Adam Chilton

A Standard Suggestion
First, the criterion: I really think a great criterion for the affirmative, or even potentially the negative, is the
Maximin principle.1
Okay, now, what’s the Maximin principle? Well, here’s the over simplified version (a.k.a. the debate
version). To
make moral decisions, Rawls teaches us that we need to go under the Veil of Ignorance (VoI). What this
means is,
we pretend that we don’t know who we are, what characteristics we have, our particular talents, or walk of
life. In
other words, act as if you don’t know if you are a rich white businessman or a poor black women. Now,
even though
you don’t know your own circumstances, you still have all relevant information about the nation and world.
As a
result, you put yourself into the shoes of the least fortunate, because this could be you. If you are under the
VoI,
logically all your decisions would follow two principles. First, you would try to raise the minimum. In
other words,
since you don’t know if you’re on the least well off end of the scale, you’re going to raise those people up
as much
as possible. Secondly, you would make sure any inequalities in the system go to the least well off. The goal
of the
system becomes that you keep the rich-poor gap as low as possible2. These two ideas are the two tenants of
the
Maximin principle.
1. We need to value whichever option gives us the higher guaranteed minimum safety net.
2. We need to then look to whatever system minimizes the gap between the most well off and least well
off in society.
This means that when making a moral judgment, one needs to maximize the welfare of those with
minimum
standing in society. Rawls gives two justifications for it:
1. Any drop below the minimum can be seriously detrimental. (the difference between starving and
putting food on the table)
2. Any raise above the minimum has marginal benefits . (a thousand dollars is worth a lot less to a
millionaire than someone on welfare).
For these reasons, Rawls argues that we need to use the max-a-min principle to create a minimum safety
net for
society.
Now, why do I think the criterion is money? First off, it makes it clear what you want the judge to evaluate
the
round on. You are saying, "Only look at how this round affects the poor people, the disenfranchised, the
least well
off. Ignore the points that benefit the more well off.” Secondly, it’s philosophically sound and interesting3.
Lastly,
and most importantly, your impacts are all about the things people want to judge on. My buddy Reed
Winegar
(former Austin Debate, who currently coaches at Milton in Boston), claims that whether people want to
admit it or
not, everyone just ends up judging on body count. At the end of the day, concrete, real world impacts about
big
******************************************************************************
2 The Maximin is not intended to focus solely on economics. That’s just the easiest way to illustrate the
point. The
principle also applies to social issues. For example, people with alternative sexual orientations (GLBT) are
clearly
discriminated against in the United States. Under the VoI, we wouldn’t know our orientation, so we would
try to
make the treatment of all sexual orientations as equal as possible, thus closing the gap (second principle)
3 For the sake of fairness, I should add a qualifier. The Max-a-min is sound philosophy. I also think it may
just be
true; but I’m fairly liberal. That is, however, not to say their isn’t criticism to it. The best comes from
Nozick and
Dworkin. Standard Utilitarianism also offers a solid response.

**************************************************************************************
.
issues like rape, murder, starvation, discrimination, and oppression will always be valued in a debate round
over
ambiguous claims about human dignity. I think Reed’s probably right on this point. So, the Maximin is a
great
standard because it focuses the round on these issues. If you haven’t gotten the hint, this is by far my
favorite
criterion, and ought be used far more often.
Affirmative Arguments
First, like I already said, I think the Maximin is great for the aff. As the affirmative, it allows you to say
that what
we should be debating is how the resolution affects the worst off; which I would imagine are those people
in wartorn
nations, or in international conflicts. That said, let’s get to the heart of the arguments.4
There is a possibly great argument to be made from Martha Nussbaum's position in favor of
cosmopolitanism. The
argument says that because birthplace is arbitrary, no one chose to be born whether they are, nor did they
earn it.
One doesn't live in an American suburb instead of a war-torn village in Africa because of moral superiority
or hard
work. Instead, it’s all random5. As a result, we shouldn’t hold birthplace against a person, and thus when
making
moral judgments, we can't evaluate it with any reference to nationality. If it's wrong not help save an
American life
if you can, then it's wrong not to help anyone in the same situation. This argument is pretty interesting and
helps to
make a strong foundation for the moral obligations. Most importantly, it can get out of a lot of arguments
the
negative will make about moral obligations to citizens first or solely.

action that has minimal impact on the actor, and huge benefit for the recipient, you as the actor are morally
compelled to do it. The classic example is as follows. Suppose that I’m lying in a hospital bed dying fro m
an
extremely rare disease that can only be cured by being touched on the forehead by Henry Fonda. Now, if to
cure me
he would have to travel across the country, loss his job, and risk his health to help me, he wouldn’t be
compelled to
do it. But, if he was walking by my hospital bed, and was well aware of the fact that he could save my life
by
extending his hand and touching me, he would be morally compelled to do so. In fact, if he chose not to do
so, he
would be rejecting the rescue principle, and going against a moral obligation7. Within the context of the
resolution,
the argument goes that the United States has a great deal of resources and political power on the
international scale.
Intervening in one conflict will almost definitely not endanger the typical American’s way of life, but at the
same
time, it could save the lives of thousands of innocent people. To American’s it’s a matter of a few more tax
dollars
whereas to others it’s the difference between life and death. This is a rhetorically effective way of saying,
“We are
morally compelled to act. Arguments about cost, political capital, or whatever else, just don’t matter. You
can't ever
value money over human life 8.”
4

