, because if people are intrinsically valuable, they're not things. The U.S. must do anything to uphold rights and prevent dehumanization because of what the Berube card explains.

Thus, I you affirm.
Debate Round No. 1


cherryblossomexpress forfeited this round.


My opponent forfeited the round unfortunately, so it should be a clear Aff decision here simply off of that. Nevertheless, I'll address her case.

"Because human rights abuse is inevitable and would therefore only cause
unnecessary pain, you negate."

They are inevitable if action isn't taken to prevent them... and I've shown in my second contention that intervention prevents abuse.

"I value morality. My criterion is virtuism."

To my understanding, my opponent seeks to maximize the virtues in society, and maximize good things. Isn't that just maximizing societal welfare?

Addressing my opponents Contention 1, it basically says that virtue is all we need to be happy. Unfortunately, this is warranted only with assertions made by Greek philosophers 2500 years ago. There's no justification as to why virtue is the only thing necessary for happiness. And even if it is, my case precludes hers because life is a prerequesite to everything, virtue included.

"Contention 2: As a society that tries to reach moral perfection, we must
focus on caring to our own society rather than that of others."

My Contention 2 is all about how intervening helps the U.S. by decreasing war. Nevertheless, look also to my Singer analogy of saving a child drowning in water. Sure, you'll get wet and muddy, but that's an insignificant sacrifice compared to saving a life. The same goes here, saving lives and protecting rights are good for the other nations and for the U.S. as my Sobek card shows. My opponent fails to show the negative side of intervention, if it exists at all.

My opponents contention 3 is a lost framework argument, basically justifying virtuism.
1) My framework precludes virtuism - Life comes before any subsequent consideration of virtue
2) Of course people like good things. This is obvious. And affirming brings more virtue to society.

So here's how you're going to vote in this round:
1) Neg conceded
2) My Contention 1 shows a moral obligation to aid - thus its justified
3) Societal Welfare is a prerequesite to the Negative framework, so look to my Contention 2 and 3 for the win
Debate Round No. 2


cherryblossomexpress forfeited this round.


valasca146 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


cherryblossomexpress forfeited this round.


valasca146 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


cherryblossomexpress forfeited this round.


valasca146 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by valasca146 3 years ago
Hi, I'm not going to disclose any of that ;) feel free to use the cards (they're on the internet anyways) but please word the case as your own.... for both our sakes.
Posted by cherryblossomexpress 3 years ago
Just out of curiosity, what school and state are you from?
Posted by valasca146 3 years ago
I presume that first speeches are only cases, and second/third speeches are rebuttals to cases? We can't use actual LD format because all rounds are the same size.
No votes have been placed for this debate.