Speech and Debate

Speak Out NC
HomePortalFAQRegisterMemberlistLog in

Share | 

 Courtney's Affirmative

Go down 
Courtney Gray

Courtney Gray

Number of posts : 17
Age : 27
Registration date : 2007-12-01

PostSubject: Courtney's Affirmative   Thu Dec 27, 2007 6:58 pm

Welcome aboard Debate 101… I am glad to be your assistant as we navigate this venture. Please sit back and make yourself comfortable. If needed oxygen masks will drop from above your seat. To start the flow of oxygen firmly pull the oxygen mask towards you to extend the plastic tubing. Place the mask over your nose and mouth, put the elastic bands over your head and tighten the straps if necessary. Although the bag does not inflate, oxygen will flow to the mask. Be sure to secure your mask before assisting others. I hope you enjoy your trip.
Hello, my name is Courtney Gray and I am the affirmative speaker in this debate round. This brief introduction provides the perfect illustration of why we need to affirm today’s resolution, which states: The United States of America ought to more highly value isolationism. I’ll concentrate on those final words which advised you to secure your mask before assisting others to present my big idea throughout this speech… and that is we must secure our country before we reach out to secure others. The value that I will be framing this resolution around is security which, is defined by Cambridge online dictionary as being positioned or fixed firmly and correctly and therefore not likely to move, fall or break. The big idea that I would like to persuade you on is this: We ought to more highly value isolationism because it will lead our Country to being more secure. Let me further explain by defining a few key terms in this resolution.
First I would like to emphasize the definition of isolationism which is defined by dictionary.com as the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities. Now that we have defined what I believe is the key word in this resolution I would like to further look at another key phrase and that is ought to more highly value.
The word ought is key in this debate as it is defined by Cambridge online dictionary as to show when it is necessary, desirable or advantageous to perform the activity referred to by the following verb.
The verb that ought is referring to is value which is defined by Compact Oxford English Dictionary as consider to be important or beneficial.
Now I would like to return to my original thesis, and that is we must prioritize the security of our country before we make efforts to assist countries throughout the world. The best way we can do this is by more highly valuing isolationism.
It is important that you remember that affirming the resolution doesn’t lead us to adapting extreme policies or ways of cutting ourselves off from the world. Instead we can affirm the resolution just by adopting one or two small changes which reflect our nation’s desire to secure itself in any one of numerous political realms. For example: Would we not be more economically secure if we simply tried to decrease our dependence on foreign oil? Would we not be more physically secure if we put more attention on developing security systems and intelligence to prevent terrorist attacks? Would we not benefit from investigating and developing ways to deter crime within our borders? If you reflect for just a moment on your response to any one of these questions you will find an inherent need to focus on solutions that our confined to our national self interest.. We must be able to value the process of solving our country’s security problems first so that we can more efficiently interact with the world. Three major points that I would like to elaborate on are:
C1- Foreign dependence decreases our national security.
C2-Decreasing this dependency would benefit our country
C3-Valuing isolationism would decrease dependency
C1- Let me start by elaborating on my first point: Foreign dependency decreases our national security. Imagine for a moment if you were running a race but the only way you could make progress is if you grabbed onto the shirt of the man running in front of you and you also had 5 people grabbing onto your own shirt. It is easy to see how your progress would be hampered by these demands. Foreign dependency is reflected in this analogy because it reflects the two types of dependency that needs to be addressed: US dependence on other countries and Other countries dependence on the US. One example of US foreign dependency is found in our dependence on foreign OIL. One historical example:
In 1973, OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) imposed an oil embargo against the United States and Western Europe for their support of Israel in the Yom Kippur war. New Year’s Day 1974 came in the middle of the first great energy crisis. Oil prices shot up with the embargo and the American economy collapsed into recession — but not without igniting inflation first.
In addition to this we also have other countries dependent on us..The United states is the single largest donor of foreign economic aid. It would be impossible to detail and debate every instance where the United states is supporting or securing other countries. It is possible to consider that at least in a few instances it might be in our best interest to decrease our involvement, thus enabling a country to become more independent. This decreased involvement would support more highly valuing isolationism.
C2- Now I’d like to move on to my second contention and that is: Decreasing dependency would benefit our country. To support this lets look at just one way that we could decrease dependency. If we make an effort to find and utilize alternate methods of energy production thus decreasing our dependence on foreign oil. It is likely that our economy would stabilize and reflect this advancement. (additional support needed)

