Debates involving are clash of rights are debates in which the rights of one group are pitted against the rights
of the other-teams will need to demonstrate reasons either why the right the opposition is championing does not exist, or why it is unimportant by comparison to the right they are putting forward, as well as demonstrating the practical benefits of their model. The range of this general type of debate is enormous-it encompasses all topics in which the rights of one group are pitted against the rights of another-as such, we will only have general information in this general debate-see specific topics for more detail.
Examples[]
This type of debate can be found in very many different topics; here are some examples:
- That torture should be an option
- That smoking should be banned (in part, when discussing the effects of passive smoking)
- That bikie gangs should be made illegal
- That we should shut down NAPLAN
- That school should be optional
- That smokers should be denied access to medicare
- That music downloads should be free
- That employers should not be able to access their employees' facebook accounts
These topics may seem as though they have little or nothing in common, but they all explore the rights of different groups and make judgements about which are more important.
Cases[]
|
Affirmative |
Negative | |
|
1.1-An imperative argument based on the failures of the status quo. |
1.1-An unnecessary argument discussing the status quo's successes. If the status quo has obviously failed, this argument can be ignored. | |
|
1.2-A principled argument establishing the right your team will champion by:
|
1.2-A principled argument establishing the right your team will champion by:
|
|
|
1.3-A Practical/Effectiveness argument addressing the main purpose of the model or the biggest stakeholder. This can vary greatly-see specific topics for more information. |
1.3-A Practical/Effectiveness argument addressing the main purpose of the model or the biggest stakeholder. This can vary greatly-see specific topics for more information. | |
|
2.1-A Practical argument based on another stakeholder. |
2.1-A Practical argument based on another stakeholder or an Alternatives argument suggesting that there are better means of taking action than the model suggested. | |
|
2.2-Often a Social Message argument about the message the model sends or, if possible, a Practical argument about a smaller stakeholder. |
2.2-Often a Slippery Slope argument, smaller Practical argument about a small stakeholder or the relationship between two stakeholders, or a Social Message argument. |
Issues[]
In this type of debate,a 3rd speaker will normally talk about:
- The clash of rights in the debate. This issue can be won by using the steps shown in the principled arguments above:
- Showing empirically that the right does exist; use examples to suggest it is either absolute or only violated when another very important right is at stake. This can often be helped using codified versions of rights, such as the US constitution or the declaration of the rights of man.
- Put forward reasons why it is so valued. This can often be much more simple than it seems; for example, when making a bodily autonomy-based argument, suggest that people know their body best.
- Attacking the right the opposition has been put forward by suggesting that it doesn't exist (this can often be done by arguing either quantatatively, that it is used very infrequently, or qualitatively, that no reasonable person would utilise the right) at all, in this instance, or is less important than the right you put forward.
- Place the two rights in a hierarchy of rights to establish that the right your side is championing is the more important
- The practical effect the model will have on the biggest stakeholder/the problem in society. This tends to put the imperative and unnecessary arguments and the practical argument under one banner.
- The broader effects upon the public of your model, normally a wrap-up of all the second speaker point put forward.