LD Debate: Writing both Pros and Cons

[Tree Frog]

When I compete In LD debate we have to prepare both a Aff and Neg for the resolution. I used to have little problem with this until the topics started conflicting with my beliefs. What I mean by this is, the topics have become the question of Pro-state or Anti-State. The most recent resolution I had uphold was, "Oppressive government is more desirable then no government." It was extremely difficult for a Voluntaryist  to write an Affirmative stance on Oppressive government. I kept negating my own arguments before I could even get them down on paper. Thankfully I was chosen to take the Negative stance for this debate.

 

I understand intellectual value of writing both cases, and I have actually learned a lot from comparing conflicting ideas... However, debating topics such as my previous one are very difficult because of my stance. 

 

Does anyone have any helpful case writing techniques for taking statist stances? 

[Brentb]

At first I was going to answer that it's good to always be looking for ways to prove wrong what you believe so that you're constantly verifying it. 

 

However, after a closer look at that argument statement, it's just too stupid to debate. The statement is a contradiction of itself by saying that "oppression" could be "desirable". It's like saying:

 

"Violent gut-wrenching poison is more desirable than no poison." 

 

I can see how it would be difficult to debate that. 

[J-William]

 

Have you listened to any podcasts where Stef debates the other side of religion or... he probably did statism as well.

 

It can be tough, but getting in the head of your opponent is a useful skill.

 

I'm sure you know all the statist arguments by heart, so why not just recite those? You could probably put an interesting spin on it.... say that bikers with chains will eat babies if the state goes away. I mean LD debates aren't about facts, so just talk about hypotheticals.

 

it's all gravy