# data[].attributes.body
Here is more info on the resolution for Jan/Feb!

# data[].attributes.body
Here you go, make sure to use it wisely!

# data[].attributes.body
"The stability and security of authoritarian regimes cannot create but terrorism and violence and destruction. Let us accept the choice of the people. Let us not pick and choose who we would like to rule their future." -Wadah Khanfar (President of Al Sharq Forum, an independent network dedicated to developing long-term strategies for political development, social justice and economic prosperity of the people of the Middle East)

# data[].attributes.headline
Most corrupt countries (very similar to authoritarian list)

# data[].attributes.subject
Most corrupt countries (very similar to authoritarian list)

# data[].attributes.body
Economist Article

# data[].attributes.body
List of Countries the United Nations have issued an embargo on arms and military sales to

# data[].attributes.body
Diplomat Article
Reuters Article
Newsweek Article

# data[].attributes.headline
How US Military Bases back Dictators, Autocrats, and Military Regimes

# data[].attributes.subject
How US Military Bases back Dictators, Autocrats, and Military Regimes

# data[].attributes.body
Huffington Post OP-ED
Also, discusses South Korea!

# data[].attributes.headline
Good example of a Neo Conservative Foreign Policy argument 

# data[].attributes.subject
Good example of a Neo Conservative Foreign Policy argument 

# data[].attributes.body
Securing a Democratic World

# data[].attributes.headline
US giving money to authoritarians (modern examples)

# data[].attributes.subject
US giving money to authoritarians (modern examples)

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.businessinsider.com/foreign-aid-dilemma-dictators-on-our-dole-2011-3

# data[].attributes.body
Week Article

What was the UN doing during this time period-- see especially 1963, 1967, 1968, 1970, 1976, 1977, notice that UN calls for arms sales to stop but still takes 30 years until apartheid ends, but look and read this timeline to get more ideas

# data[].attributes.body
What do we benefit from giving Turkey military aid?
1994 NYT Article
Megadonor status
Aljazerra OP-ED

# data[].attributes.body
What makes the US- Saudi relationship so special? Times article
Yemen Civil War and backing the Saudi's Washington Post Article
Best way to punish Saudi's
NYT OP-ED

# data[].attributes.headline
Here are some links to political philosophies we discussed in practice

# data[].attributes.subject
Here are some links to political philosophies we discussed in practice

# data[].attributes.body
Cosmopolitanism, Neo Conservatism, Realism,

# data[].attributes.body
Google Slides with discussing the political philosophies that could work for the resolution and authoritarian regimes

# data[].attributes.body
authoritarin
Adjective
​
demanding total obedience to those in positions of authority:

# data[].attributes.body
Google Slides with links and resources about Military/Security Funding

# data[].attributes.headline
Lincoln-Douglas Debate – 2019 January/February Resolved: The United States ought not provide military aid to authoritarian regimes.

# data[].attributes.subject
Lincoln-Douglas Debate – 2019 January/February Resolved: The United States ought not provide military aid to authoritarian regimes.

# data[].attributes.body
¨of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority.¨ Merriam-Webster

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
authoritarianism, in politics and government, the blind submission to authority and the repression of individual freedom of thought and action. Authoritarian regimes are systems of government that have no established mechanism for the transfer of executive power and do not afford their citizens civil liberties or political rights. Power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a small elite, whose decisions are taken without regard for the will of the people. The term authoritarianism is often used to denote any form of government that is not democratic, but studies have demonstrated that there is a great deal of variation in authoritarian rule.

Totalitarian and fascist regimes

Totalitarian regimes are also especially brutal. The Cambodian regime of Pol Pot, for example, killed up to 30 percent of the country's population, or about 2.8 million people. In Ukraine in 1931-34, some 4 million people died of starvation in a famine created and prolonged by the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin ( see Holodomor). Totalitarianism also aptly describes the Soviet-dominated regimes in eastern Europe during the Cold War, North Korea under the Kim dynasty, and Myanmar (Burma) under Gen. U Ne Win (1962-88) and the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC; 1988-2011).

Fascism is conceptually difficult to define but represents a highly militaristic and hyper-nationalistic form of rule. Fascist regimes resemble totalitarian systems in their mobilization of the public under a mass political party and their glorification of a heroic leader. In contrast to totalitarian systems, however, fascist regimes tend to enforce a rigid social hierarchy, and the level of government control over society as a whole is not as pervasive.

