Lincoln-Douglas%20Debate

1
Lincoln-Douglas Debate

• Value Debate

2
Elements of an LD Case
3
Resolutions

• Resolved Judicial activism is necessary to
  protect the rights of American citizens.
• Resolved Community standards ought to be valued
  above conflicting national standards.
• Resolved When in conflict the letter of the law
  ought to take precedence over the spirit of the
  law.

4
Round Structure

• 1st Affirmative 6 minutes
• Neg cross-examines aff 3 minutes
• 1st Negative 7 minutes
• Aff cross-examines neg 3 minutes
• 1st Affirmative Rebuttal 4 minutes
• 1st Negative Rebuttal 6 minutes
• 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal 3 minutes

5
Step 1 Choose a value.

• Resolved When in conflict the letter of the law
  ought to take precedence over the spirit of the
  law.
• Affirmative Resolution is true
• Negative Resolution is false
• Affirmative Value Justice
• Negative Value Individual Rights

6
Values

• Utilitarianism The greatest good for the
  greatest number of people
• Life Refers to life itself, with inherent value
  regardless of quality
• Quality of Life Refers to the condition of
  living, e.g. "I'd rather die than live like a
  vegetable"
• Liberty Traditional American value, can be
  interpreted to almost anything
• Societal Welfare what is in the best interest of
  members of society
• Progress Development or improvement in knowledge
  or skill (opposite of stagnation)
• Global Security Not blowing up the world the US
  not being invaded.
• Justice Use of authority to uphold what is
  correct or true
• Human Dignity The individual ethics which make
  us human and not animals nor slaves, adherence to
  personal ethics
• Social Contract agreement between a citizen and
  his government

7
Common Values

• Justice
• Freedom/ Liberty
• Sanctity of Life vs. Quality of Life
• Human Rights
• Free Expression / Speech
• Democracy
• Equality
• Societal Good / General Will / Society
• Majority Rule
• National Interest / National Security
• Legitimate Government
• Individualism / Autonomy
• Safety
• Progress
• Privacy

Value Hierarchy
8
Step 2 Choose a criterion/standard

• Value of Justice Criterion Socrates Social
  Contract
• Value of Individual Rights Criterion Lockes
  State of Nature

9
Common Criteria

• Social Contract
• Categorical Imperative
• Utility
• Harm Principle
• Cost Benefit Analysis
• Market Place of Ideas
• Pragmatism
• Maslows Hierarchy of Needs

10
Socrates Social Contract

• In the early Platonic dialogue, Crito, Socrates
  makes a compelling argument as to why he must
  stay in prison and accept the death penalty,
  rather than escape and go into exile He has
  acquired an overwhelming obligation to obey the
  Laws because they have made his entire way of
  life, and even the fact of his very existence,
  possible. They made it possible for his mother
  and father to marry, and therefore to have
  legitimate children, including himself. Having
  been born, the city of Athens, through its laws,
  then required that his father care for and
  educate him. Socrates' life and the way in which
  that life has flourished in Athens are each
  dependent upon the Laws. Importantly, however,
  this relationship between citizens and the Laws
  of the city are not coerced. Citizens, once they
  have grown up, and have seen how the city
  conducts itself, can choose whether to leave,
  taking their property with them, or stay. Staying
  implies an agreement to abide by the Laws and
  accept the punishments that they mete out.
  Importantly, the contract described by Socrates
  is an implicit one it is implied by his choice
  to stay in Athens, even though he is free to
  leave.

11
Locke and The State of Nature

• The State of Nature, the natural condition of
  mankind, is a state of perfect and complete
  liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees
  fit, free from the interference of others. This
  does not mean, however, that it is a state of
  license one is not free to do anything at all
  one pleases, or even anything that one judges to
  be in ones interest. The State of Nature,
  although a state wherein there is no civil
  authority or government to punish people for
  transgressions against laws, is not a state
  without morality. The State of Nature is
  pre-political, but it is not pre-moral. Persons
  are assumed to be equal to one another in such a
  state, and therefore equally capable of
  discovering and being bound by the Law of Nature.
  The Law of Nature, which is on Lockes view the
  basis of all morality, and given to us by God,
  commands that we not harm others with regards to
  their "life, health, liberty, or possessions.
  Because we all belong equally to God, and because
  we cannot take away that which is rightfully His,
  we are prohibited from harming one another.

12
John Lockes Social Contract

• For John Locke, 1632-1704, the State of Nature is
  a very different type of place, and so his
  argument concerning the social contract and the
  nature of men's relationship to authority are
  consequently quite different. While Locke uses
  Hobbes methodological device of the State of
  Nature, as do virtually all social contract
  theorists, he uses it to a quite different end.
  Lockes arguments for the social contract, and
  for the right of citizens to revolt against their
  king were enormously influential on the
  democratic revolutions that followed, especially
  on Thomas Jefferson, and the founders of the
  United States.

13
Step 3 Write your contentions (this is a
negative case outline)

• Resolved When in conflict the letter of the law
  ought to take precedence over the spirit of the
  law.
• ValueIndividual Rights
• StandardLockes Social Contract
• Contention 1 Human beings have an unalienable
  right to life and liberty that is inseparable
  from their humanity.
• Contention 2 Upholding the spirit of the law
  can best ensure the preservation of individual
  rights.

14
Step 4 Select your definitions

• Define any terms in the resolution that can be
  interpreted by your opponent to hurt your
  argument or case.
• Affirmative has the right to define the terms of
  the resolution. However, if a definition is
  abusive, negative can challenge it by introducing
  his or her own definition.

15
Example Contention Structure

• Claim (tag)
• Warrant (analysis, explanation)
• Data (evidence)
• Impact (effect on society and/or individuals)
• Relationship to the criterion and value

16
Step 5 Elaborate on each element

• Define your value, explain why it is key to
  society. Describe a terrible world where it is
  missing or not valued above other ideas.
• Explain your Criterion/Standard. Quote the
  philosopher who most closely advocates the idea.
  Apply the idea in context of this particular
  resolution. Give a reason why this standard
  should be used to determine who wins the debate.
• Find evidence/cards for your contention tags.
  Create subpoints that break down a contention.
  Explain how the contention relates to the
  criterion/standard. Explain the main idea of the
  evidence that you have chosen. Explain how the
  contentions prove the resolution to be true(Aff)
  or false(Neg.)

17
Example of Subpoints

• Contention 2 Upholding the spirit of the law
  can best ensure the preservation of individual
  rights.
• Subpoint A In the United States the spirit of
  the law is founded upon the Constitutional
  guarantee to life and liberty. (add analysis,
  warrant, impact)
• Subpoint B The balance of powers ensures that
  the American judiciary interpret the spirit of
  the law to uphold individual rights.

18
Layout/Case Construction
19
Opening
Opening ________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
____________________________________ Because I
agree with ___________________________ that I
must affirm / negate the resolution. State the
resolution. Before continuing I would like to
define the following key terms ------------ is
defined by _____________________ is
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
______________________________________________.
------------ is defined by ______________________
__ are ___________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
__________________________________________________
___________________.
20
Value and Criterion
The value I will be upholding in todays debate
is ___________________. (Define)____________
means ____________________________________________
_____. (Impact / Importance)_______________ is
important because_________________________________
_________________________. My value is upheld
through the criterion of _________________________
_. (Define / Clarify) ____________________________
_________________________. My criterion to
achieves __________________ (value) because
__________________________________________________
___________________.
21
Contention (s)
Contention _____________________________________
_____________________________. (Object of
Evaluation/Value/Criterion) A. Analysis Evidence
/ Example Impact to value/ Criterion B. Analysis E
vidence / Example Impact to value/ Criterion C.
Analysis Evidence / Example Impact to value/
Criterion
22
Step 6 Polish

• Examine the outline of your case Resolution,
  Definition, Value, Standard, Contention 1,
  subpoint A, subpoint B, Contention 2, subpoint A,
  subpoint B, conclusion. (Its ok if you dont
  have subpoints, its just cool if you do.)
• Does it flow logically from point A to point B?
  Are there any logical gaps? If there are add
  sentences to bridge the gap and explain it.

23
Step 7 More Polish

• Edit for language choice. Use dramatic language.
  Use the best phrase. Write creatively and with
  interesting word choice.
• Try to create an irrefutable example that
  supports your philosophical stance.
• Find a powerful quote to begin your case
  Because I agree with the words of ___ who stated
  ___, I must affirm/negate the Resolution ___. .
  .

24
Step 8 Read It to a Brick, Time It.

• Practice reading it persuasively and intensely
  for a friend, a mirror, a brick. Make lots of eye
  contact.
• Affirmatives should be as close to 6 minutes as
  possible. Negatives should be 3-4 minutes so
  that they have at least 3 minutes to attack the
  affirmative case.
• Make changes in the text to repair grammar
  problems or confusing issues.

25
Step 9 Get Cross-Examined

• Get your debate teammates to cross examine you
  over every detail.
• Explain your value. Explain how your standard
  supports your value. Explain Contention 1. How
  does your subpoint A support Contention 1. etc.,
  etc., etc.

26
Step 10 Prepare a Brief.

• Simply make a typed and numbered list of 10
  reasons why your side is correct/better or your
  opponent is wrong/bad. Your topic guide will
  help.
• Anticipate what opponents might argue against
  your case and type out the best answer.
• Find evidence to support each point and add it to
  your brief.
• Try to turn expected arguments.

27
Step 11 Lay Traps

• After all the discussion and cross-examination
  you are probably familiar with some favorite
  points for your side that are difficult to refute
  and some holes in your opponents side that are
  problematic for them.
• Review your case a create a subpoint that is
  specifically included to stump your opponents.
  Be sure to emphasize it and use it to turn your
  opponents case.
• Remember if they drop a key issue, you win it. So
  pull it across the flow every speech.

28
Step 12 More traps

• In LD an Observation is a statement about the
  framework or division of ground in the debate
  round.
• Create an observation (usually right after your
  definitions or criterion) that frames the debate
  in such a way that your opponent would be limited
  in his or her ability to attack your case.
• You can also do this with your choice of
  definitions

29
Example of an Observation

• Affirmative
• Observation 1 In todays debate my analysis
  will be limited to the United States. To allow
  the negative to debate any government in the
  world whether it is a democratic republic or a
  autocratic dictatorship is destructive to the
  clash in the debate. It is unfair to the
  affirmative to defend the Letter of the law
  from an oppressive tyrant. This would create an
  abusive research burden for the affirmative, so
  please exclude any rhetoric or analysis that my
  opponent might try to use from any nation other
  than the U.S.

30
Keys to Winning in LD Debate

• Talk about it all the time. Articulating more and
  more complex and in depth issues within the
  resolution is key to beating tough opponents.
• Create a philosophical discussion group. This is
  just a group of teammates to informally discuss
  and debate the resolution and associated values,
  standards and contentions every day. Stay on
  topic.
• Anticipate your opponents arguments and locate
  evidence to beat them. Create briefs as you are
  discussing with the team.

31
Philosophy in LD
32
I. Kant
-Categorical Imperative Act only on that maxim
through which you can at the same time will that
it should become a universal law -Duty ethics i.
Only absolutely good is a good will ii.
Intent -Only tells us what is not moral not what
is moral
Kant developed his moral philosophy in three
works Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
(1785), Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and
Metaphysics of Morals (1798).
33
II. Mill
-Utilitarianism The greatest happiness of the
greatest number -Liberty-Natural Rights -Harm
Principle-Can only violate liberty if harmed
others -Market Place of Ideas
John Stuart Mill (May 20, 1806 May 8, 1873), an
English philosopher and political economist, was
an influential liberal thinker of the 19th
century. He was an advocate of utilitarianism,
the great ethical theory that was systemized by
his godfather Jeremy Bentham.
34
III. Locke
-Social Contract Individuals enter society
expecting that their individual rights will be
best protected i. All have basic rights ii.
Leave State of Nature and sacrifice some freedom
for security -Governments first duty is to
protect the rights of the people
John Locke (August 29, 1632 October 28, 1704)
was an influential English philosopher. His
writings influenced the American revolutionaries
as reflected in the American Declaration of
Independence.
35
IV. Hobbes
-Humans are selfish and the state of nature
stinks War of all against all in which human life
is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and
short -Government needed as a security
mechanism-Good use of force -Individuals
sacrifice all autonomy
Thomas Hobbes (April 5, 1588December 4, 1679)
was an English philosopher, whose famous 1651
book Leviathan set the agenda for nearly all
subsequent Western political philosophy.
36
V. Rousseau
-General will-Takes in views of all The general
will is always rightful and always tends to the
public good -Government will always act in
citizens best interest -Desire of self
preservation
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (June 28, 1712 July 2,
1778) was a Geneva-born philosopher of the
Enlightenment whose political ideas influenced
the French Revolution, the development of
socialist theory, and the growth of nationalism.
His legacy as a radical and revolutionary is
perhaps best demonstrated by his most famous line
in The Social Contract "Man is born free, and
everywhere he is in chains."
37
VI. Rawls
-Distributive Justice Justice is the first virtue
of social institutions i. Veil of Ignorance ii.
Maximin Rule -Fairness
John Rawls (February 21, 1921 November 24,
2002) was an American philosopher, a professor of
political philosophy at Harvard University and
author of A Theory of Justice (1971), Political
Liberalism, Justice as Fairness A Restatement,
and The Law of Peoples. He is considered by many
scholars to be the most important political
philosopher of the 20th century in the
English-speaking world.
38
VII. Nozick
-Property rights Taxation of earnings from labor
is on par with forced labor -Entitlement
Principle -Taxations, redistribution, etc.
slavery
Robert Nozick (November 16, 1938 January 23,
2002) was an American philosopher and Professor
at Harvard University. His Anarchy, State, and
Utopia (1974) was a libertarian answer to John
Rawls's A Theory of Justice, published in 1971.