"The United States has a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals in other nations"
1. Overview
2. Novice debaters welcome!
3. First glance at the topic
4. Current events that illustrate the topic
5. Key definitions: promote and democratic ideals
6. Biggest novice mistake -- failing to use the structural elements
7. Affirmative case ideas
8. Negative case ideas
9. Building an affirmative case -- the structural elements
10. Building a negative case -- the structural elements
11. Building your case with evidence
This topic analysis is especially designed for novice debaters, but others are welcome to use it too. The focus here is on how to build a good case on the affirmative and negative, using a human rights emphasis.
If you're new to Lincoln Douglas debate, congratulations. You are about to embark on a mind-blowing adventure, one that will almost certainly awaken parts of your brain and analytical abilities you never knew you had. These are skills that will serve you well in your professional career, regardless of what career you choose to pursue. Don't get discouraged if at first it seems tough. Don't get overwhelmed by the jargon. Debaters have a terrible habit of using big words as soon as they learn them from someone else. Don't let it scare you off.
You can start by reviewing the LD debate basics, something I would recommend you do if possible. But I have also written this topic analysis in a way that should permit you to pick up the basics along the way by focusing on this particular topic.
"The United States has a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals in other nations"
The first step in preparing an affirmative and negative case is to break the topic into some subparts so that you make sure you understand what's really being said. It is not unusual for an LD topic to sound like nonsense the first time you read it. Don't worry. Here are the key subparts of this topic:
In other words, to debate this topic we'll need to find ways to explain why democratic ideals are important and why the US should try to do something about these ideals in other countries. And we'll need to focus on "moral" or "ethical reasons" for being concerned about these ideals, not just practical benefits or greedy or selfish reasons.
This moral or ethical perspective makes human rights an especially important source of evidence and analysis for this topic.
So for example, you might argue that President Bush had the right moral justification to invade Iraq in order to promote a transition to democracy for the Iraqi people, even if some might argue it has proved to be counterproductive or impractical, or some might argue the real reason was a selfish promotion of big business and the oil industry. Or you might argue on the negative, democracy is not for everybody; we shouldn't force our way of thinking down everybody else's throats.
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 there seem to be two important concepts which require more definition
"Promote" - "to contribute to the growth or prosperity of, to help bring into being " [from Merriam-Webster online dictionary ].
In other words, to promote democratic ideals is to help those ideals take root and grow in other countries. There might be a wide range of actions that would encompass the word "promote". In Amnesty International for example, the term "promote" is used for those activities which urge improvement in general human rights conditions, such as through human rights education and awareness campaigns, whereas the term "protect" is used for case specific activities, such as adopting a prisoner of conscience, writing letters to commute the sentence of a death row defendant, and interventions to stop torture.
Jimmy Carter and his Carter Center organization promote democracy by sending election observers to countries where fragile democratic elections are being held. The International Commission of Jurists promotes democracy by sending trial observers to important political or military trials in certain countries, and by researching and criticizing judicial systems which are not independent, or which do not observe basic rules of due process and fair trials. The European Union promotes democracy by requiring certain minimum systems be in place before a country is admitted to its membership and then monitoring compliance of those systems afterward. The organization Freedom House promotes democracy by annually publishing its "freedom index" which ranks the true democratic processes in every country in the world --the index is often referred to in human rights conferences and international grants or funds requirements. There are many other examples of how a country, or an organization, or a person might promote democracy.
On the affirmative side you want to make sure you are using a definition of "promote" which includes the types of examples that you intend to use later in your case. On the negative side you want to listen carefully to the definition of "promote" that the affirmative is using -- if the definition is too general and could include every kind of possible activity, even the mildest form of supportive activity, then it will be difficult to find genuine ground on which to debate. You may have to object to the affirmative's definition and offer your own.
In the definition above it is important to note that "promote" means activities that actually do contribute to the growth of democracy in other countries. If I just read a newspaper article on democracy to better inform myself am I "promoting" democratic ideals? A smart negative debater will say no, that would make the topic too loose and too general. To actually "promote" one must actually contribute to improvement of democracy in another country. It requires action, not just thoughts.
