Can anyone help me with a consumer goods debate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paige
  • Start date Start date
P

Paige

Guest
I'm doing a debate in school on the topic:
Resolved, that the federal govenment should initiate and enforce stricter safety guanantees on consumer goods in the U.S.

I am second negative.

The affirmatives will choose one of these six topics:
-fireworks
-car seats
-guns
-amusement rides
-plastic bags
-treadmills

I've done a lot of research already, but just wondering if anyone had any ideas on how i can prove any of those 6 goods are already safe enough, or if anyone can give me a good idea on how to catch the affirmatives on a topicality issue. For example, plastic bags aren't a consumer good because you don't have to buy them at grocery stores.

No, I am not trying to get people to do my homework for me, I have already written over 300 notecards, just wondering if anyone had a last minute idea. Thanks!

The affirmatives will blame all injuries/deaths on manufacturer.
 
I feel like I am in high school again.

ANY statistics you can dig up - pro or con - can be used in your favour in your presentation and your closing argument. You just need to slant it right or cause a question in their minds, you don't need to prove anything. You could always argue that the gov't is unable to initiate and enforce the eradication of human stupidity.

You don't say when your debate is, but you have a lot of work ahead of you, digging up statistics. I would suggest starting with amusement rides.
 
How about the classic laissez-faire argument that in any industry (with the possible exception of fireworks), that any business or organization is at the mercy of the public, and that because people will only buy the best products, then in an unregulated business worldonly the businesses that produce the best products can prosper? That would mean that if every company were allowed to do their own thing, then people would know that the government wasn't there to look out for them as far as safety is concerned. As a result, the public will have to become more aware as consumers, and so they will be less likely to buy from companies with products that are too dangerous, meaning that as a result the companies with sub-standard manufacturing/safety practices will all go out of business. To the contrary, if the government were to regulate evrything, it would lure people into a false sense of security, and people would be more inclined to buy from companies with substandard products, which wouldn't be changed much by government regulation, because unethical businesses will always find a way to cut corners?

I'm sorry, I don;t actually know much about debate, so this may not work for you at all...also, keep in mind it's a pretty BS argument...still, it works for Congress.
 
Back
Top