Lincoln Douglas Debate Theory
Download 205.96 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
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.
Example: All high schools in the United States should adopt a policy to randomly test students for illegal drug use.
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
Freedom Progress Safety Knowledge National Security Freedom of Expression Individual Rights Quality of Life
-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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
My opponent’s first contention states that nuclear weapons’ testing harms innocent people.
What this means is that danger is involved in nuclear weapons’ testing
A government must defend its own citizens.
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.
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
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 Directory: cms -> lib -> TX21000351 -> Centricity -> Domain Domain -> Change and continuity over time essay Domain -> Head of a cow Domain -> Texas. Starving, dehydrated, and desperate, he is the first European to set foot on the soil of the future Lone Star state. Cabeza de Vaca's unintentional journey to Texas was a disaster from the start Domain -> Outline In your introduction (first paragraph), tell me what you are going to write about Domain -> Imperialism Webquest Domain -> Ap world History Selected Topics for Ch. 1-28 test note: This is not a comprehensive list Domain -> Civil war Battles Webquest Domain -> Common Breeds of Sheep Domain -> Objective: to teach students basic stained glass terminology, techniques, and safety procedures before they begin a project Domain -> Optional summer reading list for ap us history Download 205.96 Kb. Share with your friends:
|