NEGATIVE CASES POSTED IN THIS THREAD

In Class on Oct. 8th you were asked to go to the forum and post your entire Negative case including the rebuttal you are making against your opponent's case. Please use the proper format to post this case.

Here is a framework that you can insert your ideas into:
<<insert a quote or short story to get your judges attention>>> I use this story/ quote to illustrate why my value of _____________ is a better value to help us evaluate this resolution. My name is ____________ and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of ______________ I would like to present my thesis which states: _______________________________ It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states: Resolved: ________________________________.
(if you have an issue with any one or more of your opponent's defintions, you will say the following:)
Before I move on to my arguments, I would like to offer an alternate definition of the word/ words___________. I believe my definition is a more practical and workable definition that is better suited to the true analysis of this resolution)
(if you agree with your opponent's definitions then you simply state: I agree with my opponents definitions of the words in this resolution therefore I offer no further definitions to understand this statement.) I will define my value of __________________ which is defined by ___________________
as being_______________________.
My value is the superior value to analyzed this resolution through because_________________________
_____________________________________________________________.
Now I would like to offer my 2 / 3 main reasons for arguing against this resolution:
Contention 1: Yada yada yada.... Then provide a historical example or concrete way this argument can be evidenced in society. (support = historical example, quotation from person in authority, personal analogy or experience.)
Contentiion 2: Yada yada yada.... Then provide a historical example or concrete way this argument can be evidenced in society (support = historical example, quotation from person in authority, personal analogy or experience.)

Now I would like to move on to address my opponents arguments:
Fore cast the key arguments you are going to make against your opponents case: (tell the judge briefly what the key issues are with your opponents arguments)
For example: Today I am going to look at three key areas of my opponents case: I'll start by discussing his value, then I'll move on and discuss the problems I have with his arguments and then I'll highlight some errors in logic that he made in his historical applications.

Once you've told the judge what you are going to say: Say it... give your arguments in the same order that you forecasted them.

Once you've discussed the arguments conclude with a brief summary of what you said and ask the judge to please consider your points and to grant a negative ballot.
If time allows for you to conclude with a wonderful quote from a famous person this would be a wonderful way to put the icing on the cake!

For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.
by Rudyard Kipling. I use this quote to illustrate why my value of strength is a better value to help us evaluate this resolution. My name is Madeline Eck and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of strength I would like to present the thesis which states: People have more strength when united. It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate this resolution which states that people have more strength when united. Before I move on to my arguments, I would like to offer an alternate definition of the word achieving. The Websters New World College Dictionary defines achieving as to bring about a desired result; success. In strength there is success. I believe my definition is a more practical and workable definition that is better suited to the true analysis of this resolution. I agree with my opponent's definitions of the words in this resolution therefore I offer no further definitions to understand this statement. I will define my value of strength which is defined by Websters New College Dictonary as a force as measured in numbers. My value is the superior value to analyze this resolution through because people have more strength when united. Now I would like to offer my three main reasons for arguing against this resolution.

Contention 1. In competition strengths are divided thus weakening them. In cooperation everyone's strengths are combined which leads to success. For instance... the United States' military is the strongest, most powerfull in the world because of the combined forces of the Navy, Airforce ,Army, Marines and the Coastguard. If these forces combated against each other our army would be greatly weakened and useless.

Cotention 2. Strength prevents failure in that the weak learn from and are motivated by the strong. I have an Aunt who just hiked the Appalachian trail for the last six months. She was with two friends of hers. Because there were three of them they were able to encourage each other to keep going when one wanted to quit. If they had been alone and racing each other to the top they would have given up.

Contention 3. Strength unifies, creates a feeling of a team or family. When a sports team plays on their home field they feel motivated when all their fans and family are their to support them, and more often than not end up winning.


Now I would like to move on to address my opponent's arguments. Today I am going to look at three key areas of my opponent's case: I'll start by discussing her value then, I'll move on and discuss the problems I have with her arguments and then I'll highlight some errors in logic that she made in her applications. My opponent's value is superiority which she defines as the state of excelling of surpassing but I would like to offer another definition which is defined by Websters New World College Dictonary as showing a feeling of being better than others or haughty. My opponent argues that competition brings out the best in people but I say that it can make people bittter and discouraged often developing into jealousy issues resulting in sabotage of high performers. Genesis 4:4-5
say,"And Abel, on his part also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat portians. And the Lord had regard for Abel and for his offering; But for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. So Cain became very angery and his countanance fell." We know that Cain ended up killing Abel because of his jealousy.
My opponent says that competition lowers the cost of products but I say when companies cooperate on standards it causes greater number of products to be available at a low price such as the DVD standard. Because of cooperation many companies are able to build and develope technology around the DVD.
My opponent says that God supports competition through nature and thus created competition but I say that before man sinned there was no competition and thus competition was brought about by evil and sin. But Genesis 3:15 says" And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise you on the head and you shall bruise him on the heel."

In summary cooperation is superior to competition because cooperation combines strengths, motivates the weak and unifies by creating a feeling of a team. I would like the judge to consider these things I'll close with a quote from Alexander Graham Bell who says... Great discoveries and improvements invariably involve the COOPERATION of many minds. I may be given credit for having blazed the trail, but when I look at the subsequent developments I feel the credit is due to others rather than to myself.

"He is my other eyes that can see above the clouds; my other ears that hear above the winds. He is the part of me that can reach out into the sea. He has told me a thousand times over that I am his reason for being; by the way he rests against my leg; by the way he thumps his tail at my smallest smile; by the way he shows his hurt when I leave without taking him. (I think it makes him sick with worry when he is not along to care for me.) When I am wrong, he is delighted to forgive. When I am angry, he clowns to make me smile. When I am happy, he is joy unbounded. When I am a fool, he ignores it. When I succeed, he brags. Without him, I am only another man. With him, I am all-powerful. He is loyalty itself. He has taught me the meaning of devotion. With him, I know a secret comfort and a private peace. He has brought me understanding where before I was ignorant. His head on my knee can heal my human hurts. His presence by my side is protection against my fears of dark and unknown things. He has promised to wait for me... whenever... wherever - in case I need him. And I expect I will - as I always have. He is just my dog." - Gene Hill
I use this quote to illustrate why my value of Loyalty is a better value to help us evaluate this resolution. My name is Josiah Canna and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of loyalty I would like to present my thesis which states: Dogs make better pets then cats because their loyalty to their owners makes them easy to train.
It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states: Resolved: cats make better pets then dogs. I agree with my opponent’s definitions of the words in this resolution therefore I offer no further definitions to understand this statement. I will define my value of loyalty which is defined by dictionary.reference.com as faithful to any leader, party, or cause, or to any person or thing conceived as deserving fidelity: a loyal friend.

My value is the superior value to analyze this resolution because relationships are based on loyalty.

Now I would like to offer my 3main reasons for arguing against this resolution:
Contention 1: dogs want to please there master (are loyal) making them easy to train. A dog who is trained can be taken out into the public. I can bring my dog to the park, take her off a leash and play ball with her and know she will stay around me and not bother other people.
Contention 2: Dogs can be trained to come when they are called, sit when they are told, and stay within a boundary, this helps owner to act responsibly. My dog obeys commands so she will not bother other people by jumping, chasing and biting. My dog will stay off other people’s property so she will not destroy their flowers and shrubs.
Contention3: Dogs defend their master- protection. Dogs are loyal and will step in between anything that might hurt their master. As reported on the internet, Dog Sutra, The primordial instinct in dogs to guard comes from the pack instinct and the desire to not only protect itself, but also to protect its pack members. Hence as the dog starts to accept the human master as the alpha member of the pack its natural guarding instinct can be channeled to protect its master if the need arises.

