NFL Championship Topic Analysis

May 2, 2008

Resolved: Limiting economic inequality ought to be a more important social goal than maximizing economic freedom.

Since we didn’t participate in NFL this year, finally, I can actually analyze a topic and give you some insight on how to win. If you utilize my strategy you will have a 75% chance of winning your rounds and increase your odds of advancing to the elimination rounds. If you happen to do really well at nationals with my help, don’t forget to give me credit. I’m hoping this gets posted after all of the major briefs have already been packed and shipped out. This is because sometimes the briefs are off topic or a little misleading. However, since the majority of us are usually apathetic, few debaters will actually take the time to really research – instead they will rely on the misleading briefs and try and make it work. The case outlines I’m providing for you will give you a good shot at doing well because they are providing realistic outcomes.

When I do this for my team, I refuse to do the research for them. I’ll gladly supply them briefs but there is no way I will actually write a case for any of my debaters. My gift is that I understand what it takes to give you the best chance of winning. Whenever you are faced with making up an Affirmative and Negative case, you have to understand two things: 1) The cases need realistic benefits and must be inoffensive, and 2) They have to be able to beat each other. Whichever side you are on, you have to really believe that what you are saying is true because then you will look believable to the judges as the debate progresses and you should be able to withstand the daunting CX in a positive light. Research is the key because it’s the rebuttals that are going to win you the round, not the cases.

Topic Analysis

This topic is fairly easy. It’s basically stating that universally it would be better to be economically equal as opposed to being economically inequal. Thus, on a broader scale you are debating Socialism vs. Capitalism. Even if you don’t listen to me, if you focus your Aff case on why Socialism has its good points and your Neg case on why Capitalism is good – you’ll already increase your odds of winning without even reading further.

Affirmative Case

Since it’s asking for a social goal you can base your Paramount Value on Societal Good or Societal Welfare. The Criterion can be Equality or Maximizing Equality since the topic is asking to limit inequality. I always believe the simpler the better so that the judge has an idea of what they are about to hear. Now if you read my article on how to build a case, you will realize the case is already made. You can do your own definitions. The key words for you in the resolution are Social Goal. Remember this because when you promote economic freedom you are promoting selfishness which can be detrimental to achieving societal welfare.

Contention I – Societal welfare depends on the welfare of every class in the society.

In this contention you need to make the judge aware that if people are suffering then you don’t have societal welfare. Do your research and give examples of the struggling middle class trying to make ends meet. Then do the same thing for the lower class. For example, $4 for a gallon of gas means more to the middle and lower class than it does to the upper class. By the way you aren’t limited to the United States so you can show the problem in other countries as well. The goal is to show that with economic inequality you don’t have societal welfare.

Contention II - Maximizing economic freedom leads to selfishness.

This one should be easy because all you need to do is give examples of where greedy people can hurt a society. Enron is a great example but it would be nice if you could find others less popular. Look to athletes and compare their salaries with the average college graduate. How do you think it makes the college graduate feel? Also, take a look at these foreclosures. Why do you think there are so many? Do your research and you’ll find it’s because selfish people were buying and selling at outrageous prices for the sake of being economically free. It’s a never ending cycle of the rich using the disadvantage to get richer. Also, see if there is a correlation between the crime rate and economic disparity.

Contention III – Focusing on limiting economic inequality will promote societal welfare.

The wealth needs to be shared equitably. This is not happening so it’s up to you find examples of where the economically rich spread the wealth and improve morale. Perhaps a corporation that has profit sharing could be a start. Bill Gates is always a popular example but you need to focus on the results of the profit sharing. Perhaps having more means you’ll spend more as well. The goal here is to get the judge to understand that being less disadvantage financially could lead to a better society thus promoting societal welfare. Because there is no guarantee that the rich will spread the wealth, the government needs to do something to aid the process. The result could be a more productive society promoting societal welfare. Your task is to find examples proving this point.

Negative Case

In my opinion the Aff has the advantage because there is a huge disparity between the upper class and the middle class in the United States. Taxes hurt the middle class more than the upper class reducing any pay raise, if any, they may acquire. Odds are the majority of your judges are going to be in the middle class so you have to make sure your Neg case is something they can buy into without being offended. Why should we maximize economic freedom? It could lead to Progress or Advancement. Either one works. The Paramount Value can be Advancement and the Criterion could be Assiduity which means hard work and perseverance. The key words for you are Self Motivation because that’s what you need to try and be the best. Anything that could lead to an apathetic society shouldn’t be a social goal.

Contention I – Competition leads to Advancement.

In a capitalistic society, in order to be the best you have to continually stay on top of your competition. In doing so, your product has to be better than your opposition. The driving force behind this is profit seeking. Corporations have share holders they have to make happy. To prove this, find examples where through competition we have made major advancements. Medical advances would be ideal because that could relate to the judge as far as new medical cures are being discovered. I’m sure you can find plenty of technological advances to use – just make sure the ones you use made a major contribution to our society. The goal is to show that maximizing profit can lead to societal good by always striving to put out the most advanced products, which indirectly is your ultimate goal.

Contention II – Maximizing economic freedom leads to Assiduity.

Once again, in a capitalistic society, you have to work hard to gain an edge. You can’t be complacent. You might want to use an example of how Socialist are apathetic and have the opportunity to get something for doing nothing. You should be rewarded for your hard work, and in this society that reward is profit. Once you start being forced to share the profits, you might not be as hungry to gain an edge as you once were. Since it’s a universal topic, just look to the fact that the United States is one of the Super Powers and the leader when it comes to advancements. All societies have problems but on a larger scale it’s worth it to maximize economic freedom in order to continue to advance at the highest level. The goal is to get the judge to understand that the wealthy earned that right and we all have the opportunity to become wealthy by working hard. Don’t forget that the capitalistic country doesn’t have to be the United States. It can also be a utopian society where everyone actually has an equal chance to become wealthy.

If you noticed, I laid a case out for you but did not make it word for word. Therefore, if one were to use these ideas, there will obviously be several variations. If you do your research and follow these tag lines, you will put yourself in a good position to advance to the out rounds. Each case makes it very clear why you need to vote for it. The key is research and analysis. Also, I wish I could help you during the CX but it’s your job to understand the case well enough to stand up to the CX. Also, these are straight up cases with no gimmicks or hidden cards. All you need for each contention is one or two really good examples and thoroughly research them so you can refute whatever your opponent throws at you. Also, think about changing your examples from round to round if you have more than two. Good luck!