Like totalitarian systems, fascist regimes have been born of turbulent periods and crises. Both Adolf Hitler of Germany and Benito Mussolini of Italy, for example, rose to power by exploiting a volatile political environment in which the political left had been gaining traction. The German American philosopher and political theorist Hannah Arendt argued in the Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) that totalitarian styles of rule, which she understood to encompass fascist regimes, arise in capitalist societies that have experienced social alienation resulting from the rigours of economic individualism.

Personalistic dictatorships

Despite these notable cases in history, there are very few contemporary instances of fully totalitarian or fascist rule. Many authoritarian regimes in the 20th century did not possess the ability to completely control their societies, and interesting regional patterns emerged. In sub-Saharan Africa, for example, there has been only one totalitarian dictatorship (in Eritrea) to date. Nevertheless, most African regimes have been highly personalistic, such as those of Mobutu Sese Seko (Joseph Mobutu) in Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) and Idi Amin of Uganda. Personalistic dictatorships are characterized by leaders who exercise nearly absolute power. The other institutions of the state are severely weakened and exist more or less in name only. The judiciary takes direct orders from the dictator, and the legislature, which is dominated by the leader's party, acts as a rubber stamp. In many cases the dictator does not even pretend to follow constitutional procedures and rules by decree. The military in such regimes is "coup-proofed," or deliberately weakened, so that it poses no threat to the leader's power. All of the other organs of the state are dependent on the dictator and may even report to the dictator directly.

Because there are no checks on the dictator's power, these types of regimes are plagued by high levels of corruption and kleptocracy. In some cases, the dictator has stolen billions from the state-as Mobutu was notoriously noted for doing. These types of regimes have tended to arise in countries that are very poor and have weak governmental institutions that are easy to exploit and further debilitate.

An exception to this generalization is the personalistic dictatorship of Vladmir Putin of Russia. Because Russia is awash in valuable energy and industrial resources such as oil and natural gas and because it maintains a large military, Putin occupies a prominent position on the world stage. Supported by a group of security and military leaders known as the siloviki, Putin makes decisions with little consultation from experts and faces little if any opposition from economic and political elites. As have other personalistic dictators who lack a solid group of advisers, Putin has engaged in high-risk behaviour, notably including Russia's military invasions of Ukraine beginning in 2014 and 2022.

Military juntas

During the second half of the 20th century, many Latin American countries-including Argentina, Chile, Brazil, and Uruguay-were led by military juntas. Military regimes are normally transient styles of rule, because national militaries generally prefer to step down from power and go back to the barracks rather than see their organization become politicized and vulnerable to internal splits. The military often prioritizes unity and legitimacy in the eyes of the public rather than indefinite rule. However, some military juntas have held power for long periods and have felt strongly that they were best able to lead the country. Support for military rule often comes from the middle and upper classes in countries in which there are high levels of economic inequality. In these instances, the military steps in to defend the status quo for the wealthy, which fears that more impoverished communities would contest inequality in democratic systems. The military also typically cites civilian incompetence and corruption as key reasons for why they should take power.

Single-party authoritarianism

During the Cold War, most national governments in eastern Europe and some in Asia were led by a single political party. In many cases these regimes evolved into totalitarian systems that exercised total control over their societies. In other cases, the role of the secret police was more relaxed, and citizens did not face constant surveillance.

Monarchical authoritarianism

Uniquely, the Middle East remains a sea of monarchical forms of rule. Although a few of these monarchies have been overturned in revolutions (such as in Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and Libya), many of them remain. Monarchies were implemented in the Middle East by design. European colonial powers viewed monarchy as a stable form of rule that was best suited for nation building. Inspiration was also drawn from the traditional dynastic forms of rule that dotted the region. Monarchies are led by a ruling family and operate in ways similar to those of a single-party regime, with many individuals participating in the discussion, consultation, and decision-making processes. For this reason, the policy output of monarchies has tended to be predictable as well, making monarchies-like single-party regimes-one of the most durable forms of rule. During the Arab Spring beginning in 2010-11, for example, the republics in Libya, Yemen, and Egypt were all overturned, while the monarchies faced protests but never wavered.

Authoritarian decline and resurgence

But not all states have had sufficient sources of revenue at their disposal to keep their citizens happy. The economic failures of communist regimes in eastern Europe and the eventual inability of the Soviet Union to prop them up with military and financial aid led to their collapse in 1989-91. With the end of the Cold War, many other authoritarian regimes also fell, and some political scientists optimistically predicted that authoritarianism might become obsolete. A few decades earlier, the growth of an educated middle class, along with pressure from students and organized labour, led to an increase in the number of democracies during what the American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington (1927-2008) referred to as the "Third Wave." Additional weak autocracies collapsed when they ceased to receive financial support from either of the two superpowers. Democratic values diffused around many parts of the world, and there was a widely shared impression that democracy had triumphed.

