Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Value Debate

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

Step 2: Choose a criterion/standard • Value of Justice: Criterion = Socrates’ Social Contract • Value of Individual Rights: Criterion = Locke’s State of Nature

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.

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.

Elements of an LD Case

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 philosopical stance. • Find a powerful quote to begin your case: “Because I agree with the words of ___ who stated ___, I must affirm/negate the Reolution ___. . .”

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.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate