Lincoln Douglas Debate Theory



Download 205.96 Kb.
Date conversion13.05.2016
Size205.96 Kb.


Lincoln Douglas Debate Theory
What is debate? How does it differ from discussion? How does it differ from an argument?

Debate is organized argumentation directed toward a third party for a decision. It differs from discussion

because debaters do not seek to compromise their positions; debaters maintain their position throughout the debate. It differs from an arguments because the debaters try to convince a third party, not each other.
Format of a Lincoln Douglas Debate:
1st Affirmative Constructive 6 minutes

CX 3 minutes

1st Negative Constructive 7 minutes

CX 3 minutes

1st Affirmative Rebuttal 4 minutes

1st Negative Rebuttal 6 minutes

2nd Affirmative Rebuttal 3 minutes
Each debater gets 3 minutes prep time

Definitions:

- Affirmative

Argues in favor of the resolution
- Negative

Argues against the resolution


- Resolution

The subject for debate; Llso known as the proposition, topic, question



Divides ground evenly

Worded affirmatively (so that the affirmative answers “yes” and hopefully



without “not” words)
- Constructive

The first speech given by each debater - used to build all the major arguments that support



the debater’s position
- Rebuttal

Speech used to summarize and analyze



Refute opponent’s arguments

Rebuild by answering your opponent’s attacks
- Cross Examination

A questioning period designed to clarify issues, expose weaknesses, and set up arguments


- Case

Contains the major reasons for supporting a particular position


- Refute

Argue against


- Prep Time

The time allowed between speeches to prepare


- Flow

Sheets of paper set up to take notes of the arguments made in a debate



Types of Resolutions
Propositions of Fact -
Argues that something exists, occurs, or is related to something else in a specific way.
Examples: Illegal drugs exist on campus.

Drug abuse occurs among students.

Abuse of illegal drugs harms students.

Propositions of Value -

Requires a value judgment such as

is better than

is more important than

is justified
Example: Random testing of students for illegal drug use is justified.

Propositions of Policy -
Advocates a course of action

Example: All high schools in the United States should adopt a policy to randomly test

students for illegal drug use.

Values and Value Hierarchies
What is a value?
An ideal toward which people strive

Will be used to determine comparative worth of ideas in relation to social preference

Values are judgments based on our experiences - they are neither right nor wrong
What are some common American values?
Equality Justice Privacy Happiness Life

Freedom Progress Safety Knowledge National Security

Freedom of Expression Individual Rights Quality of Life
What is an intrinsic value?
Something has intrinsic value if it is valuable for its own sake and not merely as a means to other values.

It is a terminal or ending point value.

-Happiness, Life, Peace


What is an instrumental value?
Something is an instrumental value if it helps us achieve a terminal value.

-Equality, Justice, Cooperation


What is a value hierarchy?
An ordering or ranking of values

In placing one value over another in decision making, we do not eliminate a value; we merely give it



a less important standing.


Can you debate whether or not something is a value? No

Explain.
The issue of whether or not something is a value is NOT debatable.

How a value’s worth is weighed in relationship to other values (value hierarchy) is debatable.



What are some current issues in our society that involve a clash of values?
Universal health insurance; school prayer; adoption; abortion; welfare; flag burning;

ANALYZING A RESOLUTION
1. Find the object of evaluation, evaluative term, and context of evaluation.
Object of Evaluation - the subject of the resolution; the “thing” that determines the value
Comparative Judgment - evaluates one thing relative to another

Non-Comparative Judgment - evaluates something on its own merits



(Evaluative Term) - method by which you are to judge the object of evaluation
[Context of Evaluation] - a phrase that places limits on the object of evaluation of the

evaluative term



Examples: Resolved: That U. S. military interference [in the internal affairs of other countries]

(is justified).


Resolved: [In the criminal justice system,] truth seeking (ought to take precedence over)

privileged communication.


Resolved: Liberty (is more precious than) law.

