Lincoln/Douglas Debate 101

1
Lincoln/Douglas Debate 101

• My opponent does not exist. He is merely a
  dissenting voice to the truth which I speak.
• Melvin B. Tolson

2
Valuean idea or concept that is worthy of
placing high preference upon moral/ethical p
olitical pragmatic/practical artisticThis is
not debatable.Commonly Used Values UtilityHum
an DignityQuality of LifeSocial
Welfare/Societal GoodEducationJustice/EquityPro
gress
Efficiency/EconomyEnvironmental
SustainabilityDiversityIntegrity/Honesty/TruthL
ifeSafety/Security
DemocracyStabilityEqualityFamilyLiberty/Freedo
mPrivacySelf DeterminationAnarchy
3
Value Hierarchydetermination of which value
should be given highest preference in any given
situation. This is where the debate lies. Which
value fits your line of argumentation?Methods
of ComparisonInclusivethe value applying to
all humankind (past and present) is
bestContextualthe value that best fits the
heart of the resolutions dilemmaAdditional
Value Enhancementthe value that enhances other
valuesValue Realizationthe value that
positively affects the most people in a
societyMaslows Hierarchythe value that is more
important/more needed for the human experience
physical needs safety/security belonging
self-esteem self-actualization
4
Value Criteriaa set of standards by which to
judge the superior worth of the valueCost
Benefit Analysishas the most benefits and the
least harmsUtilitarianismthe greatest happiness
for the greatest number/could create oppressive
majorityFuturismthe greatest good for the
future/life is worth living todayDeontologyrespe
ct for persons decisions must be based on what
is right regardless of the outcomeSocial
Contractman receives benefits of society and has
a responsibility to be of benefit to society
5

• The Three Levels of Debate
• Link the Resolution to the Value
• a. Derive a value from the resolution
• b. Prove that the value is important to society
• II. Value Comparisons
• Compare your value to your opponents using the
  common methods of evaluation
• Compare your value to your opponents using the
  rounds criteria
• The Case
• a. Establish that affirming or negating the
  resolution causes benefits that enhance the
  value

6
Oratorical Theory Persuasive Series of
orations Logic over evidence Realistic scenarios
Debate Theory Structured Refutation, Comparison,
and Deliberation of Stock Issues Rapid
delivery Evidence Artificial reality
vs.
7
Constructive Case

• Determine Value. Link to Resolution. How does
  affirming the resolution produce the value?
• Choose Criteria.
• What is the major conflict/common theme?
• What are the arguments that are major conflict
  points?
• Build a list of arguments-all that you can
  brainstorm.
• Organize by grouping similar arguments. Create a
  natural progression of 2-4 main contentions.
• 1st address value and link
• 2nd resolution topic-what are the benefits of
  affirming or negating?
• 3rd why is your value and criteria more
  important and appropriate?
• Anticipate opposing arguments.
• Collect evidence.
• Polish.
• Write opposing case.

8
Have case outline and pre-flow!
Roadmap and Signpost!

• Game Plan
• Rate
• Structure
• Content
• Rapport

9
Rebuttal

1. Extend arguments provide new logic, analysis,
   and evidence to further your points and attack
   opposing points.
2. Launch new attacks with logic, analysis, and
   evidence.
3. Dont introduce new arguments.
4. Roadmap and signpost, but dont repeat.
5. Dont drop points!
6. Point out opponents dropped points.
7. Carefully cross-apply arguments.
8. Filter and group arguments according to
   importance.
9. End on a good note rapport and voting issues

10
Attack oppositions valuecriteriadefinitions
(if needed)case pointsWays to attack
oppositions argumentslimited
applicationlimited time framecontradictionassum
ption of inherent goodunrealisticevidence
validity and credibilityinsignificant
impactsharmsyour arguments are better because