Nevertheless, within a few decades, it was apparent that this optimistic assessment had been misguided. Following the global financial crisis of 2007-08, not only did authoritarian regimes become more assertive, but many democracies began to revert to authoritarian practices. Harkening back to Arendt's analysis, political scientists noticed that a backlash against globalization-induced economic and social dislocation was leading to a renewal of authoritarianism. Individuals who felt displaced or faced unemployment, inflation, and debt were susceptible to the rhetoric and appeal of authoritarian styles of leadership, particularly of the populist variety.

Authoritarian populism

Populist authoritarian forms of rule tend to emerge in contexts where institutions of representation have already ossified. When parties are no longer able to make people feel as though their voices are being heard, and when elites appear too removed from society, citizens may search for authoritarian alternatives that promise to directly and quickly solve all of their problems. Once the authoritarian populists have taken power, they use their democratic mandate to justify a series of restrictions on democratic forms of governance. Democratic institutions (such as referenda) are used to greatly extend the ruler's term of office, as happened in Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, or to eliminate term limits altogether, as happened in Venezuela under Hugo Chávez. Although these types of leaders are democratically elected, once they refuse to leave office, they are bona fide autocrats.

The perverse use of democratic institutions to maintain authoritarianism has become increasingly common in post-Cold War autocracies. Almost all authoritarian regimes today hold elections, but the playing field is not level, and there is little doubt who will win. Fewer regimes now hold staged elections resulting in victories by absurd margins, as when Tunisia's Pres. Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali allegedly won a third term in 1999 with 99 percent of the vote. More often, the dictator allows the opposition to have some false hope in order to create a facade of democratic rule. A case in point is Venezuela, where Nicolás Maduro allowed the opposition to garner nearly one-third of the vote in the 2018 presidential election. In most authoritarian regimes a token opposition is allowed to exist, but many opposition members are imprisoned, harassed, co-opted, or divided. Voters are also exposed to disinformation about opposition candidates to ensure an incumbent victory.

Mechanisms of authoritarian rule

Although most authoritarian regimes have drafted a constitution, they do not allow their citizens many freedoms, either on paper or in practice. People might be free to voice their opinions on nonsensitive issues, but many topics are barred from being openly addressed. Doing so typically results in harsh repercussions for those who allegedly endanger or weaken national security.

The space in which civil society may operate is also severely curtailed. Instead of barring civil society outright, there are rules and regulations for what civil organizations can do and where they can get their funding. In many cases, civil organizations that receive foreign funding must register with the state and are monitored for any suspicious activity.

The press is another target of authoritarian regimes. Although it is not usually completely owned by the state, journalists and media outlets face limits on what they can say and how critical of the government they can be. The failure to respect such boundaries can result in imprisonment, harassment, threats, fines, or revocation of operating licenses. In other cases, the regime simply ensures that major media outlets are captured by cronies-who are willing to supply pro-regime content-as in Hungary under Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

Authoritarian regimes today also incorporate legislatures, political parties, and judiciaries, but those institutions do not have much power, if any. A legislature may exist, but it is filled with political lackeys who never vote against the leader. While it is true that what are called "electoral autocracies" allow some opposition within legislatures or a limited level of judicial independence, such practices are usually just a democratic facade designed to maintain the regime's domestic and international legitimacy.

In Egypt, for example, the parliament was repeatedly dissolved following the overthrow of Pres. Hosni Mubarak in 2011 and remained either inactive or agreeable to the president's decisions. Egyptian Pres. Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, who was first elected in 2014, initially held power without a parliament, and within one year of his election he had issued more than 100 decrees. Although a new parliament was in session by 2016, it subsequently did little legislating.

Although there are judges and courts in authoritarian regimes, they are not independent of the executive. In a practice sometimes referred to as "telephone law," autocrats simply tell judges, sometimes literally via telephone, how to preside over politically sensitive cases. Broadly speaking, telephone law is a characteristic of authoritarian regimes that allows wealthy and powerful individuals to bypass conventional rules and regulations in order to obtain what they want. In the case of Russia, this form of injustice is rooted in the country's culture and history and has proven difficult to erase.

The appeal of authoritarian rule

Most countries have had less experience with democracy than with autocracy. Scholars of socialization have argued that the experience of living through autocracy has had a profound impact on support for democracy after authoritarian rule. Children who grow up in autocracies learn about the benefits of authoritarian rule and are exposed to authoritarian learning styles that shun critical thinking in favour of rote memorization. Thus, growing up in an authoritarian regime would make a citizen yearn for strong leadership and be more amenable to nondemocratic forms of rule.