2. Define the terms of the resolution.

Dictionary

Specialized Dictionary such as Black’s Law Dictionary

Field Context such as Supreme Court decisions, journal articles


3. Determine perspectives from which one could view the evaluative term.

“Justified”

Legally, morally, economically, politically, educationally, intrinsically, extrinsically

“Is more important than”

Instrumental value

Produces better consequences

Preserves intrinsic values


4. Determine the values that could be affected by the resolution.
What values would be enhanced, protected, promoted, or preserved by the resolution?

What values would be undermined or diminished by the resolution?

5. Brainstorm contentions that could support your position.
Contentions are major arguments. They are like the topic sentences in an essay.

They must then be supported with reasoning and evidence.




Ways of Comparing Two Values
1. The value that applies to more of humankind is the best value.
A value that affects all societies (equality) is greater than a value that affects only selected societies

(democracy).

Development of natural resources may allow for the value of progress, but only for the present generation.

In contrast, if present and future generations are given the value of safety (from pollutants), safety is of

greater value than progress.

2. The value that fits the resolution in context will ultimately be the better

value.
“National security” and “quality of life” are both important values. When questioning genetic

engineering’s worth, however, quality of life fits the resolution is better.



3. The value that enhances other values is greatly advantageous.
Upholding individual rights is even greater when we consider that it enhances liberty, equality,

and quality of life.



4. The value that limits or destroys other values is not as advantageous.
Progress may be important, but it would be considered a lesser value if it diminishes safety and liberty.
Why Study Ethics?
Every society has a set of moral rules or guidelines that set the boundaries of acceptable behavior

Behavior that might harm other people

Behavior concerned with the well-being of others

Actions that touch on issues of respect for other persons


Moral codes are seldom completely consistent. Our everyday life raises moral questions that we cannot answer immediately.

Contradictions among different values

Uncertainty about which value should be given priority

Traditional values do not cover new situations


Ethics is the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs.
On what basis do we make moral decisions?
Divine Command - Being good is equivalent to doing what the Bible or some other sacred text tells you

Ethical Egoism - One’s only duty is to promote one’s own interests - to do what is really in his best interest

over the long run

The Ethics of Duty - Begins with the conviction that ethics is about doing what is right, about doing you duty

The Ethics of Rights - Establishes minimal conditions of human decency

Utilitarianism - Seeks to reduce suffering and increase pleasure or happiness

The Ethics of Justice - What is fair for one should be fair for all

How is Ethics useful in debate?
Some value resolutions ask us to weigh one value in relation to another value

Some value resolutions as us to determine the rightness or wrongness of an action

Some value resolutions ask us to determine which action is preferred in relation to another action
Ethics gives us the moral theories we can use to make these determinations - the criteria we use as a yard stick to measure values
Moral Theories
A moral theory tells you what you should do (what is right, what is good, what you should do)

This is an independent question from the question of what people WILL do

It is irrelevant to the moral question whether it is actually likely to be done
Consequentialist Deontologist

(Non-consequentialist)
Any position in ethics which claims that the rightness Any position in ethics which claims that the

or wrongness of actions depends on their consequences. rightness or wrongness of actions depends on

whether or not they correspond to our duty.
The ends justify the means. The ends cannot justify the means. The

means must be moral themselves.


Consequentialist Deontologist

Consequentialism Deontological Ethics
Utilitarianism Categorical Imperative

Cost Benefit Analysis Judeo-Christian Ethic

Rights Based Theories (social contract)


Common Philosophies Used as Criteria
1. Utilitarianism
Actions are right to the degree that they promote the greatest good for the greatest number.

Jeremy Bentham

John Stuart Mill - On Liberty
Actions are judged right or wrong solely by their consequences

Right actions are those that produce the greatest balance of happiness over unhappiness

Each person’s happiness is equally important
Strengths Weaknesses
Promotes human well-being One person’s good can be another’s evil
Attempts to lessen human suffering Hard to predict accurately all consequences
2. Cost Benefit Analysis
A “real-world” method for weighing ethical and pragmatic decisions by simply weighing the costs of an action versus the benefits
Costs can be in terms of lost values
Benefits can be in terms of values gained
3. The Ethics of Duty

