10nfl1-Nukes-Cover
Topic Analysis by Tara Norris
Download 1.23 Mb. View original pdf
|
- Navigate this page:
- Framework-y-ness
| Topic Analysis by Tara Norris Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons. New school year, new debate camp tricks to try, new resolution…and now a resolution that gets at the debate that other international relations topics imply. Since nuke war is the ultimate impact how do we debate about the morality of nuclear weapons Framework-y-ness The first order of business when determining frameworks in this resolution is figuring out the burdens. This isnʼt straightforward in this resolution, and there area lot of possible interpretations, but I think the simplest and most obvious one is the following Aff has to prove that nuclear weapons are bad, and thus states are morally obliged to not possess them. Neg has to prove that there is amorally legitimate reason to possess nuclear weapons. The two basic case structures for proving moral obligation are 1) rule based, or 2) consequential. A rule based, or deontological, model is one that puts forth amoral rule that cannot be violated no matter what beneficial consequences would arise. An AC with this structure should warrant the moral rule (and explain why it is pertinent to states) in the framework and explain why nuclear weapons violate at the contention level. A consequentialist framework depends on weighing the costs and benefits of taking a specific action (in this case, possessing or not possessing nuclear weapons. In LD, debaters often limit the kinds of costs or benefits that will be weighed in the value criterion, and in this resolution (as with many others, that value criterion will probably be something like maximizing the protection of life The following definitions are from dictionary.com, which means theyʼll probably be the most common on this topic. State, singular apolitically unified people operating a definite territory nation. The resolution says states, however, meaning the affirmative is textually obligated advocate that more than one state not possess nuclear weapon, however much more fair a single-state advocacy might be. Possess to have as belonging to one. Nuclear weapons an explosive device whose destructive potential derives from the release of energy that accompanies the splitting or combining of atomic nuclei. So nuclear energy is definitely not off the table. 10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 17 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com Download 1.23 Mb. Share with your friends:
|