<p>I’m doing a value (Lincoln Douglas) debate for class, and am taking the negative side against a resolution written by my opponents which reads: “When threatened, our country’s independence should be valued over our peace”</p>
<p>Ive written my case, which centers around the fact that the resolution is inadequate and easily disproven, because the level of “threat” isnt specified (which is very important, because a threat isn’t just a devastating action like 9/11 thats already taken place, it can also just be empty rhetoric designed as a scare tactic.), so if I can prove just one instance where peace should be valued over independence, then I win. (Or more specifically, if I can prove that their application of this theory shouldn’t be implemented in any case-Im assuming their application will be a pro war stance). For example, shouldn’t we just ignore a threat levied by a 90 year old Muslim woman who says that Allah came to her in a dream and said he’s enable her to bring death to America next Tuesday? Since their resolution doesn’t proceed “threat” with any words like nuclear, imminent, etc their burden of proof is to demonstrate that independence should ALWAYS be valued over peace.</p>
<p>Anyway–to strengthen my assertions about their resolution, I’d like to use some grammatical analysis to show that their resolution says that EVERY SINGLE TIME our country is threatened, we should value independence over peace. Would it be correct to say that their resolution recommends this value hierarchy in EVERY instance of a future threat because it uses an interrogative clause proceeded by the future subjunctive tense constructed with the usage of a modal auxiliary verb? (Thank God for wikipedia!)</p>
<p>Having said that, I read the statement a little differently. One of those grammar scholars can correct me if I’m wrong, here, but I see it as saying: ‘When [our country’s independence is] threatened…’ as opposed to ‘When [our country is] threatened…’ I’m not perfect on grammar rules, but I’m pretty sure that first phrase should correspond with the phrase "our country’s independence.’ Does it make a difference whether the old lady poses a threat to our country or whether she poses a threat to our country’s independence? It’s something for you to consider, in any event.</p>
<p>Since the level of threat is not stated, I think you could probably get away with your argument. I think you’ll have trouble, though, because I think it can be assumed that any reasonable person would recognize some level of threat; they just wouldn’t agree on the level. I don’t know if this would matter for your debate, but taking it to the very lowest level is a little ridiculous since reasonable people can assume that it was not the intent.</p>
<p>Just a bit of a grammar Nazi here ;), but I agree with corranged. Although I’m not in love with the quality of writing in that sentence…</p>
<p>as written, that sentence says that when our country’s INDEPENDENCE is threatened, our independence should be valued over our peace. It could be rewritten “Our country’s independence, when threatened, should be valued over our peace.”</p>
<p>You’ll have to decide whether your argument holds in your own mind based on this interpretation of the sentence, which is the correct interpretation grammatically, I believe.</p>
<p>It’s a categorical statement; it must be proven true in general. But when proving things logically true, you don’t have to prove that there can NEVER EVER be exceptions. That’s unreasonable. Grammar is irrelevant.</p>
<p>That really puts a gash in my argument then.</p>
<p>Another direction Im thinking of going is arguing that independence encompasses more than just the freedom from the control of another country, and also includes the aid, support, and like of other countries. (which it does via definition). Then I’ll defines peace as “in a state or relationship of nonbelligerence or concord; not at war.”</p>
<p>By setting these up as the contrasts (I think this is the most fair division of ground; both words have multiple definitions but this seems to be framer’s intent for the controversy), I’ll say that just because some crazy Muslim jihadist middle eastern president announces he will bring death to america (which is a threat to our independence for sure, even if its not likely to actually happen), it’d be foolish of us to suspend trade and diplomatic proceedings with that country just because we’re facing a threat. </p>
<p>I was going to talk about how the United States wasnt “independent” in many of its major war victories like the american revolution and WW2, but given all of your interpretations about the way the sentence was constructed, that part of the definition of independence (the support and aid of others) may not be relevant.</p>