Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'strat'.
Found 2 results
This morning the new LD topic for September/October 2015 was released: "Resolved: Adolescents ought to have the right to make autonomous medical choices." I was wondering what all of your thoughts on the topic were. My thoughts: This debate heavily leans toward the negative side from what research I have done so far. Some questions to be considered: What is the exact age of an adolescent? ("Adolescence begins with the onset of physiologically normal puberty, and ends when an adult identity and behavior are accepted." - NCBI) This age will vary due to when the specific child hits puberty, and depending on whatever country they are in that chooses when an "adult identity" is accepted. Also, this would mean women would achieve this right earlier on the aff side, due to women hitting puberty earlier (Is it fair for women to achieve rights earlier than men?). Who is paying for the child's medical choices/What if they make a choice their parents can't afford? (Of course, that wouldn't apply in countries with free healthcare, but this appears to be an international topic.) What are the positives of allowing adolescents to make autonomous medical choices? (Emergency situations can be treated without a parental figure's approval, potentially saving lives. A child's privacy can be secured.) Would it be a good idea to go towards a human rights/morality angle on the aff side? Or would it be more valuable to point towards the positives of affirming the resolution? (I guess that still falls under the morality of consequentialism, thus applying to the 'ought' of the resolution. So it is still applicable.) As for the negative side, I would go for the angle that medical choices require money, and rights that are still out of the reach of a child limit the child from truly being able to have the full right to make autonomous medical choices (So the aff either can't reach the goal of achieving the full right to make autonomous medical choices, or the aff goes down a slippery slope that violates many existing laws concerning children and adults, and gives children adult identities that set them up for abuse through child labor, unjust criminal charges, etc.) But anyways, I am so excited to hear what everyone thinks about the topic!
I'm trying to get a beg strat together for this year. I like neg arguments that are always applicable no matter to the case area. My partner and I have been thinking of an argument like this "Oceans are shared international territory and the U.S. cannot explore or develop them by itself, international cooperation is necessary" Would this be best run as a K or CP? What is your neg strat?