What is LD Debate

1
What is LD Debate?
2
Metallica is not music!
3
To be musicyou must be able to understand the
lyrics.
Standard Rule Test Principle
4
Part One

• LD Theory

5

• Lincoln-Douglas debate provides excellent
  training for development of skills in
  argumentation, persuasion, research, and audience
  analysis. Through this contest, students are
  encouraged to develop a direct and communicative
  style of oral delivery. Lincoln-Douglas debate is
  a one-on-one argumentation in which debaters
  attempt to convince the judge of the
  acceptability of their side of a proposition. One
  debater shall argue the affirmative side of the
  resolution, and one debater shall argue the
  negative side of the resolution in a given
  round.
• (2003-04 Constitution and Contest Rules Section
  1002 LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE, http//www.uil.utexa
  s.edu/aca/hsrule/1002.html)

6

• Purpose
• Case and Analysis
• Defining the Values Did the arguments presented
  focus on the values implicit in the resolution?
• Establishing Criteria for Evaluating the
  Resolution On what basis (universal, moral,
  social, political, historical, legal, etc.) is
  one value proven by the debater to be more
  important than another?
• Weighing Importance Are the values advocated in
  support of the resolution more important than the
  values diminished by the resolution, or are
  alternative values supported by the negative
  enhanced by the resolution?
• Application of Values and Criteria Did the
  debaters apply their cases by filtering
  appropriate arguments through the value and
  criteria?
• Argumentation
• Proof Did the evidence presented pragmatically
  justify the affirmative or negative stance? Did
  the reasoning presented philosophically justify
  the affirmative or negative stance?
• Organization Are the ideas presented clearly, in
  a logical sequence, and with appropriate
  emphasis?
• Extension, Clash, and Rebuttal Did the
  debaters fulfill their obligation to extend their
  own arguments? Did they appropriately refute the
  contentions of their opponents by exposing
  weaknesses or inconsistencies?
• Presentation
• Expression Were language, tone, and emphasis
  appropriate to persuasive communication?
• Delivery Were gestures, movement, and eye
  contact audience oriented and natural components
  of persuasive communication?
• Rate Was rate of delivery conducive to audience
  understanding?
• Selecting the Winner Putting aside personal
  biases and based on the analysis, argumentation,
  and presentation of the debaters, which debater
  was the most persuasive?

 
7
What is the purpose of LD?

• A. Education
• B. Truth Seeking
• C. Win

8
Time Limits

• 1. Affirmative Constructive (AC) 6
  min.
• 2. Negative Cross-Examination (NCX)
  3 min.
• 3. Negative Constructive
  7 min.
• 4. Affirmative Cross-Examination (ACX) 3
  min.
  
• 5. First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) 4
  min.
• 6. Negative Rebuttal (NR)
  6 min.
• 7. Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) 3
  min.
• Preparation Each debater has a maximum of three
  minutes preparation time to be used during the
  course of the debate.

9
What are the key issues in Lincoln-Douglas
Debate?

• Stock Issues
• Fulfill certain issues
• Expected arguments
• What are the stock issues in a criminal case?

10
There are certain stock issues which
must be addresses in analyzing any value claim.
Stock issues are questions which are almost
always applicable to a particular type of
proposition. They will help you discover what
issues you must address to win the debate.
Three stock questions must be addressed to
prove the validity of a value. First, what is
being evaluated? Second, what is the appropriate
standard for evaluating it? Third does the thing
being evaluated meet the standard? Without
considering these questions, it would be
impossible to establish that any evaluation is
accurate, valid, or correct. To meet the burden
of proof, an affirmative debater must establish
the meaning of the object of evaluation,
establish the appropriate standard for judging or
evaluating the object of evaluation, and apply
that standard to the object of evaluation. These
are three issues that are relevant in justifying
any evaluation. These three issues, thus,
constitute the prima facie burdens. (The Value
Debate Handbook, Lee Polk and William English,
2000, page 11)
11
From this four-step procedure comes the stock
issues of a proposition of value. They are 1.
How should we define the object of evaluation?
2. By what criteria shall we evaluate it? 3.
What is the relationship between the evaluate
term and the object of evaluation? 4. What is
the hierarchy of values, and is the affirmative
value nearer to the top of this hierarchy than
any competitive value proposed by the negative?
(Lincoln-Douglas Debate Defining and Judging
Value Debate, NFISDA, Richard Hunsaker, 1990,
page 7)
12
Stock Issuesin LD

• Value
• Criteria
• Application/Contentions
• Define terms

13
What are values and criteria?

•   Yet, over twenty years after Lincoln-Douglas
  debate made its debut as a high school event,
  there is still no consensus on the use and
  application of the value premise or criteria.
•   NEW PERSPECTIVES ON VALUES AND CRITERIA IN
  LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE THE CASE CONTEXTUAL
  STANDARDS, Minh A. Luong, NFL Rostrum

14
The Standard

• Means to measure or test the resolution
• Relationship between value and criterion
• Standards
• These are concepts or rules used to evaluate the
  round. Since both sides will likely make some
  convincing arguments in the course of the round,
  standards are used to determine which arguments
  matter more.

