WHAP Philosophy Debate Project
How this works: A topic and affirmative or negative side will be assigned to you. You need to research your side’s
position, including the branch of philosophy would best support your argument, and the philosopher who most closely
aligned with your ideals, to build your “case”, and prepare rebuttal arguments, to debate in class.
Topic Choices:
1. It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
2. On balance, violent revolution is a just response to political oppression.
3. When in conflict, freedom of expression ought to be valued above a community’s moral standards.
The time format is as follows:
3 minute 1AC -affirmative constructive speech – this is where the affirmative will build their case, and state their basic
arguments.
2 minute 1NCX – negative cross examination – this is where the negative asks the affirmative questions to clarify or
shine light where holes in the affirmative case/logic would be.
4 minute 1NC – negative constructive speech – this is where the negative will not only build their case, and state their
basic arguments, but also attack whatever they can attack on the affirmative case.
2 minute 1ACX – affirmative cross examination – this is where the affirmative asks the negative questions to clarify, or
shine light where holes in the negative case/logic/ attacks on the affirmative case would be.
2 minute 1AR – affirmative rebuttal speech – this is where the affirmative will rebuild their case, and cut holes into the
negative case, ultimately setting up the major issues in the round, what we need to look to in order to decide who best
argued those issues.
3 minute 1NR – negative rebuttal speech – this is where the negative will lay everything on the line, rebuild their
negative case, bring down the affirmative case, and tell you why the negative had superior arguments on the major
issues in the round.
1 minute 2AR – affirmative rebuttal speech – is a last ditch chance for the affirmative to argue their side.
Yes, you do get “prep time” in round, to gather your thoughts together before you speak, but you only get 2 minutes, so
use them wisely.
Grades:
Research note/ outlines filled out – MAJOR GRADE
Presentation/Vote – Major Grade.
75 points for getting up and arguing your constructive speech. Period.
35 points if the class votes in your favor, and you argue your points well,
25 points if the class does not vote in your favor, yet you argued your points well,
15 points if the class votes in your favor, yet you do not argue your points well,
10 points if the class does not vote in your favor, and you do not argue your points well.
Group Participation – Daily Grade: work together, equally. ‘Nuff said. I have my ways of checking into this!
Affirmative Case Outline for Topic One.
“Quote from your Philosopher that supports the affirmative stance____________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________”. It is because I
agree with_____________________ (Philosopher) that I affirm today’s issue: It is morally permissible to kill one
innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
To better clarify the debate today, I offer the following definitions to better understand the affirmative position. (List
any definitions to important words that you think might help your side. Try dictionary.com or www.merriamwebster.com/, and usually using a non-biased or generally one-sided definition will be most useful and easiest to
understand for the audience and judge. You do NOT have to find a definition for each word, there are simply blanks next
to each word to help you.)
Morally - _____________________________________________________________________________
Permissible - __________________________________________________________________________
Kill - _________________________________________________________________________________
Innocent - ____________________________________________________________________________
Person - ______________________________________________________________________________
Save -________________________________________________________________________________
Lives - _______________________________________________________________________________
More - _______________________________________________________________________________
People - ______________________________________________________________________________
The paramount value in today’s debate is the affirmative value of (utilitarianism, consequentialism, social
contractarianism), which basically means (define one of the previously mentioned values). To add weight to the
affirmative value, we can look to the well-known philosopher (John Locke). I have two main arguments to support my
position. They are: 1) That while each life has value, when looking to the straight numbers, more is better. 2) It is the
government’s duty to protect society as a whole.
My first argument states that while each life has value, more is better, when looking strictly to the numbers. A quote
from Locke affirms this statement because _______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
And this ultimately means (what towards the issue at hand)_________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
My second argument states that ultimately it is the government’s duty to protect society as a whole. Locke states in his
works ________________________________________________________________ ____________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
And this relates back to the issue at hand because _________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Because of these reasons, I urge you to vote in affirmation and now stand open for questioning.
Negative Case Outline for Topic One.
“Quote from your Philosopher that supports the negative stance____________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________”. It is because I
agree with_____________________ (Philosopher) that I negate today’s issue: It is morally permissible to kill one
innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.
To better clarify the debate today, I offer the following definitions to better understand the negative position. (List any
definitions to important words that you think might help your side. Try dictionary.com or www.merriam-webster.com/,
and usually using a non-biased or generally one-sided definition will be most useful and easiest to understand for the
audience and judge. You do NOT have to find a definition for each word, there are simply blanks next to each word to
help you.)
Morally - _____________________________________________________________________________
Permissible - __________________________________________________________________________
Kill - _________________________________________________________________________________
Innocent - ____________________________________________________________________________
Person - ______________________________________________________________________________
Save -________________________________________________________________________________
Lives - _______________________________________________________________________________
More - _______________________________________________________________________________
People - ______________________________________________________________________________
The paramount value in today’s debate is the negative value of (daentology) which basically means (define he previously
mentioned value). To add weight to the negative value, we can look to the well-known philosopher (Emmanuel Kant). I
have two main arguments to support my position. They are: 1) 2)
My first argument states that ______________A quote from Kant supports this statement because
_______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
And this ultimately means (what towards the issue at hand)_________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
My second argument states that___________. Kant states in his works
________________________________________________________________ ____________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
And this relates back to the issue at hand because _________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Because of these reasons, I urge you to vote in negation and now stand open for questioning.
Affirmative Case Outline for Topic Two.
“Quote from your Philosopher that supports the affirmative stance____________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________”. It is because I
agree with_____________________ (Philosopher) that I affirm today’s issue: On balance, violent revolution is a just
response to political oppression.
