Road Map: Negative Case

Counter Definition
Affirmative Case

Value: Natural Rights

I agree with the affirmative speaker that the goal of all government must be to protect our rights
to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Not only should natural rights be the prime value in this
round, it also should be the standard by how we weigh competition versus cooperation. If natural
rights are the standard, then natural rights must be the lens through which this entire debate is
viewed.

Criterion: Democracy
The body of this case explains the connection between democracy and its promotion of human
rights.

1. Democracy and competition cannot coexist

History is replete with examples of attempts to create democratic institutions in the midst of
ethnic competition. South Africa could not truly become a democracy until the competition
between races institutionalized in apartheid was demolished. Democracy and institutionalized
competition between races (slavery) was incompatible. Democracy, after all, is not about
competition; it is about compromise. Historian Gordon Wood has commented that “without a
compromise there would have been no union.” Staples of American democracy – the senate and
house – were compromise institutions to balance slaveholding and Free states. Competition is the
antithesis of compromise, and hence, the antithesis of democracy.

2. Once cooperation is established, democracy can takes root.

Democracy “requires cooperation in the pursuit of social goals,” says Sanford Lakoff of
Harvard University. Only when groups and individuals with divergent goals are willing to set
them aside will democracy work. The delegates came to the Continental Congress representing
their state interests, but with the obvious intent of cooperating in addressing shared concerns.
However, they were willing to cooperate with each other. Though some states were initially
opposed to a declaration of independence, they were eventually persuaded to support it. The
point of importance for this resolution is that once the principles of cooperation were followed,
democracy was founded.

3. A functioning democracy has a stronger causal relationship with natural rights than any
other governmental form

A. Democracies do not kill their own people

Surprisingly, large international conflicts such as WWI and WWII represent only a small fraction
of those killed in the 20th century. In fact, if you died in the 20th century from unnatural causes,
you were most likely killed by your own government. According to R. J. Rummel, 262,000,000
people were killed in the 20th century at the hands of their own government. More people died
in the 1900s at the hand of their own non-democratic government than were alive at the time of
Jesus Christ.
B. Democracies do not create international conflict
Between 1816 and 1991, there were a total of 353 wars between countries, yet fewer than
2% of these wars occurred between two democracies. That means almost no democracies have
gone to war against each other in the past 175 years, a testament to the correspondence between
democracy and natural rights.

Definitions:

Alright, the affirmative speaker defined competition as Competition: “To strive consciously or
unconsciously for an objective. (Against a rival).” (Merriam Webster’s dictionary of 1620)

However, I will propose a counter definition from Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary. “The act of
seeking, or endeavoring to gain, what another is endeavoring to gain, at the same time; rivalry;
mutual strife for the same object; also, strife for superiority; as the competition of two candidates
for an office, or of two poets for superior reputation.”

The reasons to prefer the negative definition is twofold:

First, my definition provides a bright-line, it is clear what is and isn’t competition, it states a
need for people to strive to gain the same item. My opponents definition has no such standard,
it’s rather ambiguous.

Second, my definition postdates his by over 200 years, which means mine is much more
applicable to today’s society than his.

Bottom Line: My definition give needed clarity to this round.

Impact: My opponent’s example in his/her second contention doesn’t apply, because until the
colonist and Britain wanted the same thing, they weren’t competing. Until the colonist wanted
independence, which as I showed, was caused by cooperation, we were only fighting, or
scrimmaging against Britain. But after we decided we wanted control over ourselves from
Britain, we started competing against Britain for governance over this nation.

Affirmative Case:

Criterion: Innovation

A: My opponent defines innovation as “A new idea, method or device.” But not all ideas work,
most in fact fail. Not all new methods or devices are superior to its predecessors (Virtual Boy, or
cigarettes anyone?). How can something that has more failures than successes advance natural
rights. This is why we should support democracy, because it has a proven record of maintaining
natural rights.

B: Has innovation in torturer led to furthering natural rights? The answer is clearly no. Has
innovation in murder and corruption led to furthering natural rights? No. The fact is, not only is
innovation inconsistent, it can lead to other things besides the value in this round. Some of which
hurt natural rights. Democracy exists to maintain natural rights. And it does so very effectively.
Contention 1: Competition motivates discovery

A: My opponent claims that competition leads to innovation, which can further life. Key word is
CAN. As I argued early, innovation is inconsistent, meaning a lot of attempts fail. And some
innovations don’t lead to preserving life.

Contention 2: Cooperation requires Competition

A: The affirmative speaker claims that the colonist cooperated because they wanted to compete
with Britain. However, there goal was to further their natural rights. And by cooperating, they
achieved natural rights. Did they need to compete, sure, but in order to actually gain natural
rights, they needed cooperation.

B: As mentioned in my second contention, if we had not compromised, we would not have a

United States of America. Or even a revolutionary war. We truly competed against Britain when
we cooperated for democracy, and for natural rights.

C: The Great Compromise never would have happen, ever, if we didn’t cooperate. Competition
is incapable of compromise, but in order to cooperate, we must have compromise. Cooperation
resolved the conflict and is responsible for our government we have today.

Contention 3: Competition Increases Technology

A: I asked my opponent in the C-X how the internet related to the pursuit of happiness. And s/he
responded by saying s/he wouldn’t as happy without the internet. But that just means more
opportunities for happiness are being created. The only reason technology information increasing
is because people can pursue happiness. This contention never addresses how people can obtain,
maintain, or further the ability to pursue happiness.

Impact: The third affirmative contention doesn’t correspond to the value in this round,
which means you should cross it off your flow because it doesn’t link to either the
affirmative or negative value (especially since they’re the same).

And that is why I negate today’s resolution.

Bibliography
Sanford A. Lakoff, Democracy. (Boulder, CO: Westview Publishing, 1996), 166, http://
books.google.com/books?id=U7ANGzb2O-
wC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=democracy+requires
+cooperation&source=bl&ots=sJzeaN67zs&sig=nz4WN8rgr9K9t70yqkVlzPnPf7M&hl=
en&ei=sHlXSu7uK8WktwfGioHeCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5.
R.J. Rummel, “Freedom, Democracy, Peace; Power, Democide, and War.” The University of
Hawaii. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/.

R. J. Rummel, “TABLE 1.1 Democratic Versus Nondemocratic Wars 1816-1991.” University of

Hawaii. http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.1.GIF.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg. “What Happened to Compromise?” The New York Times (May 19,
2005), http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/weekinreview/29stol.html.