This is where all download will be listed, utilizing the Page Add plugin.
File Name | S21-LD-NCFCA-16-NEG-The-Line.docx |
File Size | 65.49 KB |
Date added | November 16, 2020 |
Category | Archived |
Tags | Lincoln-Douglas, NCFCA, Season 21 |
The theme of this case is found in the introduction and the resolutional analysis. This case argues that the debate has to do with the line between the two issues, not which matters more. Imagine a “when in conflict” clause in this resolution. The resolution doesn’t have the clause, but this case says it is implied.
In this case the definitions and resolutional analysis are very important. The definition of the right to know needs to be upheld in order for the second contention to hold. The key to the second contention is that most definitions of the “right to know” link it directly to Right to Know/Freedom of Information laws. This definition could be a non-issue if the affirmative uses it (or a similar one) as their own definition. However, if the affirmative objects to this definition, this case requires that the definition of the right to know be a hill to die on. The entire second contention depends on it. Further, the resolutional analysis resets the way the round is viewed and, if argued effectively, could be the deciding argument of the round.
To lead into this case, the negative could push with questions that boil down to “where do we draw the line?” in cross examination. For example, “should candidates’ full medical records be disclosed?”