Now I would like to move on to address my opponents arguments: 1.
My opponent says and I quote ”You can set out some food and water for your cat when you go on a trip, and it will eat the right amount” This is also the truth to some dogs. For example, my dog Waddles has a food container that dispenses food automatically after she eats more food comes down. She eats what she needs and leaves the rest of the food for later.
2. Cats do not require you to walk them; they can stay occupied all day. (A) This is true, but cats do not need you to be involved with them and it is their choice if they have anything to do with you. This limits social interaction and enjoyment of your cat. (B) When cats are staying occupied all day they might destroy things. Like couches, curtains, and carpets.
3. My opponent’s conclusion state. “In summary I would like the judge to consider these two points: Cats can eat meals on their own.” But, dogs also eat meals on their own.

“ What a cruel thing is war to separate families and friends and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love our neighbors, and to the fair face of this world” --- Robert E. Lee

I use this quote to illustrate why my value of peace is the better value to help us evaluate this resolution. My name is Ana-Mae Wallinga and I am the negative speaker for this round I would like to thank the judge, timer and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of peace I would like to present my thesis which states, Cooperation is better at achieving peace. It is through this thesis and the following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states: Resolved: Competition is better than cooperation as a means of achieving excellence. I agree with my opponents definitions of the words of this resolution therefore, I offer no other definitions, to understand this statement. I will define my value of peace which is defined by New World Dictionary of American English as, freedom from war or the stopping of a war. My value is the superior to analyze this resolution because, Peace is something all people desire. Now I would like to offer my three main points for arguing this resolution,

Contention 1. Competition brings Division. The Civil War brought great division among the states and we almost lost the united states of America due to this competition of ideas. Hitler in World War II competed to gain land and power. His twisted ideas about who is superior and most valuable led to millions of lost lives.

Contention 2. Working together brings excellence. Abraham Lincoln when he was President during the Civil War quoted the famous Aesop's Fable “ United we stand divided we fall.” He did this to illustrate the importance of being united, and to promote peace. When in war numerous men and women must unite in order to achieve peace or even survival. A solider in the Napoleonic war once said “ Usually six, eight, or ten of us must combine to build a fire science there was no other wood to be found.”

Contention 3. Cooperation makes us stronger. A cord of three strands is not quickly broken. When we unite to accomplish peace we make faster progress. Peace in World War II was accomplished because America united with allies and defeated the Germans.

Its impossible to achieve my opponents value without having my value of peace. So my value of peace is the superior to analyze this resolution.


Now Ill move on to my opponents argument.

Cooperation requires us to develop skills as well and these skills help us achieve peace.

I agree with my opponents contention, quality of life is dependent on skills and discipline but , it is through working with other people that our own skills are sharpened. Iron sharpens iron, and we develop skills through cooperation.

My opponent says, Cooperation is less effective than competition in achieving quality of life. I contend that quality of life is impossible without cooperating to achieve peace.

I would like the judge to please consider how competition brings division, how working togther brings excellence and also how cooperation makes us stronger.

Here it is

“No animal I know of can consistently be more of a friend and companion than a dog.”
Stanley Leinwoll

I use this quote to illustrate why my value of companionship is a better value to help us evaluate this resolution. My name is Ryan McAllister and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of companionship I would like to present my thesis which states: dogs make better companions than cats. It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states: Resolved: cats make better pets than dogs.
I agree with my opponent's definitions of the words in this resolution. I would like to offer two additional relevant definitions. "Better" is defined as more desirable, satisfactory, or effective. (Oxford English Dictionary) "Pet" is defined as an animal kept for amusement or companionship. (American Heritage Dictionary) My value of companionship is defined as "fellowship." (American Heritage Dictionary)

My value is the superior value to analyzed this resolution because the main reason for having a pet is for companionship.

Now I would like to offer my 3 main reasons for arguing against this resolution:

Contention 1: Cats are independent animals and do not socialize with you. When you visit a friend with a pet dog, the dog greets you enthusiastically at the door. If your friend has a cat, you can stay for your entire visit and the cat never comes out of its hiding place. My dog, Minnie, for example, constantly wants to be around me and my friends. If I close my room door, Minnie will scratch at the door and cry until I let her in. My friend's grandmother has a cat that when you come to visit, it will run and hide. If you try to find it, it will attack you. Cats are obviously not as companionable as dogs. And a pet, by definition, is kept for companionship.

Contention 2: Cats do not play with their owners. Dogs love to play fetch or catch the frisbee with you. Dogs like to run and walk with you too. "If a dog jumps in your lap, it is because he is fond of you; but if a cat does the same thing, it is because your lap is warmer." - Alfred North Whitehead. As you can see, dogs show their love for their owners and offer great companionship; while cats are only friendly if and when it suits their purposes.

Now I would like to move on to address my opponents arguments that dogs are disruptive and destructive, dogs embarrass their owners and dogs whine to go outside. I'll start by discussing his contention, then I'll move on and discuss the problems I have with his arguments and highlight some errors in logic that he made.

My opponent claims that dogs are disruptive and destructive. He does not mention that cats scratch the furniture, shed hair on your clothes and furniture and kill birds and mice and leave them on the doorstep for you to clean up. Dogs do not wake you up in the middle of the night unless something is very wrong. Dogs are great watchdogs--you never hear of cats being great "watch cats." Cats are nocturnal animals and are much more likely to disturb you or your neighbors with cat fights and nighttime wanderings than dogs.

My opponent states that dogs embarrass their owners by barking and grooming themselves. On the contrary, dogs can be trained not to bark at friends. Further, most dogs do not bark at their reflections after they have grown out of puppyhood. In fact, cats spend much more time grooming themselves than dogs. In addition, cats embarrass their owners much more often by jumping up on the kitchen counters and tables and trying to eat the food. Also, cats track litter box gravel through the house--very embarrassing!

My opponent's final argument is that cats don't whine to go outside to do their business, but use the indoor litterbox. I ask you, which is better--animal waste inside your house or outside? Dogs have the decency to do their business outside and not inside where you spend most of your time.

In summary I would like the Judge to consider my thesis again: That dogs make better companions than cats.


“He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart.”
Unknown

I was once in the Harris Teeter parking lot with my dad. We parked beside this car with a dog in it, sitting in the driver’s seat. The dog was pushing the horn on the steering wheel, making the horn beep. A man came running out of the store and went to his car, the one with the dog in it and said, “What’s the matter boy? Did you miss me?” the dog wagged his tail, showing that he was happy his owner was there.
I use this story to illustrate why my value of companionship is a better value than maintenance to help us evaluate this resolution. My name is Libby Fowler and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of companionship I would like to present my thesis which states: dogs make better companions than cats. It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate the following resolution which states: Resolved: Cats make better pets than dogs.

I agree with my opponent’s definitions of the words in this resolution; therefore I offer no further definitions to understand this statement. I will define my value of companionship which is defined by dictionary.com as: association as companions; fellowship.
My value is the superior value to be analyzed this resolution because companionship is much more wanted and needed than maintenance.
Now I would like to offer my three main reasons for arguing against this resolution:
Contention 1: Dogs are very friendly, are good companions, and show a lot of love, unlike cats who are very independent. Quote, “I think dogs are the most amazing creatures; they give unconditional love. For me they are the role model for being alive.” ~Gilda Radner
Contention 2: Dogs will come when you call them but cats won’t. Quote, “Dogs come when they're called; cats take a message and get back to you later.” ~Mary Bly
Contention 3: Dogs will be sad when they’re not with you, cats don’t care. Quote, “Man himself cannot express love and humility by external signs, as plainly as does a dog, when with dropping ears, hanging lips, flexuous body, and wagging tail, he meets his beloved master.” ~Charles Darwin

Now I would like to move on to address my opponent's arguments: Today I am going to look at three key areas of my opponent's case: I'll start by discussing her value, then I'll move on and discuss the problems I have with her arguments and then I'll highlight some errors in logic that she made in her historical applications.

When you said that your value was maintenance, I understand that we need to be able to maintain animals, but dogs are as easy to maintain as cats.

When you said that cats won’t meow to be let inside the house, and meow for attention, that’s wrong. I have two cats and if the want to be let out of the garage, they will stand at the garage door and meow until they are let out. Also another example, they will sit at the door from the garage into the house and meow for attention until we come and give them some.

