Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Lincoln-Douglas DebateJusticeSocial ContractCategorical ImperativeUtilitarianism

FIRST:Make sure you clearly understand AND DEFINE your terms!!!January/February 2013 Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system.Definitions can be tricky!!!Freedom: What does it mean?Freedom: Self-Determination; the ability of an agent to act or not act according to ones preferences

Platos Freedom: Obeying reason rather than being a servant to passions; the subordination of mans will to reasonCausation versus Correlation(common mistakes)Causation: The act or process of CAUSING something to happen: No cause, no effectCorrelation:A mutual relationship or connection between two or more things

Does cheaper gas CAUSE more car fatalities?NEXT:Decide upon your value You may need to do this as part of term definitionSometimes HOW you define a term depends upon your chosen ValueDecide upon your Value CriterionAgain, make sure you understand and define your terms!!!Value & CriterionValueA value is an idea that a debater argues is paramount. The contentions in an Lincoln-Douglas case uphold the value. Generally, the debater will present philosophical background to support and explain their value.Criterion:A criterion is a necessary or sufficient standard by which to measure the competing values. It is a conceptual tool used to decide which value should be upheld.Common Values/CriterionsJustice*Social Contract*Categorical Imperative*DeontologyUtilitarianism*Equality

http://debate-central.ncpa.org/common-ld-values/

JusticeFairnessRules Fair? Results Fair?Equitableness Correct TreatmentEmbodiment of the virtues of a societyHarmony between ones rights and the rights of othersSocial ContractIn the beginningMan lived in a state of nature with no government or law to regulate themDue to hardships & oppression, agreements aroseAgree to respect each other & live in peace Agree to obey an authority, thus surrendering wholly, or in part, freedom (Governments job is to guarantee everyones life, property and some liberties)Thomas Hobbes Social Contract:In state of nature life was filled with fear and selfishness (Chaos)People desired security and order, thus Man entered into a contract with some authorityRights and freedoms surrenderedRuler will be absolute headRuler has obligations to preserve orderJohn Lockes Social Contract:State of Nature is different than HobbesReasonable and good life (a Golden Age?)Problem: property not securePeople possessed all the liberties Nature could giveProperty is the key to Lockes ideaPrivate Property is when one mixes labor with raw materials of natureLocke believed people should not take more than their fair share because nature is given to Man for common subsistence (use)

Private Property not secure in state of nature because:No LawNo Impartial Judge to oversee disagreementsNo power to execute the natural lawsThus, a Social Contract is agreed upon to secure Private PropertyPeople surrender only some of their power/freedoms Purpose of power is to preserve order & enforce Natural LawsIndividuals retain various rights for themselvesLife, Liberty, health, propertyRight to rebel

Rousseaus Social Contract:State of Nature was happy & there was equality among MenAs populations increased change occurredPeople living closer togetherDivision of labor introducedInventions gave rise to leisure timeInvented private propertyAs a result of the above, public values emergedShame, Envy, Greed, Pride, Competition, Vanity, Inequality, etcThus Man fell from grace (so to speak)Social Contract manifests, according to Rousseau, in the form of the General WillGeneral Will is the state that is formed to guarantee rights, liberties, freedoms, and equalityEmbodied the will of the majority of citizens to which blind obedience is givenEach individual is subject to this General Will rather than any other individualTo obey the General Will is to obey oneselfMORALITYYou know that Christina wants to kill your friend Mariah, who you have just left sitting at a table. Christina comes up to you and asks you where Mariah is. If you tell her the truth, Christina will find Mariah and kill her. If you lie and tell her that you saw Mariah leaving five minutes ago, Christina will be thrown off the scent, allowing Mariah to get away. What should you do? Tell the truth or lie?Categorical Imperative (Kant)An action is morally permissible only if it accords with a rule that you can consistently and universally apply to yourself and othersConsequences do not matterMorality is an end, not a meansA moral law is unconditional or absolute for all agents, the validity or claim of which does not depend on any ulterior motive or endLying is immoral why?If everyone lied all the time, no one would believe anyone, thus lying is self defeatingThus, truth-telling is the moral right rather than lyingMoral right must be followed regardless of consequencesAct in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.An airliner carrying 120 passengers is hurtling out of control towards a densely populated area. There is no time to evacuate the area and the impact of the plane is certain to kill thousands. The only possible move is to shoot down the plane. Should you do it?Utilitarianism (Bentham & JSMill)Theory based on Consequentialism Right and wrong are based upon the extent in which they increase or decrease human well-being or utilityGreatest happiness for the greatest numberYou are a doctor at a top hospital. You have six gravely ill patients, five of whom are in urgent need of organ transplants. You cant help them, though, because there are no available organs that can be used to save their lives. The sixth patient, however, will die without a particular medicine. If s/he dies, you will be able to save the other five patients by using the organs of patient 6, who is an organ donor. What do you do?

September/October 2008 Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.You are an eyewitness to a crime: A man has robbed a bank, but instead of keeping the money for himself, he donates it to a poor orphanage that can now afford to feed, clothe, and care for its children. You know who committed the crime. If you go to the authorities with the information, theres a good chance the money will be returned to the bank, leaving a lot of kids in need. What do you do?

2012 National Speech & Debate Tournament Resolved:A government has the obligation to lessen the economic gap between its rich and poor citizens.Other Fun past LD Topics2013 National Speech & Debate Tournament Resolved: Oppressive government is more desirable than no government.March/April 2012- Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.March/April 2009- Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.20150106_me_the_downside_of_chNPRBlues249590.42