5 Reasons 2020 NCFCA LDers Should Love Resolutional Objections
This article is part of a series on resolutional objections: a fun segment of LD theory. Check out the previous posts here:
Resolutional Objections Made Easy
Every debater should have objection theory in their back pocket. But the current NCFCA LD resolution is is a vague, simplistic statement that is very vulnerable to this negative strategy. Now more than ever, you can win rounds and even tournaments with resolutional objections.
Let’s explore some of the case patterns you can use. As you read these, remember: less experienced opponents may inadvertently run these arguments in traditional value cases. Be on the lookout.
“Resolved: Preventive War is Ethical.”
These cases are listed from least to most advanced. While they’re all viable, the last few should be attempted only by advanced debaters.
1. Case-by-Case
This is one of the most popular patterns from one year to the next, and it’s the one we used in our free res objection.
Thesis: No Rule of thumb. The resolution makes a blanket statement about a complex topic.
Conflict: General or specific. The debate is now about whether or not we should make general rules about waging preventive war.
Alternative: Case-by-case. Instead of blindingly affirming the resolution, let’s pick our preventive wars one at a time.
Impact: Resolution cannot be affirmed.
2. Burden Scope
Thesis: 99% false. The resolution is either mostly true, or mostly false. We figure out which by looking at all the instances of the resolution – meaning all the ways that a country could launch preventive war. In 99% of those, launching a war is a bad idea.
Conflict: Mostly true or false. The debate is not about whether or not the affirmative can think of a scenario where preventive war is ethical. It’s about whether he can prove that it ethical more often than it is unethical.
Alternative: Extremely rare. Preventive war is acceptable only in extremely rare scenarios.
Impact: Resolution cannot be affirmed.
3. Incomplete Statement
Note: while you don’t have to bring it up, you need a good grasp of burden scope to run this case effectively.
Thesis: No prevention goal. If the resolution said “Wars to prevent genocide are ethical,” or something of the like, we could have an interesting debate. But there is no prevention goal. Here are a few sample statements that don’t make sense because they are incomplete.
You have a moral obligation to prevent something.
Only you can prevent things that happen in forests.
There is a man with a name, and he must be stopped.
Prevention is good.
Preventive wars are ethical.
Conflict: Meaningful or not. The debate is now about whether or not the resolution contains enough information that it can be evaluated as true or false.
Alternative: Possibly ethical. Some preventive wars might be ethical. Some of them probably aren’t. We can’t know without more information. The best we can say is: under certain unknown circumstances, the resolution might be true.
Impact: Resolution cannot be affirmed.
4. Prevention can’t be Measured (Consequentialist Version)
Thesis: Seeing into future. The resolution says that prevention is good because it results in less pain and suffering. The problem is: we can’t see into the future. We can judge direct actions, like giving to charity or killing someone, based on their outcomes. But prevention is about stopping a hypothetical future, meaning we can’t understand the outcome.
Alternative: Measurable or not. The debate is now about whether or not it is possible to assign an ethical judgement to something we cannot observe.
Alternative: Policy goal. We can have a debate about whether or not prevention is a good idea from a tangible policy perspective. But only God can say if a preventive act is ethical.
Impact: Resolution cannot be affirmed.
5. Prevention can’t be Measured (Deontological Version)
Sometimes, it makes sense to rearrange the order of your case. In this example, the Alternative is better if it goes before the Conflict.
Thesis: Consequentialist Ethics. Calling preventive war ethical, with no further information, is implicitly consequentialist. There’s no other way the resolution could make sense. Here’s why consequentialism is a bad way to measure ethics, presumably with sub-points and evidence.
Alternative: Deontology. Deontology is an acceptable ethical framework. This is a robust framework for measuring statements about war, like “America’s invasion of Europe in World War II was ethical.”
Conflict: Consequentialism vs Deontology. The debate is now about which ethical framework should be used to measure wars.
Impact: No way to measure. While the field of ethics can and should be applied to war, deontology gives us no way to make a blanket judgement about preventive wars. That means you should not affirm the resolution.
Note: there are hundreds of permutations of this case; just swap out Deontology for any Alternative that conflicts with consequentialism. You can get creative here. Social Contract, International Community, Rule of Law, and Moral Intent would all work great.
Many debaters are currently running the Deontology objection, incorrectly formatted as a traditional case.
There are other options, but these 5 case patterns are a strong start. Whether or not you take one to a tournament, play around with these patterns and see if you can come up with your own.
Good luck!