1ar Ld Willmalson

Alright, this debate boils down to three main voting issues. 1. The Value 2. The Negative Premise 3. The Affirmative Premise 1. The Value A:The negative speaker dropped my first contentions, which means he concedes it. Thus, prosperity is indeed a force multiplier. What does that mean in the real world? It means more jobs, wealth, and more well-being are created. This also means more prosperity; and this process repeats itself. This value clearly has real and tangible advantages in our society. B: Now let’s look at morality; my opponent claims that morality is the bible, but that mindset insinuates that Muslins and Buddhists don’t have morality. He then gives a more broad definition as not infringing on another’s human rights, but is that really morality? Is it moral for person to ignore another person in need? Is it moral for me to refuse to not offer kindness, or love? The obvious answer is no, but under his definition, it is. So the real value my opponent is supporting is Human Rights. The reason human rights (HR) exist is to protect prosperity. For can one have prosperity without life, liberty, or property? No, they exist so everyone can have prosperity. If he tries to turn twist logic and say that we should value HR above prosperity because one leads to the other, than we should value government above HR, and leaders above government, and training above leader. Instead of racing to the bottom, we should value what’s on the top, and that means valuing Prosperity. 2. The Negative Premise A couple of things here: A: There was a conflict of values and morals in the civil war, and it was resolved through competition. Key word being resolved. The fact is competition, not cooperation, led to what my opponent calls a cohesive establishment. So his own example shows that competition can and does achieve his value. B: What is a cohesive establishment? According to the negative speaker, it’s “a government body that isn’t fraught with dissertations of secession etc.” Now if memory serves me right, the constitution was around over 70 years before the civil war began. And until the beginning of the war, there was no formal discourse of secession, none. Yet, slavery still existed in the US. If his criterion really leads to his value, then why did cohesive establishment have to completely disappear before his value was achieved? The fact is, if the north had cooperated with the south instead of competing, which would have maintained his criterion through cooperation, morality would have never been achieved. C: The Iranian example he brought up doesn’t show competition, and he also admits it doesn’t show cooperation, so throw it off your flow because it is irrelevant in this round. This means there is no alternative that shows completion and a cohesive establishment except for the civil war example. And, as I have mentioned before, completion led to morality and a cohesive establishment. But as my opponent is sure to say, competition leads to conflicts and wars. However, cooperation failed to resolved the conflict, sure if the south surrendered everything would be great, but if the north surrendered, the opposite would be true. Cooperation only occurs when both sides have the same objective, in the case of

the civil war, that was not possible. Only through competition was Human Rights and Prosperity for all achieved. 3. The Affirmative Premise Okay, not much to say here except flow all the Aff contentions across your flow. The negative speaker has taken the strategy to defend cooperation, which is fine, and if he wins all his points he does win the round, but remember, if I win my case, I prove the resolution. Again, prosperity is achieved through profit incentives, and competition is superior to cooperation with that criterion plan and simple. Bottom-line: All I have to do to win the round is either show that my value should be held highest in the round (which I did), completely disprove the negative premise (I proved his criterion to be flawed, so this flows Aff), or show that competition leads to his value better than cooperation (which I also did). So whichever way you look at this round vote affirmative.