When she gave her first contention, the quote that she gave to back it up had nothing to do with what she was talking about. She said that cats were easier to care for and then gave a quote saying that cats were more popular than dogs. Then on her 2nd and 3rd contentions, she didn’t give any kind of quotes or historical examples to back it up.

In her conclusion she said that make good indoor companions. That had nothing to do with her resolution! Also in her conclusion, when she said that cats make good indoor companions, not all cats are like that. Some cats will claw at you and scratch or hiss when you try to pick them up or cuddle them.

In summary, I would like the Judge to consider my thesis again, dogs make better companions than cats. I would like to close with a quote from Gene Hill who says, "Whoever said you can't buy happiness forgot about puppies."

Negative Case:

“If you want to be incrementally better: Be competitive. If you want to be exponentially better: Be cooperative.”

This quote comes from an unknown author. I use this quote to illustrate why my value of Community is a better value to help us evaluate this resolution. My name is Brayden Matthew Lauffer and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of Community I would like to present my thesis which states: That cooperation is the best way to achieve excellence when compared to competition. It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states: Resolved: That competition is superior to cooperation as a means of achieving excellence.
Before I move on to my arguments, I would like to offer an alternate definition of the word Cooperation, cooperation is defined by the Online Cambridge Dictionary as: To act or work together for a particular purpose, or to be helpful by doing what someone asks you to do. I believe my definition is a more practical and workable definition that is better suited to the true analysis of this resolution.
I will define my value of Community which is defined by The Online Cambridge Dictionary
as being: The people living in one particular area or people who are considered as a unit because of their common interests, social group or nationality.
My value is the superior value to analyze this resolution through because: Cooperation is the best way to achieve excellence when compared to competition.
Now I would like to offer my 2 main reasons for arguing against this resolution:

Contention 1: Community helps achieve excellence because everyone is working together for a common goal and helping one another in a community.

An example of this would be the Manhattan Project during WWII. The Allies put together an International Team of helpers and scientists to make the world’s first atomic bomb. No man could build an atomic bomb alone; many are needed to do their part in the project. It took about 600,000 people to complete the project, resulting in the world’s first atomic bomb.

Contention 2: Community uses each person’s resources to the best of their ability.

Everyone has a special talent. When you live or work in a community you may need help with something you are not good at, so you go and ask someone in your community to help. They might have a talent that you don’t!! This will bring his ability benefitting not only you but your community.

Now I would like to move on to address my opponents arguments:
Today I am going to look at two key areas of my opponents case: I'll start by discussing his value, then I'll move on and discuss the problems I have with his arguments.

The value from the affirmative case was motivation. Why is the value motivation the best value? There are negative motivations as well, such as greed and power. Being motivated for the wrong reason drags us further away from excellence. Here is a great from Sigmund Freud who says: “Human life in common is only made possible when a majority comes together which is stronger than any separate individual and which remains united against all separate individuals. The power of this community is then set up as ''right'' in opposition to the power of the individual, which is condemned as ''brute force.”

The first argument for affirming the resolution states: “A competitive society upholding motivation as their highest value causes citizens/employees to produce more efficiently, present more friendly, and professional service, and overall present a better job at work or where(place) ever you are, being motivated in competition with their rival or competitor.” I do not believe that the statement is true. I have found a great quote to counter it from Orison Swett Marden who says:
“No employer today is independent of those about him. He cannot succeed alone, no matter how great his ability or capital. Business today is more than ever a question of cooperation.”
I’d like to close with a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. who says:

“We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now.”

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” This great quote comes from Thomas Jefferson. I use this quote to illustrate why my value of democracy is a better value to help us evaluate this resolution. My name is Caleb Fountaine and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of democracy I would like to present my thesis which states: Comepetion achieves excellence for ones self, but cooperation achieves something never imagined before, for our not my benefit. It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states Resolved: Competition is superior to cooperation as a means of acheiving excellence.

(if you have an issue with any one or more of your opponent's defintions, you will say the following:)
Before I move on to my arguments, I would like to offer an alternate definition of the word cooperation. I believe my definition is a more practical and workable definition that is better suited to the true analysis of this resolution.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines cooperation as: An association of persons for mutual benefit.

I will define my value of democracy which is defined by American Heritage Dictionary
as being: Goverment by the people, excercised either directly or through elected representatives. .

My value is the superior value to analyze this resolution through because:
Democracy is the best form of cooperation, because it allows the people to rule under the control of government, keeping order and sanity. Democracy can achieve excellence more so than competition in the instance of a nation or team for mutual benefit. Now you might say when a team or nation is attempting to achieve excellence that that in it self is competition. The first time Thomas Edison attempted to create a light bulb did he have any competition? No, not with himself,(he hadn’t tried this before if it was the first time), this was a new idea, and the market wasn’t looking for a source of electrical light. Thus, no competition was present, but he did work with other people for mutual benefit (Cooperation). His success benefited you and I greatly.

Now I would like to offer my 3 main reasons for arguing against this resolution:

Contention 1: A single person cannot make up an entire sports team, but if they were to go against an entire sports team by themselves who would win? Cooperation is nessecary for achieving excellence in this very common setting. Would the US have sent men to the moon without cooperating with each other? Was it a singular effort?

Contention 2:“Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people”- Abraham Lincoln
Would you like a dictator or someone who hears the loudest voice? If your idea is not heard, but is the correct one, then it is your resposiblilty to make it heard!

Contention 3: The US is a democracy, the US is the most powerful nation in the world. The democracy idea was founded by the most brilliant men all around. You are living in a democracy, your nation is a living example of how successful a democracy is, were you happy with some of the presidents elected? You won’t win every toss, there is no perfect government, but democracy is certainly the most persuasive, and citizen centered government structure.

Now I would like to move on to address my opponents arguments:
Fore cast the key arguments you are going to make against your opponents case: (tell the judge briefly what the key issues are with your opponents arguments)
For example: Today I am going to look at three key areas of my opponents case: I'll start by discussing his value, then I'll move on and discuss the problems I have with his arguments and then I'll highlight some errors in logic that he made in his historical applications.

You said: “That Competition is the best way to achieve discipline compared to cooperation.”
Discipline is a way to achieve things, why would you compete to achieve discipline?; when discipline would be a way to be a great competitor. This statement isn’t logical, thus weakening its attempted point.

You ended with a quote from JFK. He was the first and only catholic us president, and was killed after 3/4 of his first term. Do you think that had to do with unpopular, failing, or otherwise stupid ideas or actions?

You only have only two main points, and they are very brief.

Your support for these two main points is very weak. (No variety, just two weak analogies)

I am going to take an excerpt from your case "One of our main goals in society today is to achieve discipline; we want to be more focused and superior than the person next to us. Its human nature, and when we try to do that, it forces us to be competitive, Therefore giving us more motivation to achieve discipline." If human nature is to be competitive and disciplined then why is that our goal to achieve?

Your thesis states that you need competition for discipline, but your conclusion states that discipline makes good competition. Which is the end and which is the means?

“The world's people all share the earnest aspiration to have peace, stability, justice and cooperation.”

This great quote comes from Tran Duc Luong.

Thank you I now stand ready for cross examination.

I use this quote to illustrate why my value of loyalty is a better value to help us evaluate this resolution.
Properly trained, a man can be dog's best friend. ~Corey Ford
My name is Taylor and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of loyalty I would like to present my thesis which states: Dogs are more loyal than cats and therefore make better pets. It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states: Resolved: Cats make better pets than dogs.
I agree with my opponents definitions of the words in this resolution and therefore I offer no further definitions to understand this statement.) I will define my value of loyalty which is defined by Dictionary.com as being the state or quality of being loyal; faithfulness to commitments or obligations.
My value is the superior value to analyze this resolution through because dogs are more loyal than cats, and obey you. Now I would like to offer my 2 main reasons for arguing against this resolution:
Contention 1: Dogs are faithful unlike cats and can help people because of their obedience, which comes from their loyalty. Dog help blind people get around and keep them from getting hit by a car or wandering away.
Contention 2: A dog can be a friend to someone who doesn’t have one. Dogs seem to understand when you talk to them, but a cat just ignores you.
Contention 3. A dog offers protection from people who try to hurt you.