In the early 21st century, survey research in Russia found that nearly 60 percent of all adults took a positive view of the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, while only about 20 percent held a similar opinion of the reforming president Mikhail Gorbachev-this in spite of the fact that under Stalin more than one million Russians were executed, and millions of others died as a result of forced labour, deportation, and famine.

Psychological studies have also tried to make sense of why authoritarian forms of rule may be so appealing. In the 1950s a group of scholars led by the German philosopher Theodor Adorno published The Authoritarian Personality, which argues that some people exhibit personality traits that make them amenable to authoritarian rule. These characteristics include a general willingness to submit to authority, a rigid cognitive style, conventional moral values, and an aggressive attitude toward out-groups and those whose behaviour is perceived to be deviant. Although the studies on which Adorno's work was based suffered from methodological problems regarding the measurement of personality traits, the idea that individual personality is relevant to support for authoritarianism has gained some ground among social psychologists and other researchers. Again, although it is difficult to measure, some citizens seem to display more risk aversion than others, whether the aversion arises from personality, parental socialization, educational socialization, or exposure to economic and political crises or conflicts. Risk-averse citizens are more likely to lean toward the consistency, security, and stability of authoritarian styles of rule rather than toward the perceived "chaos" of democracy.

"Digital authoritarianism"

Authoritarian regimes in the 21st century have tapped into the fears of citizens in new and old democracies, posing a massive threat to democratic systems. Since the 2010s the world has witnessed a rise in "digital authoritarianism," or the use of information technology by an authoritarian regime to sustain or augment its power by misleading, confusing, or distracting the country's population and by blocking access to information from sources that the regime cannot control. In addition, Russia and other authoritarian countries have used the Internet to spread disinformation ( see propaganda) designed to widen political divisions within democratic countries and to undermine public faith and trust in democratic institutions. Arguably the most effective and consequential of such efforts was Russia's digitally mounted interference in the U.S. presidential election of 2016, which aimed at discrediting the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and at broadening the appeal of her Republican opponent, Donald Trump, who unexpectedly won the election.

Few countries have been able to maintain a system of digital authoritarianism as sophisticated and technologically advanced as that of China. At the turn of the 21st century, China began work on a digital infrastructure that would prevent its citizens from accessing information that could destabilize its government. Known outside China as the Chinese Firewall (and inside China as the Golden Shield), the infrastructure incorporated a centralized system of Internet traffic choke points that enabled the government to prevent domestic Internet users from accessing websites based in other countries and to limit access to Chinese websites by foreign Internet users. Platforms such as Twitter, Google, Facebook, and YouTube, as well as virtual private networks, were all blocked by the Chinese Firewall.

The threats of authoritarian rule to democracies are substantial. Most people live in nondemocratic systems. Nevertheless, although there has been a resurgence of authoritarianism in many countries, these changes are not likely to be permanent. Autocratic regimes have become savvier in many ways, but their leaders' constant efforts to protect their power at the public's expense often lead them to take risks that can result in their downfall.

Returning to the example of Russia, Putin's 2022 invasion of Ukraine has been noted for the poor performance of the Russian military, which has suffered from defective intelligence, poor organization, and incompetent leadership. Putin had earlier purged the upper ranks of the Russian military to coup-proof his regime, an action that may prove to have disastrous consequences for Russia's war effort. Only time will tell if it also leads to Putin's downfall.

Natasha Lindstaedt

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Authoritarianism | Definition, History, Examples, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Authoritarianism, in politics and government, the blind submission to authority and the repression of individual freedom of thought and action.

# data[].attributes.body
"The enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom." Oxford English

Authoritarian Examples (Modern)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/the-worlds-most-authoritarian-destinations/

US military bases
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-us-military-bases-back-dictators-autocrats-and-military-regimes_us_591b229ae4b05dd15f0ba8e6

Many of the 45 present-day undemocratic U.S. base hosts qualify as fully “authoritarian regimes,” according to the Economist Democracy Index. In such cases, American installations and the troops stationed on them are effectively helping block the spread of democracy in countries like Cameroon, Chad, Ethiopia, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

# data[].attributes.body
Google Slide here

# data[].attributes.body
I included a document to read to better understand Kant!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Kant on Duties Regarding Nonrational Nature

# data[].attributes.headline
Another way to word your cases (Outline) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Another way to word your cases (Outline) 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Another example of how to write your case

# data[].attributes.body
something that may make case writing a little easier

# data[].attributes.headline
Public trust in government extremely low

# data[].attributes.subject
Public trust in government extremely low

# data[].attributes.body
“Since 2007, the share saying they can trust the government always or most of the time has not surpassed 30%. Only 18% of Americans today say they can trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” (3%) or “most of the time” (15%).”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Public trust in the government remains near historic lows. Only 18% of Americans today say they can trust the government in Washington to do what is right "just about always" (3%) or "most of the time" (15%).

