Examples of Resolutional Analysis

TERMS OF ART

November 2009 – Resolved: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations.

“Failed nation” is not only a term of art, but it is technically incorrect. The academic term is “failed state”. For clarity and correctness, it is necessary to define.

June 2012 – Resolved: Stand Your Ground laws are a legitimate expansion of the doctrine of self defense.

“The doctrine of self defense” is another term of art. While your judge may understand self defense, “doctrine” means something established. Defining this specific doctrine would clarify arguments as well as establish a common understanding of the resolution.

November 2012 – Resolved – Current U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East undermines our national security.

Key word: Undermines

Analysis: The Pro team would like to define “undermines” in an absolute sense so that if Pro proves any type of harm to the criminal justice system, they win. Conversely, the Con wants to make sure Pro doesn’t get away with this unfair definition. Con wants to define undermines as on balance doing more harm than good, providing Con a fair ground in the debate. Pro’s interpretation would be abusive because the Pro would only have to prove one harm and Con would have to negate every harm presented as a neutral or positive impact.

Another route would be for the Con to argue that if the judge believes there is either a neutral or positive effect on the system, Con should win. Pro can claim this is unfair. Another route would be to advocate it should either be decided as positive or negative or the debate is worthless – nothing in debate will ever add up to a perfect zero. This analysis is increasing popular in resolutions where one side can claim the “neutral” ground. From these varied stances, you can see it is worth defining this word from the beginning of the debate to avoid late-round confusion.

April 2013 – Resolved: The continuation of current U.S. anti-drug policies in Latin America will do more harm than good.

Key word(s): will do

Analysis: This is a similar example to the February 2013 topic. Because the resolution refers to future impacts, one could argue that the past effects of U.S. anti-drug policies should only be evidence of what the policies cause. Specific impacts that have occurred should not be weighed in the round because the resolution is concerned with future impacts only.

From the sample case on Resolved: That the United States should intervene in another nation’s struggle for democracy.

“We would like to define: Should– Expresses obligation, propriety, or expediency (Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Web. 2013). Should asks for an analysis of obligation and the conventional, or accepted standards of action. Should does not imply a definitive action will take place. Just because the US should act does not mean it will; therefore the PRO case presents a posture that the US should intervene not that it definitively would.

To clarify the round, we would like to make an observation: In order to weigh the merits of US intervention, we should look to the side that diminishes the violence that occurs during struggles for democracy. As can be seen in Syria, displacement and death define these struggles. Therefore analysis of obligation should focus on protecting human rights over other concerns such as economic and political relationships.”