Motivation, not effects, determine moral worth



Most of us live by rules - these rules are called imperatives by Immanuel Kant

Kant divides imperatives into two categories: hypothetical and categorical
Hypothetical imperatives result from our desires “if. . .then”

Categorical imperatives result from our duty which we can determine through reason - they are

unconditional - they apply at all times
“Always act in such a way that you will that the maxim of your action should become a

universal law” (the Golden Rule)


Act so that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in that of another, always as an

end and never merely as a means” (respect for persons)


Strengths Weaknesses


Doing the right thing because it is the right thing Yields only absolutes - moral dilemmas are

because it is the right thing to do - duty created when duties come into conflict
What’s fair for one is fair for all Excludes emotions from any positive role in

the moral life
Respect for humans as autonomous beings Consequences do count

capable of reasoning

4. The Ethics of Rights
Many of the greatest documents of the last two centuries have centered around the notion of rights

The Bill of Rights

The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights
Many of the great movements of this century have centered around the notion of rights

The Civil Rights Movement

Equal Rights for women



Rights express a certain kind of relationship between two parties:

The rights holders - a right is permission to act or an entitlement to act, exist, enjoy, demand

The rights observers - the right imposes a correlative duty or obligation upon them

Negative Rights - to refrain from interfering with the rights holders exercise of the right

Positive Rights - to assist in the successful exercise of the right
Negative Rights - simply impose on others the duty not to interfere with your rights (right to life,

right to free speech, right to freedom of religion)

Positive Rights - impose on others a specific obligation to do something to assist you in the exercise

of your right (to provide health care, to provide income, to provide education)
John Locke, Ronald Dworkin, Robert Nozick




Political Philosophies used as Criteria
Social Contract Theory
John Locke - Second Treatise of Government
Jean Jacques Rousseau - Social Contract
Thomas Hobbes - The Leviathan
John Rawls - A Theory of Justice


Natural Rights (human rights) belong to everyone by nature or simply by virtue of being human

Legal Rights (social contract rights) belong to people by virtue of their membership in a particular political state
Morality consists in the set of rules, governing how people are to treat one another, that rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual benefit, on the condition others follow those rules as well
For example - John Locke

The social contract is a unanimous agreement among all free members of the state of nature to join together to become a civil society. The population agrees to allow the majority to create a governing body which will in turn make and enforce society rules.

Researching a Topic
1. Read for understanding and background information.

2. Mark ideas that would help develop a case.

3. Highlight specific quotations that would support your contentions.


Rules of Evidence #1

1. Have available a full source citation.



Author, author’s qualifications, date, title, page.
2. You do not need to read the full citation.
3. Give enough of the citation to give the quote credibility.


Rules of Evidence #2

1. Make available the entire quote.



Internal ellipses are not allowed

Quote may be read in paraphrased form
2. Be certain the quote is not taken out of context.
3. Be faithful to the author’s intent.


Quotable” Evidence should be
From a reliable source

Concise - short and to the point

Making a persuasive point

Supporting of itself

not dependent on other sentences to make sense

vague words or pronouns identified in brackets


Use of Evidence in Debate
Background - any and all evidence that helps your understanding of the resolution

Evidence to Prove a Point - statistics, quotes, examples

Evidence to Clarify and Explain - examples, definitions

Evidence to Impress & Persuade - short quotes, examples, statistics that drive a point home, dramatic

illustrations
Use at least one quote to support each major idea in your case.

Have available evidence to refute arguments you expect your opponent to use.

Have available evidence to support your arguments against the refutation you expect from your opponents.

Constructing an Affirmative/Negative

I. Introduction
A. Attention Getter - quotation, story, historical example which outlines general position

B. State the resolution - “I stand resolved. . .”

C. Define key terms - use mainstream, accepted sources; try defining phrases together

D. Establish value/criteria - state and give a brief explanation

E. Preview Contentions - lists contentions in order

F. Observations (optional) - states what should be accepted facts not favorable to one side

II. Body

A. Use clear contentions

B. Use short contentions (7 words or less when possible)

C. Use evidence and your own reasoning to support contentions/sub points

D. Tie contentions to value/criteria

Contentions are arguments

Each argument contains three parts

The Claim

The Warrant

The Impact
The Claim is a statement of the argument (the main idea)

“Nuclear weapons testing harms innocent people”
The Warrant is the analysis that explains why the claim is valid and may include evidence

“Innocent people are affected by nuclear weapons’ testing due to radiation fallout.