When the National Election Study began asking about trust in government in 1958, about three-quarters of Americans trusted the federal government to do the right thing almost always or most of the time. Trust in government began eroding during the 1960s, amid the escalation of the Vietnam War, and the decline continued in the 1970s with the Watergate scandal and worsening economic struggles. Confidence in government recovered in the mid-1980s before falling again in the mid-1990s. But as the economy grew in the late 1990s so too did confidence in government. Public trust reached a three-decade high shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but declined quickly thereafter. Since 2007, the share saying they can trust the government always or most of the time has not surpassed 30%.

Currently, 22% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say they can trust government, compared with 15% of Democrats and Democratic leaners. Throughout Obama's tenure, more Democrats than Republicans reported trusting the government, though that has flipped since Trump's election. Since the 1970s, trust in government has been consistently higher among members of the party that controls the White House than among the opposition party. However, Republicans have been much more reactive than Democrats to changes in political power. Republicans have expressed much higher levels of trust during Republican than during Democratic presidencies, while Democrats' attitudes have tended to be more consistent, regardless of which party controls the White House.

Historically, there have been modest differences between generational groups in trust in government and that remains the case today. Currently, 20% of Millennials (now ages 18-36) report trusting the government, similar to the shares of older generations who say the same. Trust in government remains at or near historically low levels across generational lines.

A downward trajectory in trust in government also is seen across racial and ethnic lines. Currently, white non-Hispanics, black non-Hispanics and Hispanics all express historically low levels of trust in government. During the Republican presidencies of Reagan and G.W. Bush more whites than blacks said they trusted the government to do the right thing. Conversely, during the Democratic administrations of Clinton and Obama blacks were more likely than whites to express trust in government.
Sources: Pew Research Center, National Election Studies, Gallup, ABC/Washington Post, CBS/New York Times, and CNN Polls. For party, generation and race/ethnicity analysis, selected datasets obtained from searches of the iPOLL Databank provided by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Public trust in the government remains near historic lows. Only 18% of Americans today say they can trust the government in Washington to do what is right "just about always" (3%) or "most of the time" (15%).

# data[].attributes.body
Google Slide

# data[].attributes.body
Here is the case outline in digital form- it is the same one I gave you folks in practice. There are also some LD terms attached as well. For the beginning quote it can also be a story. For AFF your speech should be 6 minutes long in total and for NEG it should be about 4 minutes (you will spend half of your time in your con speech attacking the AFF case. Remember, cases are due Thursday the 25th.  2 copies printed out double spaced. At the start of Thursday practice.

# data[].attributes.body
Google Slide

# data[].attributes.body
Google Slide

# data[].attributes.body
Google Slide

# data[].attributes.body
Google Slide

# data[].attributes.body
I'm still adding all the definitions but this a beginning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
LD Values and Value Criteria - Google Docs

# data[].attributes.body
Resolved: In a democracy, the public’s right to know ought to be valued above the right to privacy of candidates for public office.

# data[].attributes.body
Video showing a finals debate.

# data[].attributes.body
This video is a helpful introduction. It is about 17 minutes long and helps explain the basics.

# data[].attributes.body
A resource for you to refer to when you need extra clarification on some part of this event. Will help you better understand LD.

# data[].attributes.body
Learning the ropes- the language in debate can be a bit confusing for beginners so I compiled some common terms into this quizlet

# data[].attributes.body
How to win, make friends and have fun!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Debate Ethos - Becoming the Michael Jordan of Debate

# data[].attributes.body
The more you know about a given topic, the better prepared you will be going into tournaments. This article will teach you how to find better articles, as well as how to read articles in a manner that will increase your understanding of argument structure. Having a well‐founded knowledge of these things will significantly enhance your ability to answer arguments, and in turn, make it much easier for you to win debates.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Research - Your Best Friend and Worst Enemy

# data[].attributes.body
Part 2

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Introduction to Lincoln-Douglas Debate - Part Two

# data[].attributes.body
Part 1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
An Introduction to Lincoln-Douglas Debate - Part One

# data[].attributes.body
This is what the judge will see and how they will evaluate you.