Now I would like to move on to address my opponents arguments:
Cats have a litter box that smells really bad. You have to take it out all the time if you have an indoor cat. Cats scratch you and leave scars on your hands or other places. Cats do not have the personality that a dog has. A dog is a friend, a cat is a little ball of hair that rubs up against your legs.

I have a problem with my opponent’s value cleanliness. Cats are not cleaner than dogs. Most cats poop in your house, whereas dogs are polite enough to go outside. In order to poop in a litter box, a cat has to stand in a litter box. This means that they are standing where they went to the bathroom.

I ask that you would consider my value of loyalty over my opponent’s value cleanliness and grant me the negative ballot.

My Negative case for Competition vs, Cooperation

“Competition brings out the best in products and the worst in people,” is a quote by David Sarnoff which demonstrates that competition may help people earn money or profit, but it makes them enemies competing to get more of it that the other. I use this quote to illustrate why my value of excelling is a better value to help us evaluate this resolution.

My name is Kevin Darst and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of excellence I would like to present my thesis which states that excellence can be achieved through cooperation. It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states: Resolved: That competition is superior to cooperation as means of achieving excellence.

I agree with my opponent’s definitions of the words in this resolution therefore I offer no further definitions to understand this statement. I will define my value of excelling which is defined by Webster’s II as being the quality or state of excelling.

My value is the superior value to analyze this resolution through because success, my opponent’s value, is only possible through cooperation.
Now I would like to offer my 2 main reasons for arguing against this resolution:

Contention 1: Cooperation is not dangerous. For example, if people hadn’t competed against each other for land and food, then none of the wars would have happened. Also, if only competition existed, then people would always be fighting about who’s way is better, no peace treaties would be approved of, and there would be constant war. However, if only cooperation existed, then everyone would be able to have what they needed because people would always be helping each other.

Contention 2: Cooperation is the root of all competition. Did Orville and Wilbur build the Wright Flyer by competing and arguing about whose idea was better? Did the allied countries in WWII defeat Hitler by going their own ways? NO. There are countless examples of how cooperation is needed for competition. For example, the space race, I agree that competition motivated people to build a space craft, but I also know that none of it was possible without cooperation. It took the combined effort of hundreds of engineers, scientists, and workers to produce an efficient rocket.

Now I would like to move on to address my opponents arguments:
Forecast the key arguments you are going to make against your opponents case:
For example: Today I am going to look at three key areas of my opponents case: I'll start by discussing her value, then I'll move on and discuss the problems I have with her arguments and then I'll highlight some errors in logic that he made in his historical applications.

Argument 1: My opponent said, “If competition did not exist, then some of the modern day marvels would not exist.” I say that if everyone cooperated, then we would actually have more modern marvels today than we would if we all competed. For example, if Russia and the United States had been working together to get to space instead of competing, then it would have been accomplished much quicker, and today we might already have a base on the moon.
Argument 2: You said this, “Competition keeps us open minded to new ideas.” I agree, but I say that many of those ideas could be bad. If competitors are constantly looking for ways to defeat their foes, then they could come up with ideas that could eventually lead to death or destruction. For example, in WWII, both sides of the war were open-minded to create more destructive weapons than their enemy. Of course, that led to more death and destruction than there should have been. If both sides had cooperated and compromised, then those weapons would not have been invented.
Argument 3: Your definition, “The only competition worthy of a wise man is with himself,” promotes the idea of cooperation because it means that competition is only appropriate when you have it with yourself.

Therefore, competition is not superior to cooperation because competition brings out the worst in people, promotes war, helped make many modern marvels, and that cooperation is the root of competition. Judge, I ask you to please consider my points and grant a negative ballot.

I will finish with a quote from Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace.”

The dog was cold and in pain. But being only a dog it did not occur to him to trot off home to the comfort of the library fire and leave his master to fend for himself.
- Albert Terhune
I use this quote to illustrate why my value of loyalty is a better value to help us evaluate this resolution. My name is Justin Eisner and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of loyalty and companionship, I would like to present my thesis which states: Dogs make better pets than cats because they are loyal companions. It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states: Resolved: Cats make better pets than dogs..

I agree with my opponent’s definitions of the words in this resolution therefore I offer no further definitions to understand this statement.

I will define my value of companionship which is defined by onelook.com as being: association as companions; fellowship.

My value is the superior value to analyzed this resolution through because A friendship is based on loyalty.

Now I would like to offer my 3 main reasons for arguing against this resolution:

Contention 1: It’s obvious that dogs LIKE to be by your side. They are man’s best friend! My dog loved to be around the family. He hated when we were gone.

Contention 2: Dog’s can be a form of protection. They are loyal to you even in when you’re sleeping! Before alarm systems were invented many people owned a dog to keep out intruders and warn them when danger was near.

Contention 3: They can be trained to do what you tell them to. They can sit, go lay down, and come when called to. My dog would always do what I asked him. When company was over, he knew to go lay down.

Now I would like to move on to address my opponent’s arguments:

1. My opponent states and I quote: “Dogs need to be taken outside for exercise and to go to the bathroom, cats would be fine living in your apartment all their life, or being left in your house all weekend while your on vacation because they simply have a litter box.” It is true that dogs need to be taken out for exercise and for bathroom needs. But, it is an illegitimate argument to state that ‘cat’s can simply use the litter box’ because eventually that litter box will become filled and the cat will most likely do their business somewhere else.

2. My opponent says that cat’s don’t eat as much as dogs and you have to worry about the dog eating all the food and still being hungry. Well, with an automatic food dispenser you don’t have to worry about that!

3. There argument saying and I quote: “Cats do not require as much attention as dogs, dogs always want to be by your side.” Before you get a dog you should KNOW they require attention. Dogs are man’s best friend, so they obviously want to be by your side!

Therefore, dogs make better pets than cats because of there loyalty. A pet should not be judged on their ability to make life easier. They should be judged on there loyalty. Judge, I ask you to please consider my points and grant a negative ballot.

“Dogs are not our whole life, but they make our lives whole.”
-Roger Caras

I use this quote to illustrate why my value of loyalty is a better value to help us evaluate this resolution. My name is Michelle Buhler and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of loyalty I would like to present my thesis which states: dogs are more loyal than cats. It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states: Resolved: Cats make better pets than dogs.
I agree with my opponents definitions of the words in this resolution therefore I offer no further definitions to understand this statement. I will define my value of loyalty which is defined by allwords.com
as having faithfulness or devotion to some person, cause or nation.

My value is the superior value to analyze this resolution through because loyalty is a common adjective used to describe dogs but never cats.

Now I would like to offer my 3 main reasons for arguing against this resolution:
Contention 1: When i googled dogs save lives, i was inundated with many stories of dog heroism. one story from 2008 was about a dog named Bella,who jumped on her owners bed early Friday morning and started barking, and her owner then smelled smoke, and realized that the house was flaming with fire, so she grabbed her daughter and rushed out of the house. This was just one of many accounts of loyalty by dogs.

Contention 2: In 1975, my mom experienced the loyalty of her dog, Fluffy, she was 13 years old and walking down a street delivering papers in the frost-bitten air of Illinios. Her toes and fingers were frost-bitten and she kept walking hoping that her mom would find her and give her a ride home. Fluffy never left her side. Therefore if she had a cat in that situation it would never have loyally walked her home.

Contention 3: Society views dogs as a mans best friend and a loyal companion. This is easily proven in movies and on tv shows such as Lassie, Benji, and Because of Winn Dixie. Contrast these to the movies, That Darn Cat, The Cat in the Hat, and Cats and dogs. There's no loyal theme in these cat movies.

Now I would like to move on to address my opponents arguments:

My opponent stated and i quote: "Cats are usually litter box trained and therefore can go to the bathroom by themselves, where dogs have to be let outside and be leashed or fenced." but a lot of dog owners have doggie doors, which gives the dog freedom to use the restroom when needed.