15
What is a value?
16
A value is anything of worth.  Values,
by definition, will be broad and perhaps
vagueAlthough the criterion clarifies the value
by being more specific, it is still difficult to
completely define every aspect of the value.
Philosophers have tried to do that for more than
two thousand years it seems unlikely that
debaters will succeed in half-an hour. (SEEKING
CLARITY THROUGH THE FOG ON THE USE OF VALUES AND
CRITERION IN LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE, Courtney J.
Balentine and Minh A. Luong, NFL Rostrum)
17
The Value

• The "value", "core value", or "value premise"
  represents the most important goal for the round
  and are usually nebulous and somewhat vague good
  objects. Out of fairness and convention debaters
  rarely use values which bias one side over the
  other.
• The wording of certain resolutions may
  implicitly prescribe the best value for the
  round. For example, the resolution "Democracy is
  best served by strict separation of church and
  state" implicitly suggests a value of
  "democracy". Since the wording of the resolution
  guides the selection of values the two debaters
  may have identical or similar values. In these
  circumstances focus is usually shifted to the
  criterion.

18
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
19
How to establish an appropriate value  A.
Provide an adequate and appropriate definition of
your value. Most values are abstract, and can
have different interpretations by both debaters.
Thus when you give a value a specific definition
needs to be given. For example look at the value
such as legitimate government. Interpretations
can be varied on what a legitimate government is.
Some could interpret legitimate government as a
government that protects individual rights, as
others could interpret a legitimate government as
a government that provides security for its
citizens. Thus a definition must be given to give
your opponent and your judge an understanding of
what a legitimate government actually is. B.
Show the values resolutional implications Resolu
tional implications simply show why your value is
intrinsic to the resolution. As a debater you
must link how the value is related to the
resolution. C. Show the values real world
implications Real world implications give an
understanding of the importance of the value. It
also gives your judge an idea of why your value
is needed and is important. For example if your
value is morality, you could say Cambridge
Professor Mark Cooray establishes the importance
of morality, Without morality all kinds of
injustices and oppressions against individual
persons are sanctioned. No society can function
efficiently or humanely and no civilization can
endure without this value.
20
The Criterion

• Further define and limit the value
• How to achieve the value
• They allow us to tell when the requirements of
  the value are met
• Ingredients of the cake

21
UIL Guide A criterion is.. a standard
by which something can be measured or judged
(UIL Guide, page 12) a way to measure or judge
whether or not upholding the resolution achieves
or enhances the value (UIL Guide, page 13) it
is certainly the area where the most confusion
and difference of opinion exist... (UIL Guide,
page 12)
22
The "criterion" or "value criterion" is the
conceptual mechanism the debater proposes to
achieve and weigh the value. Oftentimes, the
debater will simply talk about the criterion, so
it is sometimes referred to as the standard, in
and of itself. First and foremost, the criterion
is how the debater achieves the value. Given a
value of liberty, for example, debaters might
propose a criterion of protecting free speech,
reasoning that free speech is the most important
aspect of liberty and that possessing it will
allow society to criticize government thereby
maintaining other types of liberty. A criterion
will usually be stated as a gerund (e.g.
upholding a system of checks and balances), or
will be the name of a particular philosophy or
term (e.g., democratic peace theory). The
criterion serves several purposes then. First, it
links the arguments made in the rest of the
speech with the value. In other words, the speech
usually argues that an affirmative or negative
world leads to or necessarily includes the
criterion which in turn leads to the value. In
addition to this, there are two commonly used
variations of criterion. The first is generally
classified as "a weighing standard for the
round," or a burden that both sides must prove
they fit in order to win the round. The other is
a "burden criterion," which is placed on the
affirmative by either side, and lays out a burden
the affirmative must fulfill in order to win.
Values and criteria can be debated over which
provides for a fairer debate, which one is more
relevant, if the burden is fulfillable, etc.
23
Common Criteria

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

24
How to choose and establish an appropriate
criterion A. Establish how your criterion
achieves your value. You must prove how your
criterion achieves your value, or else you are
not affirming or negating. This is true because
if you are saying you value something, you must
prove how you achieve this value in the context
of the round. If your value is justice you cant
just say why justice is important, you must also
prove why your criterion achieves justice. B.
Provide justifications. Give warrants under your
criterion, on why your criterion is so important.
The more justifications you give, gives you more
offense on why your standard is more important
and why you should affirm or negate. C. Provide
Burdens. Under the criterion set up a burden
framework. Tell your judge what your opponent has
to do to win your criterion. This is good for two
reasons. First a lot of opponents drop burdens.
Two, burdens set up a better debate. If you come
out and tell your opponent what they have to do
to win, it allows the judge to weigh the round a
lot easier.  
25
Examples (v) justice (c) giving every man his
due ? (c) equality of opportunity (c)
promote individual fundament rights (c)
accommodates individual autonomy (v) legitimate
govt (c) consistent with the social contract
(c) provides for security (c) follows the
general will (c) consistent with
international standards
26
Generic responses to values 1. Vague/
Ambiguous 2. Value Objection- a harmful effect of
the value 3. My value is more important 4. My
value is precursor-comes first 5. My value
includes it-succumbs their value 6. Not a value,
only a mechanism to gain some good-i.e democracy
27
Generic Criteria responses 1. Circular to the
value 2. Begs 3. Insufficient 4. My criterion is
a precursor 5. Ambiguous, Vague 6. Not a
criterion- i.e Cost Benefit Analysis 7. Criterion
objection-a harmful effect of the criterion
28
Part Two Case Construction
29