People living near testing sites during World War II’s Manhattan Project evidenced

increased rates of cancer and other diseases as a result of exposure to radiation during

testing.”
The Impact is the analysis telling us why the argument is important.

“The supposed need for nuclear weapons does not justify putting innocent people at risk.

A government is not justified in putting its own citizens in danger. Such a government

would not only be illegitimate, but also immoral, thus rendering nuclear weapons’ testing

immoral.”

III. Conclusion
A. Summarize key points

B. Conclude persuasively

1. Quotation

2. Return to attention getter

3. Persuasive rhetoric


Note: Negative Constructive will refute the affirmative as part of the body

before going to the conclusion.

Example Case Structures
Resolved: The benefits of genetic engineering outweigh the harms.
V = Life

C = Consequentialist
I. Genetic engineering prevents genetic diseases.

II. Genetic engineering leads to cures for diseases.

III. Genetic engineering can wipe out hunger.

Resolved: That an oppressive government is more desirable than no government.
V= Order (Social Order)

C= Cost Benefit Analysis

I. The Order created by the Social Contract is the most fundamental value

to mankind.

II. Governments must oppress the individual to maintain order.

III. Without government, we lose both human rights and justice.


Cross Examination
The Purposes of Cross Examination:

1. Clarify Issues

2. Expose Weaknesses

3. Set Up Arguments
Cross Examination Basics
BE DON’T BE
Calm Argumentative

Cooperative Belligerent

In-Control Evasive

Knowledgeable Arrogant

Poised Flustered
The questioner controls the time.

This is not the time to make speeches.

This time is not recorded by the judge.

The most important aspect of CX is creating Image.

Both debaters face the judge.

Both debaters should be courteous.

Both debaters should prepare ahead.


Tips for the Questioner:
Ask questions that are short and to the point.

Avoid drawing a conclusion; leave that for your next speech

Refrain from arguing or pressing for an answer you obviously can’t get.

Politely control the tone and pace of the period.

Realize that your goal is obtain information which can be used later to attack your opponent’s position

The more threatening you are, the more you increase the witness’ defensiveness

The best way to obtain information is to relax the witness

Be friendly and non-threatening

Begin with easy questions

Avoid the temptation to impress the witness with your debate ability

Use a short series of questions rather than open-ended questions

Use admissions you get in your next speech.


Tips for the Respondent:
Answer questions directly and confidently.

Avoid evasive responses because they suggest you have something to hide

If you don’t know the answer, admit it.

If you need to qualify an answer, do so before answering “yes” or “no.”

Refuse demands for “yes” or “no” answers when they are not possible by stating that such an answer is not

possible

Never answer a question you don’t understand

Don’t respond to a question by asking a question

Comply with reasonable requests to limit answers.

Staging Cross Examination

Maintain eye contact with the judge

Do not be upstaged by your opponent

Preparing for Cross Examination

Anticipate areas of attack on your case

Anticipate areas of attack on cases you may meet

Prepare lines of questioning on anticipated areas

Ask team members to both ask and answer questions

Seek to reduce ambiguity in both questions and answers

Refine wording
Using Cross Examination Strategically

Most judges do not flow CX

An observation at the beginning of your next speech is good if there has been an important gain

Use information gained in CX in developing arguments in your speech by reminding the judge,



“In CX, my opponent told us...”

Ways to Attack an Argument
1. Is there a contradiction within the case?

2. Does any argument assume that something is inherently good?

3. Is the argument realistic?

4. Is the argument supported by a quote from a credible source?

5. Is more harm produced than good?

6. Are there impacts to the argument your opponent has failed to recognize?

7. Can your side of the resolution actually do a better job of achieving the value or benefits your opponent

claims?
8. Is your opponent guilty of using fallacies of reasoning?

