This is the 2018 CatNats LD topic: "Bystanders have a moral obligation to act in the face of injustice. "
I mean, seriously?
"First, we need to define some terms. 'The face of injustice' is defined...as...uh...well, you know, really bad juju that's, like, happening to...people...of...whatever. No, wait a minute." Debater holds up photograph of Donald Trump. "This is the face of injustice. Wait. What? You voted for him?" Debater holds up photograph of Hillary Clinton. "This is the face of injustice. The affirmative contends that we should lock her up. Okay? Jeesh!
"All right. Act is defined as, uh, doing, uh, something. Talking is doing something, right? So, if, say, the kid at the desk next to you is accused of vaping in class, and you know for a fact that they left their Juul in their locker, if you say, 'Professor, my good woman, this child is innocent and you are treating her unfairly,' then you are acting in the face of injustice. Also, putting on a performance of Hamlet for Neil Gorsuch would be acting in the face of a justice, which is maybe close enough for government work."
Judge looks askance. The debater notices that for the first time the judge has looked up from their phone.
"Close but no cigar? Okay. Got it.
"A moral obligation is something you are morally obligated to do. By this we mean it is the right thing to do and you have to do it because it is the right thing. To do. Right things come with moral chains, according to Kant, but he's some old dead white guy so better to use the ethical teachings of Tupac: 'They done pushed me to my limit, I'm all in, I might blow up any minute, did it again.'
"Does that work for you? It works for me.
"For all these reasons, I ask you to affirm the resolution that bystanders—
"Oh, crap. I forgot to define bystanders. Bystander is defined as the team that got the bye, who is standing on the pizza line in the cafeteria and I really wish that was me right now.
"Are we done here?"