Speech and Debate

Speak Out NC
HomePortalFAQRegisterMemberlistLog in

Share | 

 Christian's affirmative case #1

Go down 

Rate this case from 1 to 10
 0% [ 0 ]
 0% [ 0 ]
 0% [ 0 ]
 33% [ 1 ]
 33% [ 1 ]
 0% [ 0 ]
 33% [ 1 ]
 0% [ 0 ]
 0% [ 0 ]
 0% [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 3



Number of posts : 57
Age : 24
Location : Classified
Registration date : 2007-12-12

PostSubject: Christian's affirmative case #1   Wed Dec 12, 2007 4:17 pm

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”
George Washington

“Commerce with all nations, alliances with none, should be our motto.”
Thomas Jefferson

These spectacular quotes come from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Good afternoon. My name is Christian Colglazier and I will be the affirmative speaker for the following debate round. I would like to thank the judges, timer, and the negative speaker for being here. My value for this round will be safety, and for this purpose of upholding my value I will stand resolved that “illegal indigents are a treat to our safety”. In this case I will demonstrate that my value safety dictates that we affirm the resolution.


In order to provide clarity and mutual understanding in today’s debate round, I will define some of the key terms that are found within the resolution and that I will be using extensively through the following round. First of all, Ought is define by wiktionary is “an indicating duty or obligation”. Isolationism is defined by dictionary.com as “The doctrine that a nation should stay out of the disputes and affairs of other nations.”

Value and Criterion

My value for this round is safety and is defined by Merriam-Webster as “the condition of being safe from undergoing or causing hurt, injury, or loss”

Safety is the highest value on the hierarchy of values because in the past people gave up their freedom for safety because they thought it was the most thing.


My thesis is “illegal indigents are a treat to our safety”.


In today’s debate round, I, the affirmative speaker, have the privilege of proving the truth of the resolution, which states, “That the United States of America ought to more highly value isolationism”
I must uphold the resolution through my two contentions for the purpose of achieving my value of safety. If I fulfill my burdens I should be granted the win.

Contention #1

No isolation no America. If we do not isolate our selves a tiny bit more the NAFTA will build a superhighway though the U.S. and Mexico. There for causing no boarder between the U.S. and Mexico causing millions of illegal aliens to come in easily. They will have children born in America thus making their children citizens of our country. Because of that law in America it gives incentives for illegal aliens come. This is why I think we should temporarily get ride of this Law. Illegal aliens are a threat to our safety as contention 2 will prove.
Contention #2

Illegal aliens have nothing to lose in coming to America. Illegal aliens are a threat to our nation because they get rid of jobs for other citizens because they will work for far less then a citizen would. Also they can get a hold of drivers license and crash in to people because of not knowing the law. They do not care if they are caught because they just get deported. This is why I think there should be a harsher punishment if caught.

Closing Statistic:

I would like to close with a Statistic from The American Resistance, In the beginning of 2007 there were about 3,124,225 and At the beginning of November 2007 there were about 33,000,000.

I, the negative speaker, have the privilege of insert burden. Throughout my contentions, I have argued two main points: 1) No isolation no America. 2) Illegal aliens have nothing to lose in coming to America.

Thank you. I have fulfilled my burden and upheld the resolution. I now respectfully urge the judge to affirm the resolution. Thank you and I now stand ready for cross-examination and further points of clarification.

Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool Cool
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://aquamorph.110mb.com/
Christian's affirmative case #1
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1
 Similar topics
» Bidders should not have any pending case filed against the SSS????
» BAC disqualifying bidder for losing a labor case before SC
» Writing Christian Fiction - and Getting It Published!
» Prayer Request for Fibroids and Cyst
» What is significant about fractions in a dream?

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