C3- My final contention is that more highly valuing isolationism would assist our country in decreasing Foreign dependency. All I need to do to affirm this resolution is make small changes to our foreign policy which would reflect our countries desire to become less involved in world affairs. I am not advocating huge border walls, abrupt withdrawals, or uncompassionate apathy towards struggling countries. I am simply stating what the resolution says: we ought to more highly value isolationism. This can include making small changes, a tweak of the budget here, and a decrease of military support in areas that could afford this change. It can also include just holding a preference for self autonomy as the goal.
In conclusion I would like to reiterate my value of security reguires us to affirm this resolution, we must prioritize the security of our country before we make efforts to assist countries throughout the world. The points I’ve used to support this argument are: …Foreign dependence decreases our national security, Decreasing this dependency would benefit our country, and Valuing isolationism would decrease dependency . I would like to close with a quote from Franklin D. Roosevelt who once said, “While ... we cannot and must not hide our concern for grave world dangers, and while, at the same time, we cannot build walls around ourselves and hide our heads in the sand, we must go forward with all our strength to stress and to strive for international peace. In this effort America must and will protect herself.”
Back to top Go down
View user profile

Number of posts : 12
Registration date : 2007-12-13

PostSubject: Re: Courtney's Affirmative   Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:26 am

I wrote my rebuttal with the goal of staying within 170 words per minute of speech time. I learned this was a good approach from a paper debate I read. Therefore...
Back to top Go down
View user profile

Number of posts : 12
Registration date : 2007-12-13

PostSubject: Re: Courtney's Affirmative   Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:27 am

Note: This old version has been removed until further notice (meaning until James locks the site if possible)

Now moving on to the affirmative case

Value Critique

As my second and third contention clearly show, those who are not first in possession of truth will find that their security is temporary and in the end they will be taken advantage of.

Contention 1: Foreign dependency decreases national security

Example 1: Summarizing the affirmative example. OPEC is a problem. Why? Because oil is our only energy source, therefore, I will be cross-applying my argument against her second contention to this example in a moment.

Example 2: Again summarizing the affirmative example. Aid dollars are bad and there have to be some that it would be good for the US to stop giving. The negative would like to ask. How does giving fewer aid dollars help decrease our risk of terrorist attacks? It doesn’t? So this argument has nothing to do with this contention nor does it affect why we should affirm the resolution.

Contention 2: Decreased foreign dependency would benefit the US

Here the negative offered the example of needing alternative fuels. As was pointed out in cross-ex and what I will now continue to highlight.
-Over the past years the US has offered grants in order to help speed the development process for hybrid which uses electricity in addition to gas. In other words these cars use an alternative energy source.
-The federal government is now offering subsidies to corn-growers, corn being the basic fuel needed for the alternative fuel ethanol. Currently the US government is doing its best to eliminate the need for foreign oil as well as keeping costs as low as possible.
-The final point here is that the suggested unknown resource that the affirmative suggested would be better than hybrids and ethanol and which is not used for anything else other then as fuel. To find this other source takes time and until this time is taken and this energy source is found until and until we don’t use it we’re doing are best and this argument, which is cross-applied to her first example in contention one, does not relate to the resolution.

Contention 3:

Here the affirmative offered a lot of debate theory to explain why she doesn’t have to change much, rather she just has to show how a small change would be advisable. However, as I’ve shown there is no need for any change since the examples do not apply to the resolution. Finally I would like to use some more debate theory in regards to her criterion, or lack thereof. A criterion provides a road for us, beginning at the resolution, that if we were to follow, we would end up reaching the value which is put forth. However, this road is not set out and I would contend that is because no such route existed.

So stand for truth, stand for knowledge, stand for victory both economically and militarily, and stand against isolationism.

Thank you and I now stand ready for cross-examination.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content

PostSubject: Re: Courtney's Affirmative   

Back to top Go down
Courtney's Affirmative
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Speech and Debate :: year 2007-early2008 :: Archives.-
Jump to: