Compulsory Immunizations

The October-November topic for LD is "Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunizations"

Comments?

For my aff and neg case I am valuing justice because it is in the resolution but I do not know how to phrase why it is the best value for the round.

My criterion for my aff case is utilitarianism.

It seems like every L-D'er uses utilitarianism or justice in every single debate. Do you get points for being original...?

I'm not a formal debater, but I'd hit hard on liberty and a critique of tyranny for neg.

At 10/7/2009 3:36:58 PM, rawrxqueen wrote:

My criterion for my aff case is utilitarianism.

Fail.

Justice is okay, though.

At 10/7/2009 3:50:31 PM, Nags wrote:
It seems like every L-D'er uses utilitarianism or justice in every single debate. Do you get points for being original...?

I'm not a formal debater, but I'd hit hard on liberty and a critique of tyranny for neg.

My sentiments exactly.

The insurance system makes all of the "whole vs individual" flavor debates an easy win.

Seat belts, vaccines, etc.

One person gets sick, we all share the cost, and the sickness.

At 10/7/2009 3:50:31 PM, Nags wrote:
It seems like every L-D'er uses utilitarianism or justice in every single debate. Do you get points for being original...?

I'm not a formal debater, but I'd hit hard on liberty and a critique of tyranny for neg.

No you don't get points for that. It is actually good to be unoriginal in your value because if the aff and neg have conflicting values then it becomes a debate over values and nobody wants to hear that. It is better to debate what side upholds the value more. (Personally, I disagree with that. However, it is what the vice-president of our squad told me and he has way more experience then me.)

At 10/7/2009 3:52:41 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

At 10/7/2009 3:36:58 PM, rawrxqueen wrote:

My criterion for my aff case is utilitarianism.

Fail.

How so?

At 10/7/2009 5:59:32 PM, rawrxqueen wrote:

At 10/7/2009 3:50:31 PM, Nags wrote:
It seems like every L-D'er uses utilitarianism or justice in every single debate. Do you get points for being original...?

I'm not a formal debater, but I'd hit hard on liberty and a critique of tyranny for neg.

No you don't get points for that. It is actually good to be unoriginal in your value because if the aff and neg have conflicting values then it becomes a debate over values and nobody wants to hear that. It is better to debate what side upholds the value more. (Personally, I disagree with that. However, it is what the vice-president of our squad told me and he has way more experience then me.)

No offense, but your "vice-president" (I put that in quotes because my school doesn't do President, VP, etc. We all do our own thing, because we don't care about that stuff) sounds kind of dumb. LD is also known as value debate for a reason. If there are conflicting values, it's fun to try and prove that one side achieves both values, or to prove that one value is preferable to the other in the case of conflict; but, it's also okay to have the same value, and to try to prove that only one side achieves it. You're right to disagree with him.

At 10/7/2009 5:59:57 PM, rawrxqueen wrote:

At 10/7/2009 3:52:41 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

At 10/7/2009 3:36:58 PM, rawrxqueen wrote:

My criterion for my aff case is utilitarianism.

Fail.

How so?

I hate utilitarianism. A lot. Just the way it comes off sounds really incompetent.

At 10/7/2009 3:36:58 PM, rawrxqueen wrote:
The October-November topic for LD is "Public Health Concerns Justify Compulsory Immunizations"

Comments?

For my aff and neg case I am valuing justice because it is in the resolution but I do not know how to phrase why it is the best value for the round.

My criterion for my aff case is utilitarianism.

Utilitarianism cannot be a criterion. It is not a method of evaluating something, it is a philosophy.

Justice, while it could work, is definitely not required for this topic. The resolution says "justify" not "is just". Something can justify it, without being based around justice.