• The role of the constructive is to lay out your
  position. Ideally your first speech should be
  visionary, meaning at the start of the debate you
  should know what you need to win the round. You
  should also have a unified cohesive position. Be
  sure that you can summarize what you are going to
  talk about in a few seconds.
• You need to have
• Resolutional Interpretation what does the
  resolution mean, are you making any assumptions,
  setting any limits or burdens
• A value and criterion
• Weighing by starting to weigh arguments and
  stating why yours is most important in your first
  speech it makes your next 7 minutes infinitely
  easier.

30
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 ____________________________________________
  __________________________________________________
  __________________________________________________
  __________________________________________________
  __________________.

31
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 __________________________________
  ___________________________________.

32
Contention (s)

• Contention _____________________________________
  _____________________________.
• (Object of Evaluation/Value/Criterion)
• A.
• Analysis
• Evidence / Example
• Impact to value/ Criterion
• B.
• Analysis
• Evidence / Example
• Impact to value/ Criterion
• C.
• Analysis
• Evidence / Example
• Impact to value/ Criterion

33
Tricks of the Trade

• Framework
• Warrant the criterion
• Impacts
• Keep it Simple

34
Framework

• Please allow me to make an observation
  Affirmative Burden
• The affirmative must prove that freedom of
  expression ought to be valued above political
  correctness. Weighing one implication with
  another is the only way we can actually determine
  which value should be prioritized. Therefore my
  opponent cant just say vote affirmative, because
  political correctness violates freedom of
  expression. My opponent has to show why the
  implications of violating freedom of expression
  outweigh the implications I give at the point you
  dont have political correctness. This must be
  the way we determine who wins the round, because
  rights conflicts will always arise, and the only
  way we can determine how to solve that conflict
  is by determining which side of the conflict has
  more severe implications.

35
Warrant the criterion

• The criterion is minimizing dehumanization.
• Dehumanization is a process by which a group of
  people assert the "inferiority" of another group
  through subtle and overt statements.
• This is fundamental to society because if you
  dont minimize dehumanization, evil actions will
  become acceptable.
• Susan Opotow explains,
• Once certain groups are stigmatized as evil,
  morally inferior, and not fully human, the
  persecution of those groups becomes more
  psychologically acceptable. It may seem even more
  acceptable for people to do things that they
  would have regarded as morally unthinkable before.

36
Impacts

• Absolutist approach to freedom of expression
  opens the door to extreme dehumanization.
• At the point freedom of expression becomes an
  absolute right any and all types of expression
  are acceptable. Thus hate speech and racist
  comments become acceptable, and this inevitably
  leads to dehumanization.
• Professor Delgado explains
• The psychological harm caused by racial
  stigmatization are often much more severe than
  those created by other stereotyping actions.
  Race-based stigmatization is, therefore, one of
  the most fruitful causes of human misery. The
  accumulation of negative images presents them
  with one massive and destructive choice either
  to hate ones self, or to have no self at all, to
  be nothing. This ambivalence arises from the
  stigmatized individuals awareness that others
  perceive him or her as falling short of societal
  standards.
• Therefore my opponent has the burden to prove
  that the implications of violating freedom of
  expression outweigh the implications of racism.
• However there are two reasons why my implications
  outweigh the affirmatives
• First, my implications outweigh on a magnitude
  level. Like Barndt explained racism of any kind
  will inevitably destroy us all. Minimal
  violations of freedom of expression cant
  outweigh destruction of all.
• Second, my implications outweigh on a timeframe
  level. Racism is here now. The harms to racism
  are happening now, so we must act immediately. My
  opponents harms of violating freedom of
  expression only occur down the road.

37
Part ThreePhilosophy in LD

• Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means
  and moral self-discipline.
• Investigation of the nature, causes, or
  principles of reality, knowledge, or values,
  based on logical reasoning rather than empirical
  methods.
• The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions
  or beliefs.
• A system of values by which one lives has an
  unusual philosophy of life.

Socrates is customarily regarded as the
father of political philosophy and ethics or
moral philosophy, and as a fountainhead of all
the main themes in Western philosophy in general.

38
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).
39
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.
40
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.
41
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.
42
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."
43
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.
44
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.
45
The Big Picture
46
Part Four

• Demonstration Debate

47
Speaker Format

• AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE 6 MINUTES
•  
• Read case
• 
  
• NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE 7 MINUTES
•  
• Read Case
• Clash with affirmative case
•  
• 1ST AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL 4 MINUTES
•  
• Affirmative overview
• Clash with negative case
• Extend and/or rebuild affirmative case
•  
• NEGATIVE REBUTTAL 6 MINUTES
•  
• Negative overview
• Clash with affirmative case