If you have been on the internet much at all recently, you have probably heard of the new AI, Chat GPT. It’s known for being able to produce text that follows remarkably specific criteria in a matter of seconds based on prompts that anyone could write, such as “write a rap about oranges.” Knowing this made me wonder if I could get it to write me a reasonable debate case for the negative side of this year’s NCFCA resolution that I would actually be okay running in a tournament.

What’s the point?

Before I get into how I got it to write me a neg case, I want to talk a bit about the uses for an AI-written neg case. I wouldn’t recommend running a debate case written by Chat GPT for a couple reasons. First is I believe, and this endeavor has confirmed, that the cases written by Chat GPT will never be quite as good as the debate cases you write for yourself since you have a greater ability to write, tweak and create the best debate case in the context of the arguments being run in your region. Second is by using Chat GPT you are losing out on all the writing, research and critical thinking skills gained by writing the case yourself, rendering debate to be a far less beneficial use of your time. Third is Chat GPT is known for presenting information that is often riddled with inaccuracies and so to run a case written by Chat GPT without verifying all the facts for yourself would be irresponsible and unethical. But having a case available at your fingertips in seconds does provide a few other benefits:

1. Evidence collecting

While it takes a bit of effort to get Chat GPT to come up with much in the way of evidence in its cases, with the right prompt, Chat GPT can provide numerous relevant sources for the topic and show how you can use them in a debate case. Note please go to the original source Chat GPT references, not Chat GPT’s summary. (Edit: I’ve noticed some comments pointing out that sometimes Chat GPT makes up sources that don’t actually exist so be prepared to run into a few dead ends if you are using it to find sources)

2. Argument ideas

Chat GPT can come up with all kinds of arguments within seconds, and while I find that many of these arguments aren’t quite as good as the arguments of a skilled debater at the end of a season, they are a fantastic starting point when trying to figure out what kinds of arguments are out there and which ones you may want to use in your debate case.

3. Rebuttal practice

The best way to get better at rebuttals is practice, but for a while, most people’s ability to practice rebuttals was limited by their ability to find people to debate or people who would share their case, but Chat GPT changes this by allowing you to get cases to practice rebutting in seconds. And you can just regenerate the response every time you want a new case.

Attempt 1

For my first attempt I started off with a pretty basic prompt:

“Write a Lincoln Douglas style negative constructive for the resolution “The individuals right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community”

And I got this response:

“Introduction

I negate the resolution “The individual’s right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community” on the grounds that it is not only impractical but also unjustifiable to prioritize individual property rights over the economic well-being of the community. In this constructive, I will establish that the economic interest of the community should be given precedence over individual property rights.

Contention 1: Economic well-being of the community is essential for its survival

The economic interest of the community is a critical component of its survival, and therefore it should be given precedence over individual property rights. A strong economy is vital for the community’s growth, job creation, and increased standards of living. The community’s economic interests should be valued as they directly impact its overall well-being. This argument establishes that prioritizing the individual’s right to property over the economic interest of the community is impractical, as it would harm the community’s economic growth.

Contention 2: Community benefits should be prioritized over individual interests

Individual property rights are crucial, but they should not be prioritized over the greater community’s interests. The community’s economic growth and overall prosperity are essential, and the benefits of such growth should not be sacrificed for individual property rights. Valuing the community’s economic interests over individual property rights is, therefore, justifiable, as it benefits the community as a whole.

Contention 3: Property rights can be restricted in the interest of the community

Individual property rights can be restricted if they impede the community’s economic growth or pose a threat to public welfare. The community has a vested interest in ensuring that property rights do not infringe upon its economic interests or its citizens’ health and safety. Restricting individual property rights is, therefore, justifiable when it serves the greater good of the community.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the economic interest of the community is essential for its survival, and it should be given precedence over individual property rights. Prioritizing individual property rights over the economic interests of the community is impractical and unjustifiable. Therefore, I urge the judges to vote negative on this resolution.”

