In other words, to debate this topic we'll need to find ways to explain why the US should be concerned about problems in other parts of the world and why the US should try to do something about it. And we'll need to focus on "moral" or "ethical reasons" for being concerned about these problems, not just practical problems or greedy reasons for intervening.

So for example, President Bush might have had the right moral reasons to invade Iraq even if some might argue it has proved counterproductive or impractical, or some might argue the real reason was promotion of big business and the oil industry. Or you might argue on the negative, it's not the US that had the moral obligation to invade Iraq, but the UN.

The second step is to think of current day examples suggested by this topic -- things going on in the world today that this topic seems to be addressing. Some examples that come to mind here are:

Usually one or more of these examples will be the cornerstone of your debate case, either on affirmative or negative.

The next step is to look up some key words in the resolution. Here the key definition you will need is

The biggest mistake most novice debaters make is after coming up with a good case idea, failing to organize the idea into the well-defined structural elements required to win a Lincoln-Douglas debate round. It's like a speedy running back trying to get by on sheer talent without learning the rules of football. This is initially a frustrating part of LD debate because you tend to think of these ideas in a free-form mode. It seems very silly to structure the idea into the jargon and organizational elements required in LD debate. But don't get fooled that good arguments alone should win the debate for you. Structure is the key "force multiplier" in winning LD debate rounds, especially as a novice.

The key structural elements of an affirmative case are

The key structural elements of a negative case are:

Note: thus it is usually not necessary to repeat the statement of the resolution or key definitions on the negative side once the affirmative side has covered them.

More about these elements later. For now, let's first explore some case ideas on the affirmative and negative.

"The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts"

So when you are on the affirmative you have to defend why the US has a moral obligation to try to help others in times of crisis. Some of these ideas might include:

You may wish to select one or more of these ideas, or other ideas you come up with, to build your affirmative case. You should also think of some examples that illustrate these ideas. Once you select an idea or two, it is really important to do some initial research so you have a basic understanding of the issue, and some good quotes about the nature of the problem.

"The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts"

Now we need to turn around and think about this topic from the negative point of view. All novice debaters need to be able to debate the topic from both sides. The key thing in understanding the negative side is to focus again on the subparts of the topic and to identify weak links. You as the negative debater can pick your battle. You don't have to attack every subpart of the resolution. You can pick and choose to find the best arguments.

For example

The negative might select a direct attack and say, "No, no one has a moral obligation."

But usually it's a little easier to argue in slightly more indirect ways. For example, the negative might say, why does the U.S. have the moral obligation? Maybe someone has a moral obligation in times of international conflict, but it should not be the U.S. Maybe the U.N. Maybe NATO. Maybe the relevant regional organizations. But not the U.S.

The negative might say, not all international conflicts should be mitigated, or the U.S. should not mitigate all conflicts, or we should only mitigate conflicts when we are invited into the situation, or only when no one else will intervene, or only when an independent assessment demonstrates the conflict can be mitigated, or only when a cost-benefit analysis justifies intervention. Or maybe, we should NEVER mitigate conflicts (but this again, would be a tougher argument to succeed with than the others).

So far these comments are only directly refuting the affirmative position. This is not enough. It is best to come up with some "lofty ideals" that present the negative position in positive terms too. Here are some suggestions for negative case ideas on this topic:

Now we put it all together and build an affirmative case.

First you need a value and criteria for your case. Basically this means you need some "lofty ideal" or general principle (the value) and some way to measure it (the criteria). But it's actually easiest to come up with the main ideas or arguments of your case first, then figure out your value and criteria. These case "ideas" or "arguments" will eventually become your reasons or "contentions" in your case structure.

For example, if I decide from my research that my main reasons or case ideas will be 1) helping innocent victims in a crisis and 2) using our role as world superpower for the betterment of mankind, then my VALUE could be HUMAN RIGHTS and my CRITERIA could be 1) HELPING VICTIMS and 2) RESPONSIBLE LEADERSHIP. The key trick here is to tightly link your contentions to the value and criteria you select, so that the persuasiveness of your case is enhanced. It is also helpful to use words of the resolution in your contention headings.

Building your negative case is very similar to the affirmative case. But since the negative debater will be the second speaker in the round, this must be prepared as a shorter case, leaving time in your speech to attack the affirmative case too. A good rule of thumb is that your negative case should be about half the length of your affirmative case.

Again you will need a value and criteria, but again like with the affirmative, this is easiest done if you first pick some case ideas or arguments that you wish to focus on. Then work backwards to figure out the value and criteria that are suggested by these ideas.

For example, if I decide from my research that my main reasons or case ideas on the negative side will be 1) helping our own citizens first and 2) not being the "bully" of the world by intervening where we're not wanted, then my VALUE could be AN EFFECTIVE DEMOCRACY and my CRITERIA could be 1) THE SOCIAL CONTRACT and 2) COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS (or utilitarianism). As with the affirmative, the key trick here is to tightly link your contentions to the value and criteria you select, so that the persuasiveness of your case is enhanced. I tend to favor selecting two criteria and making each contention focus on one of them. But others prefer one value and one criterion for a debate case.

Let me stop and talk a bit about the social contract and utilitarianism because these concepts may be new to you. Both are very important in Lincoln Douglas debate. You will often encounter them in your debate rounds.

Social contract

The social contract is the idea that people in a community agree to live by rules and give up some of their individual freedoms in exchange for their government's promise to protect them and to treat them fairly. Thus the government has a "social contract" with the people to serve as their leaders. If the government "violates" the contract and fails to protect the people or fails to treat them fairly, the people should have a right to throw out that government and get a new one. So the government serves at the pleasure of the people for whom it governs. This is basically the principle on which the U.S. Declaration of Independence was founded. In a sense, this is also the basis of the California recall rules that permitted Arnold Swarzenegger to recently take over in that state.

The reason the social contract is a powerful concept for the negative in this particular debate topic is that it focuses the responsibilities of a government toward its own people. A government's only right to govern is based on serving those people. If a government forgets about its own people and starts charging around the world in every little conflict, it has lost its privilege to govern. It has broken the "social contract."

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is based on the idea of providing the greatest good to the greatest number of people. In a world of scarce resources, we can't spend unlimited resources solving all problems. We have to make choices. Utilitarianism basically says that the morally right choice is the one that helps the most people.

Cost benefit analysis is somewhat similar, although somewhat different too. It states that a particular action should not be taken unless the benefits outweigh the costs. Both doctrines look at an action from a more practical point of view, supporting the debate argument that a government should not take an action that is not likely to succeed or which, even if successful, comes at too high a cost.

Most U.S. Administrations would probably argue that they make all of their decisions to mitigate international conflicts in this kind of pragmatic way - weighing the benefits and costs and only electing to get involved when we think we can make a positive difference. In the case of the war in Iraq, President Bush might say that even though the post-war rebuilding was likely to be very messy and very expensive, the benefits of regime change and counter-terrorism outweighed these costs.

Sample negative case

So using the structural elements of the negative case in this example, your case becomes:

The final step to building an effective case is to gather evidence to support the value, criteria and contentions. These evidence quotes should be inserted after the major headlines in your case structure. After you read the quote you should explain how it relates to the part of your case you are supporting with it.

Usually you should have at least 5 or 6 main evidence cards in your case, and sometimes many more. Some examples of evidence that you could use for some of the contentions, values and criteria mentioned in this analysis are included in the separate evidence link soon to be provided on this site.

Good luck and good debating!