Justice or Injustice: The Death Penalty Debate

1. Death penalty: Should the government execute/murder in the name of Justice?

2. Affirmative Case Construction A Guide

3. Quote • It is helpful to start off with a quote from a famous person to help uphold your case. This works as an effective attention getter, and shows your stance on the resolution from the beginning.

4. Resolution • After stating your quote, you must affirm the resolution. Most debaters read their quote and say, “It is because I agree with the words of ____, that I must affirm today’s resolution that Resolved:______....

5. Definitions • Definitions need to be given to help clarify the round. You must state the source from which these definitions were taken. • You should clarify key terms in the resolution, such as if your resolution was “Discrimination is just”, you would want to define “discrimination” and “just”. • Also define other key terms in your case.

6. Definitions • You need to be careful not to use definitions that will hurt your case though, such as you wouldn’t define discrimination as – “a harmful bias decision”. • It would be more beneficial to your case to define it as “making and recognizing difference.” • Do not, however, be unfair to the negative by defining words in a way that allows only the affirmative to win.

7. Value • A value is the best virtue that you uphold in your case. • Basically, you say by affirming the resolution, you reach your value, which is what everyone should be striving towards. • Such as with the resolution “A decentralized government power ought to be the fundamental goal of a democratic society”, you may believe that a decentralized government achieves social welfare, thus social welfare is your value.

8. Criterion • A criterion is needed to weigh the round. • It can be better understood through this thought; when judging which is better, an apple or an orange, you can constantly debate back and forth that you just like the orange or the apple is just bad. But it would be more beneficial to determine what you are going to debate specifically on. • Maybe you are going to debate on which one has less calories, or which one is prettier, etc. In LD debate you tell the judge what they should base their decision on.

9. Contentions • These are simply value uplifters. Contentions give evidence and analysis on the good that comes out of affirming the resolution, and how, by affirming the resolution, you meet your value. • For example, take the resolution, “Resolved: A decentralized government power ought to be a fundamental goal of a society.” • You may have one contention be, “A decentralized governmental power will increase governmental efficiency.” Under this contention you would give analysis and evidence on how efficiency is better achieved with a decentralized government, and how this leads to your value. Most affirmative cases contain three contentions.

10. Subpoints • Most people break their contentions down into subpoints. Subpoints condense the contention into specific arguments. Contentions normally contain two subpoints, a few contain three. An example would be, if your contention was, “A decentralized governmental power will increase governmental efficiency”, one of your subpoints may be, “A decentralized governmental power will increase governmental efficiency by lessening bureaucracy.”

11. Conclusion • You should have a conclusion at the end of your case to bring together all your arguments and your values, and says exactly why the judge should vote for your side of the debate.