My opponent said that cats groom themselves, however people do not realize that when cats walk on their litter box, their paws pick up a type of worms called Toxoplasmosis from their poop. Then when they scratch themselves with their paws and lick themselves, they are distributing germs all over their body and then humans pet them and receive those germs on their hands.

My opponent said, and I quote, "Cats get rid of rodents" but not ALL cats get rid of rodents some just sit there in amusement and watch the mouse travel along the floor. And rodents are NOT as prevalent as they were back in the 900's.

Therefore cats rarely do what you want them to do and when you get to the thought of how cats "clean" themselves you really realize that they have much germs on them. Dogs make better pets than cats because of their Loyalty. Judge, I ask you to please consider my points and grant a negative ballot.

“We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now.” Martin Luther King Jr. I use this quote to illustrate why my value of Morality is a better value to help us evaluate this resolution.
My name is Alex Brown and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of Morality, I would like to present my thesis which states: A cooperating society is a more moral society. It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states: Resolved: Competition is better than cooperation as a means of achieving excellence.


Before I move on to my arguments, I would like to offer an alternate definition of the word/ words??
<Competition is defined as: a contest between two or more parties for some prize, honor, or advantage.>

<Superior is defined as: higher in station, rank, degree, importance or quality.>

<Cooperation is defined as: an act or instance of working or acting together for a common purpose or benefit.>

<Achieving is defined as: attaining a goal by effort.>

<Excellence is defined as: the fact or state of excelling.>

I believe my definition is a more practical and workable definition that is better suited to the true analysis of this resolution.

<<If you agree with your opponent's definitions then you simply state: I agree with my opponents definitions of the words in this resolution therefore I offer no further definitions to understand this statement. >>


I will define my value of Morality which is defined by Dictionary.com as being: The rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
My value is the superior value to analyze this resolution through because: My value is an important value because a moral society is what God intended for us.
Now I would like to offer my 3 main reasons for arguing against this resolution.

Point 1: Cooperation helps the underdog get on his feet. Let me give you a real life example: A young man walks into a job interview. He is smart, and talented, yet he is a poor man and can’t buy a good suit. He has a good interview, he thinks. The man after him isn’t as good as him but has some money, and can afford a nice suit. The employer hires him because of the nice outfit. This helps me say my point. Cooperation would have helped that man get a job. People on the bottom of society have no way to get up and it is moral to help them up.

Point 2: Cooperation creates a more civilized society. Competition is a more barbaric way to run a society then cooperation. This can be proven by looking at history. As my opponent said, the Romans were a civilized society and the barbarian tribes were not. The Romans got this way by being cooperative, the tribes by competing.

Point 3: Competition makes some a little better but most a lot worse. With competition some people are better maybe 12% but 12% isn’t much. Most people are stepped on to let the others get up. That is not a moral society.

Now I would like to move on to address my opponent’s arguments:

Case: Today I am going to look at 3 key areas of my opponent’s case: His opening quote, his second contention, and, most important, his value of “Quality of Life” is trumped by my value of Morality

1. His opening quote “In fact, you could argue that the biggest contributor to the peace process in recent years has been the opportunity for both communities to earn a decent living. After all, that's what many such struggles come down to in the end, a competition for resources.’ This great quote comes from Niall McKay.” Niall McKay has no specialty in this field. I do not believe that he is a reliable source.

2. His second contention said: “people are much more happy and peaceful when they live in luxury” I do not believe that all life is about living in luxury and money. There are more important things then that. Luxury is not a bad thing at all yet is morality not more important? It is better to look out for others than to try and live in luxury.

3. His value of “Quality of Life” is trumped by my value of morality. Quality of life is a fine value, but that is a rather selfish thing we don’t want just our selves to be happy but everyone.


I would like to conclude with a brief summary of what I have said. Competition is not superior to cooperation, because Cooperation helps the underdog get on his feet, Cooperation creates a more civilized society, Competition makes some a little better but most a lot worse.


Closing Quote (if time allows) "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" By the Great Latin Philosopher Aristotle.


I believe this is my final draft.

“if competition is the main focus, it can become a training ground for attitudes and behaviors that are counter to the heart of Christ” this great quote comes from Lisa Kays who is on the NCFCA board of directors and is the Region 8 coordinator I use this quote to illustrate why my value of motivation is a better value to help us evaluate this resolution. My name is justin hartman and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of motivation I would like to present my thesis which states people are stronger and can achieve better things by working together It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states: Resolved: competition is superior to cooperation as a means of achieving excellence I agree with all my opponents definitions I will define my value of motivation which is defined by google definitions
as being the psychological feature that arouses an organism to action toward a desired goal; the reason for the action; that which gives purpose .
My value is the superior value to analyzed this resolution through because without it you cant do anything why do we do school work if not being motivated to get to a higher level of knowledge
Now I would like to offer my 2 main reasons for arguing against this resolution:
Contention 1 without motivation you have nothing you would have a bunch of people sitting around doing nothing so let me ask you how would that help achieve excellence?
Contention 2 society is built around motivation and without motivation you couldn't have cooperation Now I would like to move on to address my opponents arguments:
you said Competition provides motivation to succeed. Competition rewards the successful with victory well I would like to point out what happens to the unsuccessful? and is it not motivation that makes competition possible not the other way around?
For example: Today I am going to look at a key area in my opponents case: I'll be discussing his value, then I'll move on and discuss the problems I have with his arguments and then I'll highlight some errors Prosperity what is it other then another name for everyone getting rich he said for over all success in society well let me ask you something if were all successful then is anyone really successful? Google defines successful as having succeeded or being marked by a favorable outcome well succeeding is getting ahead well if we all succeed then who is getting ahead no one is.
And as for my components quote it came from phelps adams and I would like to point out he is a writer for a news paper what does he know of these things?
So to sum up I would to point out with out motivation we have no want to succeed and as Margaret Mead put it “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.” thank you I would urge the juge to vote for the negetive

Johanne Wolfgang Von Goethe, a German novelist, dramatist and poet said:
Let everyone sweep in front of his own door, and the whole world will be clean.

In 2008 the China Customs and Foreign Customs decided to cooperate in trying to stop drug trafficking since neither was making headway by themselves. Since the start in 2008, many criminals on the run have been caught, about 495 drug trafficking cases brought to justice, and over 314 pounds of drugs have been confiscated.
– General information from: All Business D&B company

I have presented this example to show how PROGRESS is a superior value for this debate round. In my example All Business shows how when cooperation is used, even on a smaller scale as shown, great progress can be made. China and the Foreign customs cooperated by ‘sweeping their doorsteps’ to make that area a cleaner and more drug free place. Hello, my name is Lydia Poisson and I will be your negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and the affirmative speaker for being here today. Because I support my value of progress, I would like to resent my thesis which states: To achieve progress cooperation should be used as opposed to competition. It is with this thesis that I will negate the resolution which states: RESOLVED: Competition is superior to cooperation as a means of achieving excellence.

I agree with my opponent’s definitions, but I would like to define my value of progress:
PROGRESS: a movement toward a goal or to a further or higher stage. (Random House Dictionary)

My value is the superior value to analyze this resolution through because little can be achieved without progress, progress is achievement.

Now I will offer my 3 main points:
1. Cooperation can help the entire world progress. If everyone always tried to do everything on their own, what would get done? Cooperation helps us as a whole strive in a direction that can benefit all involved.
2. Cooperation achieves goals faster, better, and more efficiently. When people cooperate, things get done with such better form and efficiency than one could do by themselves. For example, some family friends of mine love sending out their Christmas cards every year. But it is a big ordeal, the dad stuffs the envelopes, the daughter seals them, and the mom stamps and addresses them. Think about how much longer it would take, and how much more tedious and tiring it would be for one of them to do it by themselves; and chances are they would get tired and the work would get sloppy like sending two cards to the same address. While this is on a very small scale when you compare it to global actions, the concept is the same.
3. Cooperation jumpstarts progress by multiplying the ideas by all those involved.