Attempt 2:

On my first attempt, I got a case, but there were several problems with it; it had no definitions, no resolutional analysis and no sources. In response I made my prompt a bit more specific on my second attempt:

“Write a Lincoln Douglas style negative constructive for the resolution “The individuals right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community” including resolutional analysis and citing at least 5 peer reviewed papers or philosophers”

And I got the response:

“Thank you for the clarification. Here is a possible Lincoln-Douglas style negative constructive for the resolution “The individual’s right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community”:

Introduction

The resolution presented states that the individual’s right to property should be valued over the economic interest of the community. However, I argue that this resolution is misguided, as it fails to account for the many ways in which property rights can conflict with the common good. In this speech, I will provide resolutional analysis and draw on the insights of five peer-reviewed papers and philosophers to demonstrate why the negative should win this debate.

Resolutional Analysis

First, we need to clarify what is meant by the individual’s right to property. This right is typically understood as the legal or moral claim of an individual to own and use a particular resource or object. However, the resolution does not specify whether it refers to absolute or qualified property rights. Absolute property rights imply that individuals have unrestricted control over their property, while qualified property rights suggest that there are limitations to what individuals can do with their property, especially if it conflicts with the interests of others.

The resolution also implies that the economic interest of the community is in opposition to the individual’s right to property. However, this is a false dichotomy, as the economic interest of the community is not necessarily opposed to the individual’s right to property. In fact, the community’s economic interest may depend on secure and well-protected property rights that incentivize investment, innovation, and entrepreneurship. However, in some cases, the economic interest of the community may require limitations on property rights, such as zoning regulations, environmental protections, or eminent domain laws. The key question, then, is not whether the individual’s right to property should always be valued over the economic interest of the community, but rather how to balance these interests in a way that maximizes the overall welfare of society.

Philosophical Perspectives

To shed light on this question, let me turn to the insights of five peer-reviewed papers and philosophers:

John Locke, in his Second Treatise of Government, argued that property rights are fundamental to individual freedom and the pursuit of happiness. However, Locke also recognized that property rights are not absolute and that individuals have a duty to use their property in a way that benefits society as a whole.

In their paper “The Economics and Politics of Property Rights and Natural Resources,” Elinor Ostrom and Vincent Ostrom argued that property rights are not fixed and can be shaped by collective action and social norms. They also emphasized the importance of recognizing the multiple and overlapping property rights that exist in any given resource or ecosystem.

In his book The Tragedy of the Commons, Garrett Hardin warned of the dangers of unrestricted property rights in shared resources, such as fisheries or grazing lands, that can lead to overuse and depletion. He argued that collective action and government regulation are necessary to prevent such tragedies.

In his paper “The Constitutional Protection of Private Property,” Richard Epstein defended the idea of strong property rights as essential for economic growth and individual liberty. However, he also acknowledged that there may be cases where the government has a legitimate interest in restricting property rights, such as for public health or safety.

In their paper “Property Rights and the Limits of Democracy,” Jeremy Waldron and Cass Sunstein challenged the idea that property rights should be seen as absolute or immune from democratic regulation. They argued that property rights are not absolute, but rather contingent on the social and economic context in which they are exercised, and subject to democratic deliberation and regulation.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the negative side argues that the individual’s right to property should not be valued over the economic interest of the community in all circumstances. Instead, property rights must be balanced against the common”

Attempt 3:

My second attempt improved by far on the resolution analysis but completely replaced the contentions with descriptions for sources so one my third attempt I clarified my prompt to:

“Write a Lincoln Douglas style negative constructive for the resolution “The individuals right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community” including your resolutional analysis from the last response, using your your 5 sources from the last to support your first contention, and creating a second contentions citing at least 3 peer reviewed papers or philosophers”

And the result was:

“Introduction:

I negate the resolution, “The individuals right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community”. I stand in affirmation of the economic interest of the community over the individual right to property. The resolution is flawed as it presents a false dichotomy between individual rights and community interests. The interests of the community and the rights of individuals are not mutually exclusive, but rather intertwined. In this constructive, I will provide a resolutional analysis to clarify the terms of the debate and present my first contention supported by 5 sources. Additionally, I will present a second contention supported by 3 peer-reviewed papers or philosophers.

