Current LD topic

As a Brief road-map I will be going NEG then AFF; Neg- Since our founding the United States has been a country that has stood for Justice. In the name of this principle billions of men and women have died fighting for our country, they have willingly given up their lives because of how strongly they believe in this principle of justice. And it is because of this I must negate the resolution, The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives. Knowing this I offer the value of "Justice", defined by Princeton.edu as the quality of being just or fair. If we wish to continue to live under democratic ideals, Justice is the highest value in the round; and we must look towards it. I offer the criterion of "Rejecting the Affirmative stance". Again this is a value debate, and it is only by completely and utterly rejecting the premise the AFF offers that we can begin to evaluate this as such. I will explore this further in my attacks on the Aff Obs 1: Empirical evidence- LD is a value debate, not a policy debate. Thus when debating this issue the value premise must be the core aspect of the debate. We debate philosophy and ideas, thus when the debate is centered solely on evidence, debate cannot take place. It ends up being entirely one-sided, and the one who has the author with the most credentials wins. However we must utterly reject this stance. Obs 2: BoP- The burden of Proof is on the AFF; the resolution directly indicates this under the "Justified" clause. The resolution calls the AFF to prove this, and the NEG to simply negate the AFF. Thus to fairly debate this, the AFF's job is to show the resolution true under their value premise, and the NEG's job is to show why PRO is false in their their constructive. Thus I need not present any contentions of my own, the only job I have to do; is disprove my opponent. Obs 3: Value Premise- Ultimately in LD since it is a Value debate, the most important thing is going to be the value. We must concentrate and look to the value to even consider the Contentions. Without a value the contention are useless. with this I move on the the AFF First off when looking at the value we see that is a state of being. When we think of "Global Stability" we do not make this the equivalent of of some-kind of ideal or inward belief, instead we see it as a destination we must get to, something we must achieve. Thus it is not a value, an cannot be considered. Second, Global Stability begs. What I mean by this is we can never know when we've achieved Global Stability, because we do not know what is stable. This and the AFF never gives us a bright-line to know when we have achieved stability. So even if it where a viable Value, it would still be a lesser value because we don't know what constitutes Global Stability. With these two things known, my opponent's Value points 1-5 fall as they are trying to build on a a premise that as we can see does not exist. And me must look to the value of justice. With this we look at my opponent's Criteria of "Maintaining U.S. Hegemony" First make a direct link between the Attacks on the AFF's value and their criterion; this is crucial in seeing why this weighing mechanism is so poor. We see first that there is no value to guide such a Criterion; it is mindless action to achieve an end, that may not be a just decision. Second, my opponent uses a card from Kagan in '11 to paint this scene that Terrorism is some all-inclusive thing that is the driving force behind all war, and while terrorism is a huge issue that does need to be addressed, it is not the biggest issue at hand. Looking at our history, this is something we've only really begun worrying about since the tragic events of 9/11. Terrorism is something relative to those receiving the backlash of the the action. To us, Islamic bombers are considered terrorists; to them, they are considered heroes for fulfilling the words of their religious doctrine (Exercising freedom of religion, a basic American principle). Third, My opponent's criterion is not something relative to all of mankind; it is only relative to United States citizens. So not only is this in complete clash with my opponent's value of "Global Stability". But is not an all-inclusive weighing mechanism. Thus you cannot look to this value, you must reject the AFF stance (Thus adhering to the NEG value) With this I move onto my opponent's sole contention- I have but one sole attack here, and that is that this is strictly evidence with no analysis. Make a direct link of this with my observation 1 on empirical evidence and we see that this contention loses any and all impact. Thus in closing, my opponent does not a viable case; his value is faulty, his criterion is biased, and his contention has no further analysis, it's only evidence thus not viable in a value based debate. Keeping in line with the framers intent yo must no vote for the AFF, as there is no value based reasoning to do so. Instead you must default NEG in order to uphold Justice. For all of these reasons I urge a NEG vote in this debate.