Negative Arguments
The negative is going to have a lot of freedom in the types of arguments that can be made and they will
probably fall
into three categories: (a) that there can’t be moral obligations to positive actions, (b) that we have moral
obligations
to our citizens, and (c) that there can’t be counter productive moral obligations. I’ll now address each of
these types
of arguments.
First, it seems that a negative debater could easily bank on the idea that there isn’t such a thing as a moral
obligation
to take positive actions. Instead, all moral obligations are simply not to harm others and variations from that
theme.
This may seem a little out there, but a number of philosophers advocate this position. Joel Feinberg
supports this
idea when he says that there are acts “who’s performance we praise but whose non-performance we do not

condemn.”12 In fact, most of the United States' criminal law is based on this idea. Philosophers like Robert
Nozick
have long argued that there simply cannot be such a thing as a moral obligation to take positive actions. If
you’re
interested in running this case, which I think would be really interesting, go do some research on it. There
is a lot out
there on this debate. This is great because it ignores all the ambiguity that comes out from problems of
resolution
interpretation; things like what the word "mitigate" means.
Secondly, there's a strong case to be made that we as the United States have obligations to our citizens first.
Here’s
the idea. It’s weird to say that there can be conflicting moral obligations, because a moral obligation is
something
you are wrong for not fulfilling. But, if you have a moral obligation to do to conflicting things, you’re in a
bad place
either way. I think it’s easy to make the case that there are no double-binds when it comes to moral
obligations.
Once that’s established, it’s also not too much work to make the case that a government clearly has a moral
obligation to it’s own citizens. Social contract analysis makes this argument well. That said, now you
would just
focus on how affirmation prevents the United States from fulfilling moral obligations to its citizens. These
obligations might be providing with resources like food or simply protection. There are a wide variety of
arguments
that can be made from this point. For example, you could say that intervention causes terrorism, lose of
jobs due to a
poor economy, any number of things. I’ll let you do your on research for these arguments. A caution: I
think we do
have some moral obligations to non-citizens. For example, I think we are morally compelled not to
victimize
innocent civilians even if it gives us a better economy or some other utility based benefit.
The third kind of argument gives the negative the most latitude. The premise is very simple. There cannot
be a moral
obligation to take an action counter productive to its end goal. For example, if I have a moral obligation to
help
person X, but any action I take hurts person X, then I can’t have a moral obligation to take action. In
context of the
resolution, you just say that U.S. efforts to mitigate only make the conflict worse, and hurt every party.
There are a
ton of good arguments that can come from this. For example, Noam Chomsky makes a great argument that
any time
the United States Intervenes in a conflict, the people that America are trying to help are never left better off.
13The
reason is because once the United States takes an action, it creates US hegemony. Another argument could
be about
how the United States alienates members of the international community by mitigating conflicts. This
results in a
lose of capital that prevents the U.S. from taking meaningful action on numerous human rights issues and
global
problems. Anyway, the point is clear. Just argue that mitigation is counter-productive.
Along this last point, that intervention is counter-productive, there is another easy position that can be run.
It could
be compelling to say that there is something about the United States, that makes U.S. intervention s bad.
This would
be along the lines of Chomsky reasoning. The argument is that the United States is incapable of effective
mitigation,
and as a result, the U.S. doing so is always bad. To make this argument, it’s important to make sure that the
link is
causal, and not just historically based. That is, don’t just say because the United States has done such a
poor job in
the past, it will in the future.
Alright, I hope that this will be helpful to people. As always, I strongly urge everyone to do original
thinking and
research, because that’s where the benefits of this activity really come from. Once again, I’d focus on the
moral
obligation question to avoid messy debates on stupid points about what is mitigating. Good luck. 14

********************************************************************************************** Massey
analysis
The primary Affirmative Argument is that because the US is the remaining global super power, the US
possesses a
moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.
This argument can be supported in a couple of ways. The first, and most obvious, is the de facto power
argument. Essentially, because the US is the one nation with the greatest financial and military resources,
that
"great power carries with it great responsibility." That primary duty is to keep peace around the globe, to
insure that
the lives of innocent civilians across the world are protected. The second argument stems from community
expectations. Most moral guidelines are set forth by the community with which we are aligned. Being part
of the
international community, most of the world's nations look to the US to provide leadership and stability in
times of
international uncertainty and crisis. More to the point, because the US is so powerful, other nations look up
to the
US to stand on its principals. If the US does not, it is morally culpable for death and destruction in the
world
because we have the capability to act to stop harm but do not. Therefore, the US possesses a moral
obligation to do
what it can to lessen the severity of conflict so that as many innocent people can live as humanly possible.
Another powerful affirmative argument is that the US possesses a moral duty to stand for its own moral
code. The
basis for the American way is the belief in the minimization of suffering for innocent people. Throughout
our legal
system are hundreds of examples where this is true. While our government may engage itself in a struggle
to
achieve peace, it is upholding its mo ral duty to act because its core intent is to save as much life as
possible. Even if
the US does not have to oblige itself to international norms, the US does have to live with itself. If we as
American
citizens can say that we take the value of life seriously, then we can never stand idly by to allow mayhem to
brutalize innocents.