What Exactly Is a Good Turn?

April 1, 2007

Since it’s time for the biggies, this article will focus on what makes a good turn. Remember, this is an opinionated essay, so this is one judge’s viewpoint. Let’s look at three levels: novice, jv, and varsity. Not that that truly reflects these examples, but each level will gain in sophistication. This will center around one argument; but when debating, it’s important to try and do this for every argument in an opponent’s case. Also, imagine that these arguments are supported by cards. The topic is “Resolve: Utilitarianism is the best way to provide a just government.”

Novice
Aff: I agree with the resolution because Utilitarianism best provides for democracy which is a just system.

Neg: The best way to provide for a just government is through Categorical Imperative.

Aff: Utilitarianism provides for majority rule which is just.

Neg: Categorical Imperative provides for the minority which is just so you must vote neg.

Aff: Since Utilitarianism is the greater good for the greatest number, you vote aff.

The winner in this instance is the Aff. The Aff at least comes the closest to explaining the value. The Neg never defines Categorical Imperative so how can one tell if it will really provide justice. Neither side makes a turn because neither of them shows why the other argument is faulty.

Junior Varsity
Aff: I agree with the resolution because Utilitarianism, which is the greater good for the greatest number, best provides for a just system because there will always be a majority vs. minority.

Neg; I beg to differ, with Utilitarianism the majority can be wrong. You need Categorical Imperative, where you must be just on both sides, to establish true justice. The minority needs to be protected.

Aff: The problem is since you will have a majority vs. minority in all forms of government, you have no choice but to go with Utilitarianism.

Neg: Exactly, and since there will always be a minority - as you said - they need to be protected along with the majority. With Categorical Imperative, the majority can’t use the minority as a means to an end. You have to vote neg in this instance.

Aff: Okay, apparently my opponent wasn’t listening when I said, “There will always be a minority.” Because of this one argument, which my opponent dropped, you must give the ballot to the aff. Utilitarianism is clearly the way to bring about a just government.

The winner in this instance is the Neg. The Neg clearly makes the better turns in this debate. Meaning, the Neg takes Aff’s arguments and uses them against the Aff’s position. The Aff ignores the Neg’s arguments and mistakenly prefers to focus on Utilitarianism instead without even recognizing Categorical Imperative. Also, the Aff lies in the 2AR by claiming the Neg dropped arguments. Not a good idea when you have a flow judge. In each instance, the Neg turned the arguments of the AFF.

Varsity
Aff: I agree with the resolution because John Stuart Mill believed that the majority of people on the planet were morally good. Taking that into consideration, Utilitarianism is the best way to provide for a just government since it means the greater good for the greatest number.

Neg: Since the majority can be wrong, the best way to provide for a just government is Kant’s Categorical Imperative. With this philosophy you must be just on both sides and so the minority will best be protected with this form of government. There is no guarantee the majority will not take advantage of the minority with Utilitarianism.

Aff: There is no form of government where you are not going to have a minority. Even with Categorical Imperative, saying it doesn’t make it true. The minority is always in jeopardy. The best system for Utilitarianism is a democracy where at least the minority has a voice. This is why in America women are now allowed to vote and we no longer have slavery. The minority can eventually make their voices heard and the majority will eventually come to their senses.

Neg: With Categorical Imperative you wouldn’t have these problems. The majority wouldn’t do to the minority what they themselves wouldn’t want to face. So you wouldn’t have to worry about slavery or the plight of women. Everyone would be equal. And let’s not forget about Germany. What Hitler did was a travesty, but with Categorical Imperative it would not have happened because the Germans would have to ask the question, “What if that were me?” With that, the ballot must go to the neg.

Aff: The problem with Categorical Imperative is it’s the ideal system that doesn’t exist. No governments exist that use Categorical Imperative to the point where the minority has equal say. All examples the Neg uses are ones where there were faults with majority rule. There is no guarantee the Neg wouldn’t have those same problems. When you look to Germany, he forgot when I said in my constructive, “majority of people on the planet were moral.” Therefore, the world saw what Germany was doing was wrong and thus WWII. You have no choice but to award the ballot to aff.

The winner this time is the Aff. Both sides made good turns and because of that the Aff has the advantage this time because that side is more realistic and can provide the best examples. The Neg needed to find examples that could actually be plausible. But notice in this last debate, both sides provided examples and then tried to turn their opponent’s examples. Very few varsity debaters actually do this. What I really like about these arguments are they are building blocks for new arguments. Instead of being repetitive, they try to extend the arguments. When I’m judging, I usually pick the debater that has the ability to turn the most arguments. If the Aff did not address the Hitler argument, the Aff would have lost my ballot.