What is LD Debate? Metallica is not music! To be music… you must be able to understand the lyrics. Standard Rule Test Principle Part One LD Theory
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
(2003-04 Constitution and Contest Rules Section 1002: LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE, http://www.uil.utexas.edu/aca/hsrule/1002.html)
B. Truth Seeking
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.
What are the stock issues in a criminal case?
“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)
“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)
“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
A value is anything of worth.“Values, by definition, will be broad and perhaps vague…Although 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)
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.
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 value’s resolutional implications:
Resolutional 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 value’s 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.”
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)
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.
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 can’t 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 opponent’s 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.
(v) justice (c) “giving every man his due” ?
(c) equality of opportunity
(c) promote individual fundament rights
(c) accommodates individual autonomy
(v) legitimate gov’t (c) consistent with the social contract
(c) provides for security
(c) follows the general will
(c) consistent with international standards
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
1. Circular to the value
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
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.
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 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________.
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 _____________________________________________________________________.
(Object of Evaluation/Value/Criterion)
Evidence / Example
Impact to value/ Criterion
Evidence / Example
Impact to value/ Criterion
Evidence / Example
Impact to value/ Criterion
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 can’t 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 don’t 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.
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 don’t 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.
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 one’s self, or to have no self at all, to be nothing. This ambivalence arises from the stigmatized individual’s 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 can’t 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 opponent’s harms of violating freedom of expression only occur down the road.
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.
Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law
i. Only absolutely good is a good will
-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).
The greatest happiness of the greatest number
-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.
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
-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.
-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.
-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."
Justice is the first virtue of social institutions
i. Veil of Ignorance
ii. Maximin Rule
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.
Taxation of earnings from labor is on par with forced labor
-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.
AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE 6 MINUTES
NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE 7 MINUTES
Clash with affirmative case
1ST AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL 4 MINUTES
Clash with negative case
Extend and/or rebuild affirmative case
NEGATIVE REBUTTAL 6 MINUTES
Clash with affirmative case
Extend and/or rebuild negative case
2ND AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL 3 MINUTES
Clash with negative case
Rebuild affirmative case