Sometimes when a particular definition like "promote" tends to be an issue in every debate round, it becomes smart for you in your first constructive speech to add an "observation" into your case structure, which helps to set up your reply in later rebuttal speeches. This is a technique which goes beyond basic novice debating, so we won't spend alot of time on it now. But for example, if you had several debate rounds and in every one the same argument came up about whether very general, soft "listening" type activities were enough to genuinely "promote" democratic ideals, you might find it helpful to add an observation to your case structure -- something like, "Before my case contentions I begin with one overall observation -- that to promote democratic ideals, requires genuine constructive action and not just sympathetic reading and watching."
The term "democratic ideals" presents a different challenge. This term is actually two words, not one. Which means that a dictionary definition really isn't going to work -- it's the combination of the two words that needs defining in context, not each word in isolation. And since the word "democracy" tends to get so misused in foreign policy discourse, it is going to be important to define this term clearly and to be able to defend it and use it to respond to your opponent's arguments.
So usually we need to turn to some scholarly texts to find good contextual definitions of "democratic ideals", "democratic values", or similar expressions. Here are a few examples:
| "Democracy" -- "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections." [from Merriam-Webster online dictionary ] Note: this isn't a contextual definition of course; it's a dictionary definition. But it helps to see how "democracy" itself is defined, then next we'll look beyond this definition to how the experts define the "ideals" in context. |
Dr. William F. Schulz, Executive Director, Amnesty International USA, IN OUR OWN BEST INTEREST 2001, p. 51 "[D]emocracy requires more than free elections; it also requires a culture of respect for fundamental human rights." |
Sergio Vieira de Mello, Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Commission on Human Rights, "Continuing dialogue on measures to promote and consolidate democracy", 27 January 2003 (E/CN.4/2003/11) [conclusions of expert conference held on democracy] "Holistic democracy recognizes the importance of strong institutions and practices of governance, including an accountable executive, an elected legislature, an independent judiciary and the rule of law, with due respect for cultural and societal values and traditions." |
Sergio Vieira de Mello, Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Commission on Human Rights, "Continuing dialogue on measures to promote and consolidate democracy", 27 January 2003 (E/CN.4/2003/11) [conclusions of expert conference held on democracy] "There is international consensus that democracy is based on the freely expressed will of the people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and to participate fully in all aspects of their lives...[D]emocracy is the best hope for a political order in which all human rights --civil, cultural, economic, political and social -- can be effectively respected, protected and promoted." |
Dr. Henry Steiner, Professor of Law, Harvard University, in INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONTEXT 1996 p. 670 "Democratic Government in the Inter-American System...[T]he right to political participation [should] be viewed as a programmatic right, one responsive to a shared ideal but to be realized progressively over time in different contexts through invention and planning..." |
Each of these quotes hints at the core ideals in democracy -- free elections, an accountable executive branch, an independent judicial branch, full respect for human rights, and full involvement of all persons in their country's political, economic, social & cultural systems.
Be careful about this concept of democracy. The truth is many governments are far from being democracies, even though they use the term 'democracy" in the name of their country. For example, the official name of North Korea, one of the world's most oppressive government regimes in the world, is officially the "Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea."
All of this probably means that this Nov-Dec topic will be a topic where definitions are important, and many debates may be won or lost in how the definitions are developed and applied to the arguments in the debate round. Be sure you understand and can defend your definitions in your case.
It may also be useful to look up definitions of "moral obligation" and "other nations", but in this particular topic those terms seem pretty straightforward, so I would skip this step if you're a novice.
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 second biggest mistake novice debaters make is to fail to "sign post" their arguments as they deliver them -- to clearly label where they are in their case structure when they're making a point. You should always start with the sign post, then explain the argument. Listen to experienced debaters to pick up this skill. The best debaters are almost always the best at pointing the listener through a simple signpost to where they are in their case structure and then explaining why it is important.
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. But you should listen closely to the affirmative's definitions to decide whether they need to be clarified in cross-ex, or objected to and rededined in your first constructive speech.
