Lincoln-Douglas Debate Value Debate

Elements of an LD Case

Affirmative or Negative?

Criterion

Resolution

Contentions Value

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.

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

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

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

Common ValuesCommon 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

Justice

Leg’t govt Rights Autonomy

Societal Welfare

Safety Progress Democracy

Value HierarchyValue Hierarchy

Step 2: Choose a criterion/standard

• Value of Justice: Criterion = Socrates’ Social Contract

• Value of Individual Rights: Criterion = Locke’s State of Nature

Common CriteriaCommon Criteria

• Social Contract • Categorical

Imperative • Utility • Harm Principle • Cost Benefit Analysis • Market Place of Ideas • Pragmatism • Maslow’s Hierarchy

of Needs

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.

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 one’s 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 Locke’s 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.

John Locke’s 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. Locke’s 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.

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.

• Value=Individual Rights• Standard=Locke’s 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.

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.

Example Contention Structure

• Claim (tag)• Warrant (analysis, explanation)• Data (evidence)• Impact (effect on society and/or

individuals)• Relationship to the criterion and

value

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.)

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.

Layout/Case Construction

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 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.

Value and Criterion

The value I will be upholding in today’s 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 _____________________________________________________________________.

Contention (s)

Contention: __________________________________________________________________.

(Object of Evaluation/Value/Criterion)A.AnalysisEvidence / ExampleImpact to value/ CriterionB.AnalysisEvidence / ExampleImpact to value/ CriterionC. AnalysisEvidence / ExampleImpact to value/ Criterion

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. (It’s ok if you don’t 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.

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 ___. . .”

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.

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.

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.

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 opponent’s case.

• Remember if they drop a key issue, you win it. So pull it across the flow every speech.

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

Example of an Observation:

• Affirmative “Observation 1: In today’s 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.”

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.

Philosophy in LDPhilosophy in LD

I. KantI. 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 ethicsi. Only absolutely good is a good willii. 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).

II. MillII. Mill

-UtilitarianismThe 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.

III. LockeIII. Locke

-Social ContractIndividuals enter

society expecting that their individual rights will be best protectedi. All have basic rightsii. Leave State of Nature and sacrifice some freedom for security

-Government’s 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.

IV. HobbesIV. 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, 1588–December 4, 1679) was an English philosopher, whose famous 1651 book Leviathan set the agenda for nearly all subsequent Western political philosophy.

V. RousseauV. 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."

VI. RawlsVI. Rawls

-Distributive JusticeJustice is the first

virtue of social institutionsi. Veil of Ignoranceii. Maximin Rule

-FairnessJohn 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.

VII. NozickVII. Nozick

-Property rightsTaxation 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.