Fallacies of Reasoning

Appeals to Tradition

An argument that claims something is preferable because it has always been so

Example:

References to the Supreme Court’s decisions or the Constitution
Faulty logic because to argue that we always have doesn’t justify the action. The Supreme

Court often reverses itself. Another problem is assuming the Constitution or Supreme Court

decision is applicable world-wide.

Hasty Generalization

A conclusion based on incomplete evidence.
One of the most common fallacies in debate.

Example: An argument based on the belief “democracy is the best form of government” - cannot

fall back on childhood impressions - must justify democracy in today’s world

Bandwagon (Popular Opinion)

An argument is based on how many people believe in or do something.

Ad Hominem (Against the Man)

Means “against the man.” The argument is made against a person instead of against the person’s

ideas.

Begging the Question (Circular Reasoning)

Circular reasoning. The claim and the reason for making the claim are the same.

Example: Arguing that something is the moral and correct thing to do because it is moral.

Morality is left unproven.

Red Herring

Introduces an irrelevant issue to divert attention from the subject under discussion
Comes from an old trick used by farmers in England to keep fox hunters and their hounds from

galloping through the crops by dragging a smoked herring with a strong odor along the edge of

the fields

Either-Or

Forces listeners to choose between two alternatives when more than two alternatives exist

Sometimes called a “false dilemma”

Statements often oversimplify a complex issue

Slippery Slope

Assumes that taking a first step will lead to subsequent steps that cannot be prevented

Speaker should provide evidence or reasoning to support the claim

Five Steps of Refutation


  1. State position you are refuting in your opponent’s language, making sure to sign-post.


My opponent’s first contention states that nuclear weapons’ testing harms innocent people.


  1. Summarize the idea to get at the key meaning


What this means is that danger is involved in nuclear weapons’ testing



  1. State your response or counter argument – CLAIM


A government must defend its own citizens.


  1. Provide support for your counter-argument with analysis and possibly evidence – WARRANT


Part of a nation’s self-defense may require owning and maintaining nuclear weapons. For the weapons to

be reliable, they must be tested. Therefore, nuclear weapons must be tested for a nation to adequately

defend its citizens.


  1. Give IMPACT to your response . . .


Citizens rely on their government for protection from outside attack. A government must use any means

necessary, sometimes even dangerous means to defend its citizens. Conversely, a nation that puts its

citizens at risk of nuclear attack is not only not a legitimate government, it isn’t moral either.

. . . And weigh it against opponent’s argument.


The potential harms of weapons’ testing must be weighed against the real danger of nuclear annihilation.

Thus, nuclear weapons’ testing doesn’t harm but in fact protects innocent lives.


This creates CLASH and is important to winning the round

Organization of a Rebuttal
1. Begin with a strong overall statement of philosophy

2. Clash with definitions as needed

3. Clash with Value/Criteria

4. Refute opponent’s contentions

5. Rebuild your own contentions

6. Conclude with a strong persuasive statement. Do not simply ask for the ballot.

Clashing Value and Criterion
Show why your value ought to rank higher in priority than your opponent’s value.

Show how you better achieve your opponent’s value that he does.

Show how your value is better upheld by your opponent’s criterion than his value

Show why your opponent’s criterion is less appropriate for this debate than yours



Secrets to a Great Rebuttal
1. Extend arguments - provide new logic, analysis, or evidence.

2. Do not repeat evidence

3. Stay organized - use the flow

4. Group similar arguments

5. Cross-apply arguments when appropriate

6. Watch time carefully

7. Signpost clearly - let the judge know where you are

Debate Protocol
Dress for success

Be on time for rounds

Shake hands at the end of the round

Don’t “bad mouth” opponents and judges

Pre-flow before the appointed time for the round to begin


How a Tournament Runs
Generally there are four preliminary rounds

You will debate two affirmative and two negative rounds

Advancing to elimination rounds is based on wins and speaker points

Most tournaments “flight” LD rounds




Debate Ethics
Don’t lie

Don’t slime

Don’t purposely misquote or confuse

Don’t steal cases



Return cases or evidence at the end of the round



The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2016
send message

    Main page