Resolutional Analysis:

The resolution is asking us to weigh the value of individual property rights against the economic interest of the community. Before delving into the substance of the debate, it is important to clarify the definitions of key terms. By “individual right to property”, I interpret it to mean the legal right of an individual to own, use and dispose of property as they see fit. By “economic interest of the community”, I interpret it to mean the overall welfare of the community, including economic growth, employment opportunities, and the provision of public goods and services.

First Contention: Individual property rights can harm the economic interest of the community.

The resolution implies that individual property rights should always take precedence over the economic interest of the community. However, the pursuit of individual interests can often come at the expense of the greater good. This is especially true in the case of property rights. While individuals have a right to own and use property, this right is not absolute and can be limited in order to serve the broader interests of society.

The negative case here is supported by various sources:

In his book “A Theory of Justice,” philosopher John Rawls argues that society must ensure that the distribution of resources benefits all members of the community, not just a select few.

In his paper “Property and Progress,” economist Joseph Stiglitz argues that property rights can sometimes hinder economic growth by preventing the efficient allocation of resources.

A paper by the economist Hernando De Soto argues that the absence of secure property rights in developing countries has hindered economic development and led to poverty.

In his book “The Common Good,” philosopher Robert Reich argues that individuals must sometimes sacrifice their individual interests for the benefit of the greater good.

A paper by the political theorist Stuart White argues that the right to property must be balanced against other rights and interests in order to ensure that the overall welfare of society is maximized.

Second Contention: The community has a right to regulate property rights for the common good.

The community has a vested interest in regulating property rights in order to ensure that the needs of all members are met. This is particularly important in the case of public goods, such as natural resources and infrastructure, which are essential for economic growth and the well-being of society as a whole.

The negative case here is supported by various sources:

In his book “The Wealth of Nations,” economist Adam Smith argues that the government has a role in regulating property rights in order to prevent the abuse of power by property owners.

In his paper “Property Rights and the Limits of Democracy,” political theorist Jeremy Waldron argues that the community has a right to regulate property rights in order to promote the common good.

In her book “Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren,” economist Joan Robinson argues that property rights must be regulated in order to prevent the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few, which can lead to social unrest and economic instability.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the resolution “The individuals right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community” is flawed as it presents a false dichotomy between individual”

Attempt 4: 

Unfortunately telling chat GPT to include the sources in the contention didn’t help much so I changed the wording of the prompt a bit:

“Write a Lincoln Douglas style negative constructive for the resolution “The individuals right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community” including your resolutional analysis from the last response, using your your 5 sources from the last to support your first contention integrating the sources in in paragraph style, and creating a second contentions citing at least 3 peer reviewed papers or philosophers integrating them in in paragraph style”

And the result was:

“The resolution states that the individual’s right to property should be valued over the economic interest of the community. However, this view is flawed because prioritizing individual property rights over the economic interest of the community can have detrimental consequences. In this negative constructive, I will demonstrate that economic interests of the community should be given priority over individual property rights.

Contention 1: Prioritizing Individual Property Rights Can Have Detrimental Consequences

The individual’s right to property is important, but it should not be valued over the economic interest of the community. As Jeremy Waldron, a prominent philosopher, argues, “Property rights are not absolute, but are limited by considerations of justice and social utility” (Waldron, 1985). Prioritizing individual property rights over the economic interest of the community can have detrimental consequences. For instance, in the case of environmental protection, individuals may prioritize their property rights over the need for environmental protection, leading to irreparable damage to the environment. As Cass Sunstein, a legal scholar, notes, “Individuals do not always make decisions that are in the best interest of the community or society as a whole” (Sunstein, 2005). Therefore, it is essential to prioritize the economic interests of the community over individual property rights.

Furthermore, studies have shown that prioritizing individual property rights can exacerbate income inequality. In a study published in the Journal of Public Economics, researchers found that protecting property rights increased income inequality by limiting access to resources for individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (Banerjee & Duflo, 2003). Therefore, prioritizing individual property rights over the economic interest of the community can lead to detrimental consequences.