In conclusion, cooperation helps global advancement, cooperation boosts the competence and efficiency of reaching goals, and finally, cooperation expands the pool of ideas, thoughts, and resources. I will end with this quote from that says . Thank you and I now stand ready for cross-examination.

Introduction: Start with a HOOK. (something to get your judges attention)
• Quote “__<insert quote>___” This great quote comes from _<insert source of quote>_.
or
• <insert a short story or historical example> I use this story to illustrate _<insert why this story makes a point>_.My name is Josh Lawson and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and negative speaker for being here today. My value for this round will be Morality, and for the purpose of supporting this value I present my thesis which is “Cooperation does a better job of achieving moral excellence.” In this case I will demonstrate that my value morality negates the resolution which states: Competition is superior to cooperation as a means of achieving excellence. I am going to define a few of the key words in this resolution to ensure that we all understand what this resolution means. I present these definitions as the standard for which you can further understand this debate. Morality: being in accord with the principles or standards of right conduct; virtue (Webster’s New World dictionary 2nd edition). Accountability: The state of being liable to answer for one’s conduct (“American dictionary of the English language” Noah Webster 1928). I agree with my opponents definitions. My value is the most important value in this debate round because: Cooperation does a better job of achieving moral excellence.
As the negative speaker in today’s debate round, I will use this thesis to negate the resolution. In order to win this debate I will show how my value is the most important value to consider when deciding on this resolution. I will show this with my two main points.
Before I move onto my contentions let me first explain why my value is the most important value to consider: In order to bring a concrete understanding of how we achieve morality in our society, I would like to offer a criterion or method of achieving my value. This method is accountability. Defined as Accountability: The state of being liable to answer for one’s conduct (“American dictionary of the English language” Noah Webster 1928). In a just society there must be accountability to ensure that people are treated fairly. We must work together cooperatively in order to ensure that hard work achieves positive outcomes for all. My first argument explaining why my value requires us to affirm this resolution is:
1. There needs to be a balance between cooperation and competition in order to achieve excellence. then offer historical examples, analogies, personal insight, or quotations to support this point.
2. The other point I am arguing is that cooperation does a better job of achieving moral excellence. We are accountable to other people as we live our lives in society. We must hold morality as our goal and keep the golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” if we are to guarantee that our hard work and effort is going to result in a positive or moral outcome.

My opponent has a value of hard work. I need to point out that hard work does not always have moral or positive outcomes. For this reason, my value of morality must be upheld as the supreme value in this debate round.
Now I’d like to examine my opponent’s key argument. He says that hard work draws out the greatest success. However, this isn’t always true if morality isn’t held as the highest standard for achieving a truly good excellence.
His second point is that going with the flow only yields what life gives you. It seems as if my opponent is trying to redefine cooperation as the process of giving in. This does not correspond with his original definition of cooperation which states: Cooperation equals the act of cooperating; joint effort or operation.

In all the stories my opponent gave today, none of them would have occurred if people were not cooperating at some level. Furthermore, if morality wasn’t upheld, then some of those stories may have ended with negative results.

Thank you, I now stand ready for cross examination.

"Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships." Michael Jordan once said.

I use this quote to illustrate why my value of Synergy is a better value to help us evaluate this resolution. My name is Katelyn Soderlund and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of Synergy. I would like to present my thesis which states: Cooperation is better then competition. It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states: Resolved: Cooperation is superior to competition as a means of achieving excellence.
Before I move on to my arguments, I would like to offer an alternate definition of the words competition, cooperation, excellence.
Competition is defined by Dictionary.com as “the act of competing; rivalry for supremacy, a prize, etc.”
Cooperation is defined by Dictionary.com as “an act or instance of working or acting together for a common purpose or benefit; joint action.”
Excellence is defined by Dictionary.com as “the fact or state of excelling; superiority; eminence”
I believe my definition is a more practical and workable definition that is better suited to the true analysis of this resolution.
I will define my value of Synergy which is defined by Dictionary.com
as “the interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects.”

My value is the superior value to analyze this resolution, because synergy is a true reflection of all that cooperation is and can be, and by definition demonstrates its superiority over competition.

Now I would like to offer my 3 main reasons for arguing against this resolution:

1: You can accomplish more working as a team the each person working individually. "No one can whistle a symphony. It takes an orchestra to play it." This awesome quote comes from H.E. Luccock. 2: A team functioning together can offer a superior product than a number of individuals working alone. No employer today is independent of those about him. He cannot succeed alone, no matter how great his ability or capitol. Business today is more than ever a question of cooperation.

3. Cooperation is illustrated throughout the scriptures. The apostles worked together in spreading the gospel. Look at how many Christians there are today!
Now I would like to move on to address my opponents arguments:
For example: Today I am going to look at three key areas of my opponents case: I'll start by discussing his value, then I'll move on and discuss the problems I have with his arguments and then I'll highlight some errors in logic that he made in his historical applications.

“Only strength can cooperate. Weakness can only beg.”
This notable quote comes from our 34 president, Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Thank you, I now stand ready for cross examination.

Jeremy Adams



"There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face." - Ben Williams I use this quote to illustrate why my value of service is a better value to help us evaluate this resolution. My name is Jeremy Adams and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of service I would like to present my thesis which states: Canines provide many services to humans. It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states: Resolved: Cats make better pets than dogs.

I agree with my opponents definitions of the words in this resolution therefore I offer no further definitions to understand this statement. I will define my value of Service which is defined by Webster's New Compact Dictionary and Roget's Thesaurus as: "Activity in behalf of a person, organization or cause."

My value is the superior value to be analyzed in this resolution because dogs provide many services.
Now I would like to offer my reasons for arguing against this resolution: Cats make better pets than dogs
Contention 1: Search and rescue dogs use their hunting instincts along with their superior sense of smell to search for survivors in accidents or lost children. Cats very own instincts and sense of independence keep them from becoming Search and Rescue animals. They are too independent to find a person in trouble and report his position. Dogs use there instincts and skills developed through thousands of years of breeding to search for these people.
Contention 2: Guide dogs serve as navigational aids for the blind or those with vision impairments. Some dogs are trained to use their ears for their masters. Without there dogs to serve as navigation, most people would have a extremely hard time going across the street, going to the store or a big variety of things. A cat couldn't help there owners cross the street or move down a sidewalk. They are so independent they cannot retain a sense of where their master is.
Contention 3: Law Enforcement dogs are trained to serve in various duties from drug and bomb sniffing to pursuing and restraining criminals. Cats also lack the proper skill to sniff out drugs and bombs and physical abilities to restrain criminals.


Today I am going to look at three key areas of my opponents case: I'll start by discussing his value, then I'll move on and discuss the problems I have with his arguments and then I'll highlight some errors in logic that he made in his historical applications.

My opponent made the value statement of:
"... In society today, people's lives are not centered on their pets, pets must compliment and enhance their owners' lives."

This argument is subjective and not backed up by facts. The AKC sanctions over 15,000 dog shows a year. Tens of thousands of people participate in these events. And most certainly their lives are centered around there pets. This argument completely discounts persons involved in any form of pet business and those individuals whose lives revolve around there pets.


My opponent also said:
"...cat owners can even leave for several days and their cats will be fine unattended. Clearly, cats live very independently."

This simply isn't true. There is no facts to back up this point. As an small business owner, of J&K Pet Sitting, I can assure
you that none of our clients would allow us to leave cats unattended for days.

My oponent also said:
"Dogs must be fed by their owners and are not known for their rat and mice catching skills."

My opponent is inaccurate is his assessment of a canines ability to hunt and eliminate ground prey. As proved by the earthdog competitions held by AKC clubs all over the US.
Further information can be found here; http://www.akc.org/events/earthdog/index.cfm

And as a summarization my opponent said:
"...Cats are very good at catching rats and mice."
While true, this is hardly an argument helping prove the case that cats are better than dogs since dogs have hunted everything from mice to wolves to elk and even hunting lions (aka-cats)


In summery I would like the judge to consider my main points that dogs are better than cats because of their service to the human race.


