Make your own free website on

The Resolution

Resolved: Global concerns ought to be valued above conflicting national concerns.

I am offering the following analysis free of charge to high school Lincoln-Douglas debaters. However, as specified under implied copyright laws, no debate brief developer or publisher may use this analysis without my permission. Also, if you use this info in your cases, please e-mail me a copy of them. Don't worry, I'm not going to pirate them, but I just feel that if I give you free information, you should return the favor.

General Info

This topic is very similar to last year's January/February Resolution, except that the affirmative can now discuss all global issues in addition to human rights violations. However, the negative has adequate compensation in that the Affirmative must prove his points to be true for all nations philosophically due to the abscence of the phrase "In United States policy..."

Despite these differences, the debates should essentially focus on the same issues as the human rights/national interest topic. Look for the affirmative to use the Categorical Imperative, Moral Duty, Distributive Justice, etc. in trying to prove his point. Negative arguments will probably center on Popular Sovereignty, the Social Contract, the Minimalist State, or perhaps National Security.

Key Terms

The following definitions are not from any dictionary, as they are simply meant to highlight the differences between the Aff and Neg perspective. For your cases, consult a real dictionary.


Here are some Affirmative Value possibilities and their related arguments:


Here are some Negative Value possibilities and their related arguments:

A great CX angle goes like this: Do you believe that the nations of the world should put global concerns first? Yes. All of them? (Of course they have to answer yes, otherwise they've admitted that you are correct.) What about the nations that literally are not able to contribute to the rest of the world because they have so many domestic problems? Nations like Ethiopia and Somalia could not put global concerns first, because they face starving people back home. Wouldn't be inhuman to tell them to ignore their own people in favor of such a nebulous concept as global conerns?

Comments? Questions? E-mail me!

Back to Main Debate Page.