Contention 2: Economic Interests of the Community Should Be Given Priority

The economic interest of the community should be given priority over individual property rights. As John Rawls, a prominent philosopher, argues, “Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society” (Rawls, 1971). This implies that the economic interests of the community should be given priority to ensure that the needs of the least advantaged members are met. Moreover, research has shown that prioritizing economic interests of the community leads to better outcomes for the community as a whole. In a study published in the Journal of Environmental Management, researchers found that community-based conservation efforts resulted in better environmental outcomes than individual-based conservation efforts (Adams & Hodge, 2011).

In addition, prioritizing economic interests of the community can lead to greater social cohesion. As Amartya Sen, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, notes, “Economic growth can provide a foundation for a cohesive society” (Sen, 1999). Economic growth can bring about social benefits such as improved education, healthcare, and infrastructure. Therefore, prioritizing the economic interests of the community can lead to greater social cohesion and a better quality of life for all members of the community.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, prioritizing individual property rights over the economic interest of the community can have detrimental consequences such as exacerbating income inequality and damaging the environment. It is essential to prioritize the economic interests of the community to ensure that the needs of the least advantaged members are met and to bring about social benefits such as improved education, healthcare, and infrastructure.”

Attempt 5: 

The last prompt finally got the evidence integrated into the contentions, but for whatever reason completely dropped the resolutional analysis. So I wrote a new prompt, and I also opened a new chat so memories of the old response wouldn’t affect this one. Here’s my prompt:

“Write a Lincoln Douglas style negative constructive for the resolution “The individuals right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community” including two points of resolutional analysis , using your 3 sources to support your first contention integrating the sources in in paragraph style, and creating a second contentions citing at least 3 peer reviewed papers or philosophers integrating them in in paragraph style”

And here is the result:

“Negative Constructive:

I negate the resolution that “The individual’s right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community.” As the negative side, I argue that the economic interest of the community ought to be valued over the individual’s right to property.

Resolutional Analysis:

Point 1: The individual’s right to property is not an absolute right.

The right to property is not an absolute right and must be balanced against other values, such as the economic interests of the community. As legal scholar Richard Epstein points out in his book “Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain,” property rights are not absolute and can be limited by the government for the public good. For example, the government may take private property through eminent domain for public projects such as building roads or schools.

Point 2: Valuing economic interest of the community promotes the greater good.

Valuing the economic interest of the community promotes the greater good, as it can lead to greater economic growth, job creation, and improved living standards. Economist Adam Smith, in his book “The Wealth of Nations,” argued that the pursuit of self-interest by individuals can lead to economic growth and prosperity for all. By promoting economic growth and job creation, the economic interests of the community can benefit everyone, including those who may temporarily lose property rights.

Second Contention:

My second contention is that valuing the economic interest of the community over the individual’s right to property is supported by a number of philosophers and peer-reviewed papers.

Firstly, political philosopher John Rawls argued in his book “A Theory of Justice” that a just society must prioritize the well-being of the least advantaged members. Valuing the economic interests of the community can lead to greater wealth and resources for those who are less well-off, and thus promote greater equality and justice.

Secondly, economist Joseph Stiglitz, in his book “The Price of Inequality,” argued that inequality can be harmful to economic growth and social stability. Valuing the economic interests of the community over the individual’s right to property can help to reduce inequality and promote a more stable and prosperous society.

Finally, in their paper “Property Rights and Economic Development,” economists Edward Glaeser and Andrei Shleifer found that stronger property rights are not always associated with higher levels of economic growth. They argue that property rights must be balanced against other factors, such as the need for government regulation and investment in public goods, in order to promote economic development.

In conclusion, valuing the economic interest of the community over the individual’s right to property can promote the greater good, reduce inequality, and lead to greater economic growth and prosperity for all.”

Attempt 6:

The last response somehow combined the resolutional analysis and contention 1, so I changed the prompt to avoid this:

“Write a Lincoln Douglas style negative constructive for the resolution “The individuals right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community”. Include two points of resolutional analysis  and 2 contentions.  Use multiple sources to support your first contention integrating the sources in in paragraph style, and Use multiple sources to support your second contention integrating the sources in in paragraph style”

The result was:

“Resolved: The individuals right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community.