Is this the right speech? I thought I posted this. I guess it didn't send when I clicked send.

Dogs are amazing animals every year they perform amazing feats for people. In 2007 a man was leaving his house at night and was attacked by a bear. His dog, named “Dude”, jumped between them and fought the bear off. The dog was a true hero, and gave up his life for his owner. I use this story to illustrate why my value loyalty is a better value to help us evaluate this resolution. My name is Anna Lawson and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of loyalty I would like to present my thesis which states: Dogs are more loyal to their owner than cats. It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states: Resolved: Cats make better pets than dogs.

I agree with my opponent definitions of the words in this resolution therefore I offer no further definitions to understand this statement. I will define my value of loyalty which is defined by Webster’s New World Dictionary as being faithful to certain persons.

My value is the superior value to analyze this resolution because dogs are more loyal than cats and obey your orders.

Now I would like to offer my 2 main reasons for arguing against this resolution:

Contention 1: Dogs protect you even if it costs them their life. As I pointed out in my opening story when Dude died protecting his owner from the bear’s attack.

Contention 2: Dogs show loyalty by helping you in your time of need. A golden retriever named Toby saved his owner who was choking on a piece of apple. When she started choking, she tried to beat on her own chest, but she couldn’t get the piece of apple out of her throat. Toby pushed her to the ground and began jumping up and down on her chest until the piece of apple was dislodged. This story also happened in 2007.

Now I would like to move on to address my opponents arguments:

Today I am going to look at three key areas of my opponents case: I'll start by discussing their value, then I'll discuss the problems I have with their arguments
My value loyalty is better than my opponent's value silence because dogs are loyal enough to wake you up or alert you if they think something is wrong or that you are in danger.
I agree with my opponent’s contention that dogs do bark loudly” but it can be beneficial to warn you of impending danger.
I disagree with my opponent’s contention that cats sleep when you do dogs don’t. Quoting from the website: Perfect Paws “Nighttime activities are the norm for nocturnal animals such as cats, given the choice, a cat would sleep all day long and then about eight or nine in the evening , she would get up stretch, scratch, and go about the business of being a cat.”

In summary, I would like the judge to consider my thesis that dogs are more loyal to their owners than cats. “The disposition of noble dogs is to be gentle with people they know and the opposite with those they don’t know… “These words were spoken by Plato.

Negative Case:

Competition has been shown to be useful up to a certain point and no further, but cooperation, which is the thing we must strive for today, begins where competition leaves off.

This amazing quote comes from Franklin D. Roosevelt. I use this quote to illustrate why my value of Community is a better value to help us evaluate this resolution. My name is Brayden Matthew Lauffer and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of Community I would like to present my thesis which states: That when we cooperate in a community it is the best way to achieve excellence when compared to competition. It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states: Resolved: That competition is superior to cooperation as a means of achieving excellence.
Before I move on to my arguments, I would like to offer an alternate definition of the word Cooperation.

Cooperation is defined by the Online Cambridge Dictionary as: To act or work together for a particular purpose, or to be helpful by doing what someone asks you to do. I believe my definition is a more practical and workable definition that is better suited to the true analysis of this resolution.

I will define my value of Community which is defined by The Online Cambridge Dictionary as being: The people living in one particular area or people who are considered as a unit because of their common interests, social group or nationality.

My value is the superior value to analyze this resolution through because: That when we cooperate in a community it is the best way to achieve excellence compared to competition. Before I move on to my contentions I would like to offer some support for my value community. A time when community was needed most was the Great Depression. Neighbors from their community gathered together regularly to help each other with different tasks, These tasks could range as far from cleaning clothes, to harvesting what corn the people had. This was a great time for people to talk and forget about the Great Depression. And through this organizations sprung up like the WPA or the Work Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corp. And through community and cooperation we survived and got out of the Great Depression.

Now I would like to offer my 2 main reasons for arguing against this resolution:

State point 1: Community helps achieve excellence because everyone is working together for a common goal and helping one another in a community.

An example of this would be the Manhattan Project during WWII. The Allies put together a team of helpers and scientists to make the world’s first atomic bomb. No man could build an atomic bomb alone; many are needed to do their part in the project. It took about 600,000 people to complete the project, resulting in the world’s first atomic bomb.

State point 2: Community uses each person’s resources to the best of their ability.

Everyone has a special talent. When you live or work in a community you may need help with something you are not good at, so you go and ask someone in your community to help. They might have a talent that you don’t!! This will bring his ability benefitting not only you but your community.

Now I would like to move on to address my opponents arguments:
Today I am going to look at three key areas of my opponents case: I'll start by discussing his value, then I'll move on and discuss the problems with his logic, and state the problems with his arguments I have with his arguments.

The value from the affirmative case was motivation. Why is the value motivation the best value? There are negative motivations as well, such as greed and power. Being motivated for the wrong reason drags us farther away from excellence.

You said in your support for your value: “My value is the most important value in this debate round because: Society is nothing without competition, competition is nothing without motivation. The two are inseparable like life and breathe,” but then in your contentions you said: “Competition is something that every human has, motivation is not…” These two statements contradict each other… If they are inseparable then why do some people not have motivation? These statements are not logical.

The first argument for affirming the resolution states: “A competitive society upholding motivation as their highest value causes citizens/employees to produce more efficiently, present more friendly, and professional service, and overall present a better job at work or where(place) ever you are, being motivated in competition with their rival or competitor.” I do not believe that the statement is true. I have found a great quote to counter it from Orison Swett Marden who says:
“No employer today is independent of those about him. He cannot succeed alone, no matter how great his ability or capital. Business today is more than ever a question of cooperation.” This is very true. In order to run a good business you need cooperation… Yes understand that there might be some competition in there to, but in most cases there is more cooperation going on than competition. Just like Franklin D. Roosevelt said.

In point one you said “If 10 children were challenged with a reading competition the more motivated children would win. Motivation applied in competition is a sharp edge in which the weaker unmotivated opponent is attacked and devoured.” What if the weaker unmotivated children were to join together to help each other and to encourage everyone in their reading group, they would all have a better chance at excelling because they our all supporting one another. Here is a quote to back this statement by Sigmund Freud who says: “Human life in common is only made possible when a majority comes together which is stronger than any separate individual and which remains united against all separate individuals. The power of this community is then set up as ''right'' in opposition to the power of the individual, which is condemned as ''brute force.'' This quote is exactly the point I am trying to get across. In World War II the nations that defied Hitler’s and Germany’s ideas came together to form the strong Allies. Only when the Allies came together did Hitler realize they could not stand alone. He asked Japan and Italy for help. They accepted and together form the Axis. These were to cooperative groups; both realized they could not stand by themselves therefore making alliances to help them win the war. I’d like to close with a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. who says:

“We may have all come on different ships, but we're in the same boat now.”

Non cooperative approaches . . . almost always involve duplication of effort, since someone working independently must spend time and skills on problems that already have been encountered and overcome by someone else. A technical hitch, for example, is more likely to be solved quickly and imaginatively if scientists (including scientists from different countries) pool their talents rather than compete against one another.

I use this quote to illustrate why my value of achieving excellence is the better value to help us evaluate this resolution. My name is Ty Grice and I am the negative speaker for this round I would like to thank the judge, timer and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of achieving excellence I would like to present my thesis which states, Cooperation brings harmony and excellence. It is through this thesis and the following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states: Resolved: Competition is better than cooperation as a means of achieving excellence. I agree with my opponents definitions of the words of this resolution therefore I offer no other definitions to understand this statement. I will define my value of harmony which is defined by Blacks law as living together harmoniously or getting along well together; in the way I am using it In agreement. My value is the superior to analyze this resolution because, Cooperation brings harmony and harmony achieves excellence . Now I would like to offer my three main points for arguing this resolution,

Contention 1. Competition brings separation. In war states disagree and cause suffering war grief sadness and even death to scared Americans forever and caused millions of broken homes and even destroys both countries what do you get out of that. in world war 2 hither It is reported that Hitler killed 11 Million people. About 7 million Jews and 6 million others were killed in extermination and concentration camps and competition in mass open-air shootings.