To better clarify the debate today, I offer the following definitions to better understand the negative position. (List any
definitions to important words that you think might help your side. Try dictionary.com or www.merriam-webster.com/,
and usually using a non-biased or generally one-sided definition will be most useful and easiest to understand for the
audience and judge. You do NOT have to find a definition for each word, there are simply blanks next to each word to
help you.)
On balance - _______________________________________________________________________________________
Violent - ___________________________________________________________________________________________
Revolution- ________________________________________________________________________________________
Just - _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Response - _________________________________________________________________________________________
Political -___________________________________________________________________________________________
Oppression - _______________________________________________________________________________________
The paramount value in today’s debate is the negative value of (social contractarianism) which basically means (define
he previously mentioned value). To add weight to the negative value, we can look to the well-known philosopher (JeanJacques Rousseau). I have two main arguments to support my position. They are: 1) 2)
My first argument states that ______________A quote from Rousseau supports this statement because
_______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
And this ultimately means (what towards the issue at hand)_________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
My second argument states that___________. Rousseau states in his works
________________________________________________________________ ____________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
And this relates back to the issue at hand because _________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Because of these reasons, I urge you to vote in affirmation and now stand open for questioning.
Negative Case Outline for Topic Two.
“Quote from your Philosopher that supports the negative stance____________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________”. It is because I
agree with_____________________ (Philosopher) that I negate today’s issue: On balance, violent revolution is a just
response to political oppression.
To better clarify the debate today, I offer the following definitions to better understand the negative position. (List any
definitions to important words that you think might help your side. Try dictionary.com or www.merriam-webster.com/,
and usually using a non-biased or generally one-sided definition will be most useful and easiest to understand for the
audience and judge. You do NOT have to find a definition for each word, there are simply blanks next to each word to
help you.)
On balance - _______________________________________________________________________________________
Violent - ___________________________________________________________________________________________
Revolution- ________________________________________________________________________________________
Just - _____________________________________________________________________________________________
Response - _________________________________________________________________________________________
Political -___________________________________________________________________________________________
Oppression - _______________________________________________________________________________________
The paramount value in today’s debate is the negative value of (daentology) which basically means (define he previously
mentioned value). To add weight to the negative value, we can look to the well-known philosopher (Rene Descartes). I
have two main arguments to support my position. They are: 1) 2)
My first argument states that ______________A quote from Descartes supports this statement because
_______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
And this ultimately means (what towards the issue at hand)_________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
My second argument states that___________. Descartes states in his works
________________________________________________________________ ____________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
And this relates back to the issue at hand because _________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Because of these reasons, I urge you to vote in negation and now stand open for questioning.
Affirmative Case Outline for Topic Three.
“Quote from your Philosopher that supports the negative stance____________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________”. It is because I
agree with_____________________ (Philosopher) that I affirm today’s issue: When in conflict, an individual’s freedom
of expression ought to be valued above a community’s moral standards.
To better clarify the debate today, I offer the following definitions to better understand the negative position. (List any
definitions to important words that you think might help your side. Try dictionary.com or www.merriam-webster.com/,
and usually using a non-biased or generally one-sided definition will be most useful and easiest to understand for the
audience and judge. You do NOT have to find a definition for each word, there are simply blanks next to each word to
help you.)
Conflict - __________________________________________________________________________________________
Individual - ________________________________________________________________________________________
Freedom of expression - _____________________________________________________________________________
Ought -____________________________________________________________________________________________
Valued - ___________________________________________________________________________________________
Above -____________________________________________________________________________________________
Community- ________________________________________________________________________________________
Moral Standard -____________________________________________________________________________________
The paramount value in today’s debate is the affirmative value of (social contractarianism) which basically means (define
he previously mentioned value). To add weight to the affirmative value, we can look to the well-known philosopher
(Charles Montesquieu). I have two main arguments to support my position. They are: 1) 2)
My first argument states that ______________A quote from Montesquieu supports this statement because
_______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
And this ultimately means (what towards the issue at hand)_________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
My second argument states that___________. Montesquieu states in his works
________________________________________________________________ ____________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
And this relates back to the issue at hand because _________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Because of these reasons, I urge you to vote in negation and now stand open for questioning.
Affirmative Case Outline for Topic Three.
“Quote from your Philosopher that supports the negative stance____________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________”. It is because I
agree with_____________________ (Philosopher) that I affirm today’s issue: When in conflict, an individual’s freedom
of expression ought to be valued above a community’s moral standards.
To better clarify the debate today, I offer the following definitions to better understand the negative position. (List any
definitions to important words that you think might help your side. Try dictionary.com or www.merriam-webster.com/,
and usually using a non-biased or generally one-sided definition will be most useful and easiest to understand for the
audience and judge. You do NOT have to find a definition for each word, there are simply blanks next to each word to
help you.)
Conflict - __________________________________________________________________________________________
Individual - ________________________________________________________________________________________
Freedom of expression - _____________________________________________________________________________
Ought -____________________________________________________________________________________________
Valued - ___________________________________________________________________________________________
Above -____________________________________________________________________________________________
Community- ________________________________________________________________________________________
Moral Standard -____________________________________________________________________________________
The paramount value in today’s debate is the affirmative value of (social contractarianism) which basically means (define
he previously mentioned value). To add weight to the affirmative value, we can look to the well-known philosopher
(Charles Montesquieu). I have two main arguments to support my position. They are: 1) 2)
My first argument states that ______________A quote from Montesquieu supports this statement because
_______________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
And this ultimately means (what towards the issue at hand)_________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
My second argument states that___________. Montesquieu states in his works
________________________________________________________________ ____________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
And this relates back to the issue at hand because _________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
Because of these reasons, I urge you to vote in negation and now stand open for questioning.