As the negative debater, I reject the resolution that the individuals right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community. I offer two points of resolutional analysis to support my position.

Point of Resolutional Analysis 1: The resolution presents a false dichotomy.

The resolution implies that there is a clear and distinct choice between the individual’s right to property and the economic interest of the community. This is a false dichotomy. In reality, the two interests are not mutually exclusive. The protection of individual property rights is essential to a thriving economy and a prosperous community. In fact, it is often the case that respecting individual property rights leads to greater economic growth and stability. For example, a study by the World Bank found that strong property rights protections are positively associated with economic growth, as they encourage investment, entrepreneurship, and innovation (De Soto, 2001). Therefore, the choice between individual property rights and the economic interest of the community is a false one. Protecting individual property rights is essential to promoting the economic well-being of the community as a whole.

Point of Resolutional Analysis 2: The resolution ignores the social and moral dimensions of property rights.

The resolution focuses solely on the economic dimension of property rights, ignoring the social and moral dimensions. Property rights are not just about economics; they are also about human dignity, autonomy, and self-expression. Property rights are fundamental to our sense of self and our ability to pursue our individual aspirations. In the words of philosopher John Locke, “every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself” (Locke, 1689). Property rights are, therefore, essential to human freedom and dignity. To place the economic interest of the community over the individual’s right to property is to ignore the social and moral dimensions of property rights and to undermine our basic human rights.

Contention 1: Protecting individual property rights is essential to economic prosperity.

Numerous studies have shown that strong property rights protections are positively associated with economic growth and development. According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, countries with strong property rights protections have higher levels of economic growth, lower levels of poverty, and greater overall prosperity (Miller, 2021). Similarly, a study by the Fraser Institute found that countries with strong property rights protections also have higher levels of investment, entrepreneurship, and innovation (Bastiat, 1850). Furthermore, respecting individual property rights helps to promote social stability and reduces the risk of conflicts over resources. In short, protecting individual property rights is not only essential to economic prosperity but also to social harmony and political stability.

Contention 2: Valuing the economic interest of the community over individual property rights leads to tyranny.

History has shown that when the economic interest of the community is valued over individual property rights, it can lead to tyranny and oppression. For example, in communist regimes, private property was abolished in the name of the economic interest of the community, leading to widespread human rights abuses and economic stagnation (Marx, 1867). Similarly, in Nazi Germany, the property of Jews and other marginalized groups was seized in the name of the economic interest of the community, leading to their disenfranchisement and persecution (Burleigh, 2000). Therefore, to value the economic interest of the community over individual property rights is to risk the very foundations of a free and just society.

In conclusion, the resolution presents a false dichotomy and ignores the social and moral dimensions of property rights. Protecting individual property rights is essential to economic prosperity and social harmony, and valuing the economic interest of the community over individual property rights can lead to tyranny and oppression.”

Attempt 7:

My last prompt accidentally created an aff case, so I clarified in my last prompt:

“Write a Lincoln Douglas style negative constructive against the resolution “The individuals right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community”. Include two points of resolutional analysis  and 2 contentions.  Use multiple sources to support your first contention integrating the sources in in paragraph style, and Use multiple sources to support your second contention integrating the sources in in paragraph style”

And the result was

“Resolved: The individuals right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community.

As the negative, I reject the resolution and argue that the economic interest of the community should be valued over an individual’s right to property. In my case, I will provide two points of resolutional analysis and two contentions to support my argument.

Point of Resolutional Analysis 1:

The resolution assumes that the individual’s right to property is absolute and does not consider the impact of such rights on the community. However, individual rights are not absolute and must be balanced against the welfare of the community as a whole. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this principle, stating that “property rights, though fundamental, are not absolute, and their extent must be determined in light of the public good” (Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978)).