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 promote democratic ideals in other nations"
So when you are on the affirmative you have to defend why the US has a moral obligation to try to help others achieve democratic systems. 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 promote democratic ideals in other nations"
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, foreign policy decisions have to be made at a very pragmatic level. Turning our foreign policy into a test of morals is dangerously wrong headed."
But you can also argue against the resolution in slightly more indirect ways. For example, the negative might say, "Yes, we have a moral obligation to help people in other nations, but not specifically to promote democratic ideals."
The negative might say, "Democracy is not for everyone. We should only help to promote democracy when we're invited to assist by the government in charge, or when a collective organization like the United Nations asks us to help. Otherwise we are violating that country's sovereignty." Or the negative might argue "we should only promote democratic ideals when an independent assessment demonstrates the efforts will actually help and not be counter-productive, or only when a cost-benefit analysis justifies intervention." Or maybe you could argue, "we should NEVER promote democratic ideals" (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 your arguments in more 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) building a culture of respect for human rights and 2) using our role as world superpower for the betterment of mankind, then my VALUE could be HUMAN RIGHTS and my CRITERION could be BUILDING A CULTURE OF RESPECT. 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.
So using the structural elements of the affirmative case in this example, your case becomes:
| Structural Element | First Affirmative Speech |
|---|---|
| Introduction | "Because I believe the U.S. has a special moral obligation to promote democracy abroad, and that this obligation derives from universal human rights values and our world leadership role, I support the resolution today that |
| Statement of the resolution | The United States has a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals in other nations |
| Key definitions | I define "promote" according to the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as "to contribute to the growth or prosperity of, to help bring into being" I define "democratic ideals" according to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights as "an accountable executive, an elected legislature, an independent judiciary and the rule of law, with due respect for cultural and societal values and traditions." |
| Value and criteria | My value in today's debate will be HUMAN RIGHTS. My criteria in support of this value is BUILDING A CULTURE OF RESPECT. In other words, the value of human rights can best be achieved if we can build a culture of respect for human rights and human dignity. |
| Contentions | My case has two contentions. 1. Democratic institutions build respect for human rights and 2. The U.S. has a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals because of its world leader role |
| Conclusion | In conclusion, I have shown why the value of human rights creates a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals, both by building a culture of respect, and because of our unique role as the world's superpower we must exhibit responsible leadership to promote these ideals." |
This case structure is not enough of course. You need to add some evidence quotes at key points. But more about that under item 11 below.
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 promoting democracy 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 have taken the approach here to select two criteria and make each contention focus on one criterion each. 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.
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 become Governor of California last year.
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 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. We also shouldn't spend our time where it won't help or it might become counter-productive. Utilitarianism basically says that the morally right choice is the one that helps the most people.
Cost benefit analysis is somewhat similar, in that it weighs actions on their effects. 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.
So using the structural elements of the negative case in this example, your case becomes:
| Structural Element | First Negative Speech |
|---|---|
| Introduction | "I oppose today's resolution because I believe the U.S. has a moral obligation first and foremost to help its own citizens, and to promote democracy outside our country only when success is likely and benefits outweigh costs. |
| Statement of the resolution | [omit this step; not necessary to repeat the resolution] |
| Key definitions | [omit this step; not necessary to add definitions unless the affirmative debater has offered some abusive definitions that don't make sense] |
| Value and criteria | My value in today's debate will be AN EFFECTIVE DEMOCRACY. I have two criteria in support of this value: 1. THE SOCIAL CONTRACT and 2. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS |
| Contentions | My case has two contentions. 1. The Social Contract mandates a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals inside the US, but not outside and 2. Applying a cost-benefit analysis, the U.S. has no moral obligation to act if the act won't succeed or if the costs are too high |
| Conclusion | In conclusion, I have shown why the value of AN EFFECTIVE DEMOCRACY creates a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals inside the U.S., but not in all other nations. This can be measured by my criteria of Social Contract and Cost-Benefit Analysis. |
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 2 or 3 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 provided on this site.
Good luck and good debating!