But is not that what we all are still doing to day with war? millions of dollars are spent on bombs instead of are people killing instead of achieving excellence is that what we want?

Contention 2. Working together achieves excellence. “ Untied we stand divided we fall.” - Aesop. with all countries working together you cannot fall unless one uses competition

Contention 3. If we Always aim at complete harmony of thought and word and deed. and aim at purifying your thoughts then everything will be well.
Mohandas Gandhi

Contention 4. not to mention in economy wouldn't you gain more money by stores cooperating to offer low prices for the people and all the people working there would help each other and help you and people will donate for there business

Now I would like to address my opponents arguments. my opponent says Taste the relish in competition in having put forth the best within you.
yet competition does that till death they don't care how many they kill to achieve excellence but you cant achieve true excellence. by death and stepping on heads to get up and that is not best. as example Define your enemy and crush him,” some advocate today. “Rip them up, tear them up,” goes the cheerleader’s chant at football games. That attitude leads to trying to win at all cost, the results of which fill the sports news each day. Baseball players, and other athletes, put all kinds of chemicals in their bodies, with unknown long–term side–effects, so they can hit a ball further or pedal a bicycle faster. A girls’ high school basketball coach in Texas has his players run up the score against their less–skilled opponents, eventually beating them
100–0. A football player chooses to launch himself at an opponent, tensing his body up and using it as a weapon, in the hopes of “sending
a message.” Ryan Clark, a member of the Super Bowl–winning Steelers team, did just that against Ravens receiver Willis McGahee in the AFC championship game in January. Clark later said, “The biggest thing I’m
proud of is not flinching. You get to the point of attack and you have to have the mentality of ‘It’s me or you. One of us has to go
down.’…there was a point when I could have stopped and waited and tried to tackle him. But sad to say I just closed my eyes and said, ‘I’ll
wake up when I hit the ground.’” The players collided helmet to helmet, and were both knocked out in the play. McGahee had to be stretchered off the field and hospitalized.

I would like the judge to consider a chord of 3 strands is not easily broken

Barack Obama This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands.

I now stand ready for cross examination

For the strength of the pack is the wolf and the strength of the wolf is the pack. This quote is by Rudyard Kipling. I use this quote to illustrate why my value of strength is a better value to help us evaluate this resolution. My name is Madeline Eck and I am the negative speaker in this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of strength I would like to present my thesis which states: Cooperation builds strengths, competition divides them. It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states: Resolved: Cooperation is superior to competition as a means of achieving exellence. Before I move on to my arguments I would like to offer another defintion for the word achieving. The Websters New World College dictonary defines achieving as: to bring about a desired result; success. Because of strength, there is success. I believe my definition is a more practical and workable definition that is better suited to the true analysis of this resolution. I will define my value of strength which is defined by the Websters New World College Dictionary as a force as measured in numbers. My value is the better value to analyse this resolution through because people have more strength when united which is the key to cooperation. Now I would like to offer my three main points.

1. In competition, strengths are divided thus weakening them In cooperation everyones strengths are combined which leads to success. For example the United States Milatary is the strongest, most powerful in the world because of the combined forces of the Navy, Airforce, Army, Marines and the Coastguard. If these forces combated against our enemies as individual units operating independently of one other our military would be greatly weakened and useless.

2. Strength in numbers is persuasive in a joint effort or operation. I have an Aunt who just hiked the appalachian trail from March 2009-September2009. She carried her tent and all of her supplies on her back. It was a very rigorous and treacherous seven months. She was with two friends of hers and because there were three of them they were able to to encourage each other to keep going when one wanted to quit. They each took turns carrying essential but heavy items they needed to survive. They all ended up accomplishing far and beyond what they felt they were capable of achieving. If they had been alone and instead, racing each other to the top, the two people in second and third place might have given up missing out on completing a life long dream.

3. Strength empowers, creating loyalty and supportiveness. When a sports team plays on their home field they feel motivated and strengthened when all their fans and family are there to support them, and more often than not, end up winning. This is why it is called a home team advantage.

In summary cooperation is superior to competition because cooperation combines people's strengths, motivates and persuades the weak to out perform beyond what they believe they are capable of and finally, unifies by supporting a strong teamlike atmosphere. I would like the judge to consider these main points. I'll close with a quote from
Alexander Grahm Bell who says... Great discoveries and improvments invariably involve the COOPERATION of many minds. I may be given credit for having blazed the trail, but when I look at the subsequent developments I feel the credit is due to others rather than myself."
Thank you, I now stand ready for cross examination.

“No animal I know of can consistently be more of a friend and companion than a dog.”
Stanley Leinwoll

I use this quote to illustrate why my value of companionship is a better value to help us evaluate this resolution. My name is Ryan McAllister and I am the negative speaker for this debate round. I would like to thank the judge, timer, and my opponent for being here today. As I support my value of companionship I would like to present my thesis which states: dogs make better companions than cats. It is through this thesis and my following arguments that I will negate the resolution which states: Resolved: cats make better pets than dogs.
I agree with my opponent's definitions of the words in this resolution. I would like to offer two additional relevant definitions. "Better" is defined as more desirable, satisfactory, or effective. (Oxford English Dictionary) "Pet" is defined as an animal kept for amusement or companionship. (American Heritage Dictionary) My value of companionship is defined as "fellowship." (American Heritage Dictionary)

My value is the superior value to analyzed this resolution because the main reason for having a pet is for companionship.

Now I would like to offer my 2 main reasons for arguing against this resolution:

Contention 1: Cats are independent animals and do not socialize with you. When you visit a friend with a pet dog, the dog greets you enthusiastically at the door. If your friend has a cat, you can stay for your entire visit and the cat never comes out of its hiding place. My dog, Minnie, for example, constantly wants to be around me and my friends. If I close my room door, Minnie will scratch at the door and cry until I let her in. My friend's grandmother has a cat that when you come to visit, it will run and hide. If you try to find it, it will attack you. Cats are obviously not as companionable as dogs. And a pet, by definition, is kept for companionship.

Contention 2: Cats do not play with their owners. Dogs love to play fetch or catch the frisbee with you. Dogs like to run and walk with you too. "If a dog jumps in your lap, it is because he is fond of you; but if a cat does the same thing, it is because your lap is warmer." - Alfred North Whitehead. As you can see, dogs show their love for their owners and offer great companionship; while cats are only friendly if and when it suits their purposes.

Now I would like to move on to address my opponents arguments that dogs are disruptive and destructive, dogs embarrass their owners and dogs whine to go outside. I'll start by discussing his contention, then I'll move on and discuss the problems I have with his arguments and highlight some errors in logic that he made.

My opponent claims that dogs are disruptive and destructive. He does not mention that cats scratch the furniture, shed hair on your clothes and furniture and kill birds and mice and leave them on the doorstep for you to clean up. Dogs do not wake you up in the middle of the night unless something is very wrong. Dogs are great watchdogs--you never hear of cats being great "watch cats." Cats are nocturnal animals and are much more likely to disturb you or your neighbors with cat fights and nighttime wanderings than dogs.

My opponent states that dogs embarrass their owners by barking and licking their hindquarters. On the contrary, dogs can be trained not to bark at friends. Further, most dogs do not bark at their reflections after they have grown out of puppyhood. In fact, cats spend much more time grooming themselves than dogs. In addition, cats embarrass their owners much more often by jumping up on the kitchen counters and tables and trying to eat the food. Also, cats track litter box gravel through the house--very embarrassing!

My opponent's final argument is that cats don't whine to go outside to do their business, but use the indoor litterbox. I ask you, which is better--animal waste inside your house or outside? Dogs have the decency to do their business outside and not inside where you spend most of your time.

In summary I would like the Judge to consider my thesis again: That dogs make better companions than cats.


“He is your friend, your partner, your defender, your dog. You are his life, his love, his leader. He will be yours, faithful and true, to the last beat of his heart.”
Unknown