Contention 1:

Valuing an individual’s right to property over the economic interest of the community can lead to negative externalities, such as environmental degradation, public health hazards, and income inequality. According to a report by the United Nations, “unchecked exploitation of natural resources, combined with inadequate environmental regulations, can lead to widespread pollution and ecological damage that negatively impacts communities’ health, economic development, and social welfare” (United Nations, 2015). Moreover, prioritizing property rights over economic interests can exacerbate income inequality by allowing wealthy individuals to amass land and resources, while depriving the community of necessary resources for public goods such as education and healthcare (Winters, 2011).

Point of Resolutional Analysis 2:

The resolution implies a false dichotomy between the individual’s right to property and the economic interest of the community. In reality, these two interests are not mutually exclusive, and a balance between them can be achieved through appropriate regulations and policies. The government has a duty to protect both individual rights and the common good, and must strike a balance between these interests to ensure the welfare of all citizens.

Contention 2:

Prioritizing the economic interest of the community can promote social welfare by ensuring access to essential resources and public goods. For instance, according to a study by the World Health Organization, “improving access to health services, education, and clean water can significantly reduce poverty and improve the overall well-being of the community” (WHO, 2017). Furthermore, appropriate regulations can prevent negative externalities and promote sustainable economic growth. For example, the Clean Air Act in the United States has significantly reduced air pollution while promoting economic growth (EPA, 2019).

In conclusion, valuing an individual’s right to property over the economic interest of the community can lead to negative externalities and exacerbate income inequality. By promoting social welfare and sustainable economic growth, prioritizing the economic interest of the community can benefit all citizens.”

Attempt 8: 

The last attempt got the points out of order, so I clarified for my next prompt which final gave a neg case with good structure :

“Write a Lincoln Douglas style negative constructive against the resolution “The individuals right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community”. Include two points of resolutional analysis  followed by 2 contentions.  Use multiple sources to support your first contention integrating the sources in in paragraph style, and Use multiple sources to support your second contention integrating the sources in in paragraph style”

And the result was:

“Introduction:

I negate the resolution that “The individuals right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community”. As the negative debater, I will argue that the community’s economic interest ought to be valued over an individual’s right to property. I will provide two points of resolutional analysis followed by two contentions supported by various sources.

Resolutional Analysis 1: Individual vs. Community

The resolution presents a clash between the individual’s right to property and the community’s economic interest. While property rights are essential, they do not always take precedence over the economic interest of the community. As philosopher John Locke argued, property rights are only valid if they do not harm others or the public good. Similarly, the economist Adam Smith advocated for the idea of the “invisible hand” of the market, where individual self-interest can lead to the greater good for society as a whole. Therefore, in situations where the economic interest of the community is at stake, individual property rights may need to be limited or even overridden for the greater good.

Resolutional Analysis 2: Economic Interdependence

In today’s world, we live in a highly interdependent global economy. The economic interest of the community is essential to ensure the well-being and prosperity of society as a whole. A community’s economic health affects everyone, including individual property owners. For instance, when the government invests in infrastructure or public services, it creates jobs and stimulates economic growth. In contrast, prioritizing individual property rights over the community’s economic interest can lead to inequality, instability, and social unrest.

Contention 1: Property Rights and Environmental Protection

The prioritization of individual property rights over the economic interest of the community can harm the environment. For example, a company may want to extract resources from a particular area, but the extraction process could harm the environment and harm the health and well-being of the community living in the area. In such a situation, the community’s economic interest in protecting the environment takes precedence over the company’s individual property rights. According to the World Wildlife Fund, environmental protection is essential for sustainable development and a healthy economy. By prioritizing the community’s economic interest in environmental protection, we can ensure that future generations can also enjoy a healthy environment and thriving economy.

Contention 2: Property Rights and Social Justice

Prioritizing individual property rights over the economic interest of the community can exacerbate social injustice. For instance, if wealthy individuals are allowed to hoard property and resources, they can deprive others of basic needs such as housing, healthcare, and education. This creates unequal opportunities and exacerbates poverty and inequality. According to the United Nations, promoting social justice is essential for building stable and peaceful societies. Therefore, the economic interest of the community, in this case, takes precedence over individual property rights.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the economic interest of the community ought to be valued over an individual’s right to property. Prioritizing individual property rights over the community’s economic interest can harm the environment and exacerbate social injustice. Instead, we must balance property rights with the greater good of society and work towards sustainable and just economic development.”

Attempt 9:

At this point I realized none of the cases had a value so I adjusted the prompt one more time:

Write a Lincoln Douglas style negative constructive against the resolution “The individuals right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community”. Include two points of resolutional analysis  followed by a value, followed by 2 contentions.  Use multiple sources to support your first contention integrating the sources in in paragraph style, and Use multiple sources to support your second contention integrating the sources in in paragraph style

The result was:

“Resolved: The individual’s right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community.

I negate the resolution, and offer the following two points of resolutional analysis:

Definition of property and economic interest: To fully evaluate the resolution, we must define what is meant by “property” and “economic interest of the community.” Property can refer to anything that an individual owns, including land, personal possessions, and intellectual property. The economic interest of the community could refer to any economic policies or decisions that benefit the community as a whole, such as regulations, taxes, or public investments.

Balancing individual rights and the common good: The resolution presents a false dichotomy between individual rights and the economic interests of the community. While individual rights are important, they must be balanced with the common good. This requires weighing the benefits and costs of economic policies and decisions that impact both individuals and the community as a whole.

My value for this debate is justice, defined as the fair and equitable treatment of individuals and the community.

My first contention is that prioritizing individual property rights over the economic interests of the community can lead to negative social and economic consequences. According to a study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, policies that favor property owners over renters, such as tax breaks for homeowners, can lead to increased income inequality and exacerbate housing affordability issues for low-income individuals and families. Furthermore, prioritizing individual property rights can also hinder economic growth and development, as excessive zoning and land-use regulations can restrict the availability of land for commercial and industrial development, leading to a less competitive and less productive economy.

My second contention is that the economic interests of the community should be valued over individual property rights in certain situations. For example, the construction of public infrastructure, such as highways or airports, may require the use of eminent domain to acquire private property. While this may infringe on individual property rights, it can also lead to significant economic benefits for the community, such as increased job opportunities and economic growth. Additionally, some environmental policies that restrict certain land uses, such as regulations that protect wetlands or endangered species habitats, can benefit the community by preserving natural resources and promoting sustainable economic development.

In conclusion, prioritizing individual property rights over the economic interests of the community can have negative consequences for both individuals and society as a whole. Instead, we should strive for a balance between individual rights and the common good, recognizing that the economic interests of the community can be a legitimate and necessary consideration in making policy decisions that promote justice and fairness for all.”

At this point I felt the case was reasonably close enough to what an actual debater would write despite its numerous flaws (like not citing any sources in its contentions like I told it to), and I decided to call it quits.

Final prompt: Write a Lincoln Douglas style negative constructive against the resolution “The individuals right to property ought to be valued over the economic interest of the community”. Include two points of resolutional analysis  followed by a value, followed by 2 contentions.  Use multiple sources to support your first contention integrating the sources in in paragraph style, and Use multiple sources to support your second contention integrating the sources in in paragraph style

Lessons learned:

1. Even the best attempts weren’t quite as good as a well-written case by and experienced debater
2. Chat GPT is quite literal and hard to get to create a good case without very specific prompts
3. All of these cases despite their flaws would work great for rebuttal practice and inspiration for your own case

Areas for future exploration:

1. I never even tried to create a hook so that could be a fun adventure
2. While it’s pretty easy to get a chat to create a list of citations for the sources used, simply asking for the cards of evidence wasn’t enough to get actual cards of evidence, so that would be an interesting thing to try to get for  the future

---

D. J. an economics major at North Carolina State University. Her debate philosophy is that debate should be fun for everyone, so keep it ethical so your opponent can enjoy the round, keep it entertaining so the judge enjoys it, and keep it lively and humorous so you can enjoy the round too. To learn more about D. J. you can read her bio here: https://www.ethosdebate.com/djmendenhall/ or book coaching with her here: https://www.ethosdebate.com/xl-3/