Lincoln-Douglas

1. Lincoln-Douglas Debate!! K. Derry Public Speaking, Rhetoric, & Debate

2. You will be able to… • Display solid logic, lucid reasoning, and depth of analysis • Utilize evidence without being driven by it • Present a clash of ideas by countering/refuting arguments of the opposing team • Communicate ideas with clarity, organization, eloquence, and professional decorum

3. History • Abraham Lincoln • Stephen Douglas • 1858 campaign for one of the Illinois seats in the U.S. Senate • Issues surrounding practice of slavery, not just legality of • Disagreed on resolution • Douglas: local community and state decision • Lincoln: national government decision • Power to make decision!! • Debate in front of everyday common citizens

4. Video Resources http://nfltv.org/2009/10/28/nfl-showcase/ http://nfltv.org/2009/10/30/2002-charlotte-nationals/

5. What is it? • Clear and understandable to a “common” or community audience • Topics or “resolutions” • Statements of facts • One debater proves false, one true • Related to social values • How people should act with each other • Example: “society ought to have a strict separation of church and state” • Don’t need to prove how the strict separation of church and state would happen • Just talk about whether there should be a separation, and why

6. Structure • One-on-one • Affirmative: prove the resolution is true • Negative: prove the resolution is false • Each reads a constructive case • Presents major arguments • Similar to persuasive speech • Use of goal or value (value premise)

7. Structure cont’d • Introduction • attention-getting device (quote, stat) • Explanation of what the quote or stat means and • how it helps support the resolution or proves it wrong • Clearly state the resolution as it is written and your position

8. Example Introduction Voter turnout and other areas of citizen participation in our nation’s affairs continue to decline. Yet at the same time, crises in other nations shed light on the fact that many of us take our good fortune for granted. Continuing conflict in China, Cuba, and Guatemala illustrates the dangers of oppressive government. Chaos in Somalia, Sierra Leone, and the former Yugoslavia demonstrates the problems of anarchy. Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger once said, “Seldom are we faced with a decision between right and wrong…more often than not, we must determine the least harmful course of action.” Today, we face a similar problem. As a result, I will prove that even an oppressive government is better than no government.

9. Structure cont’d • Defining your resolution • Definition of important words and phrases in context of resolution • Whole phrases is preferable • “political” and “oppression” vs. “political oppression” • Read! about the topic to determine contextual definitions • Black Law’s Dictionary

10. Definition example For clarity in today’s debate, I offer the following definitions taken from Black Law’s Dictionary: Oppressive government A government that, through its institutions, withholds from the people internationally recognized civil, economic, and/or human rights. No government A nation-state existing without formal institutions that provide control and benefits to its citizens

11. ATB: What is the best restaurant in town? • How do you decide between these choices? • Which mechanism is the most important? • Eliminate some choices of the best restaurant, then decide if this mechanism can be used to definitely choose one of the choices.

12. Value Criterion • A way or mechanism for choosing between many options • A way to weigh between competing options • Or a lens through which to narrow the scope of the question being asked • Usually many valid Value Criteria to answer a given question, but some are superior to others

13. Criterion Activity • Come up with the best possible criterion for choosing between the options • Answer the original question: What is the best restaurant in town? Using each of the criteria listed.

14. Value • Larger goal of the resolution • What the resolution is trying to achieve • Suggested by phrasing of the resolution • Justice • Societal welfare • Protection of rights • Human worth • Protection of life • Fulfillment of governmental obligations • Governmental legitimacy • See handout “Types of Values” • Previous activity are questions of fact; LD resolutions are questions of value (some larger question)

15. The possession of nuclear weapons is immoral. • What larger questions are being asked by this resolution? • What is an appropriate value for this resolution? • Brainstorm appropriate value criterion to measure these values • Example: Protection of life (most important value) because the resolution questions if possessing the destructive power of nuclear weapons is worth the potential risk, the question becomes how one could decide which action prevents the most loss of life. • Value Criterion: minimizing the risk of nuclear war or minimizing harm to innocent lives • Verb phrases

16. The Value Premise • Social Value • Freedom, identity, individualism • “An oppressive government is better than no government” • What is the value? ___________ • Keeps things in order and keeps us safe • State the value (the most important goal) and give a definition • What it is • Why it is important • Relate to resolution

17. Value Premise Example The affirmative will uphold the value of self-actualization. Self-actualization means the individual has ample opportunity to determine for himself or herself what is necessary for a happy life. Self-actualization is important for the resolution because the system of government (or lack thereof) should be determined more or less valuable based on the quality of space the individual has for this self-actualization.

18. Choosing the Criterion • Supports the value • Different purposes • How debater plans to achieve their value premise • Ex., a value of stability may require individual choice in some societies. When people are involved in decisions and can make their own choices, they are more likely to be happy. • As a definition for the value • Clarifies values that are broad and could have different definitions • Ex., justice

19. Criterion Example (affirmative) In order to determine which position in today’s round best provides opportunity for self-actualization, the affirmative proposes the criterion of participation. This means that the individual has the best opportunity to interact with society regardless of the type of governing system in place. This criterion is important to the value of self-actualization because without the ability to interact meaningfully with society, the individual will be unable to determine for himself or herself what is beneficial and what isn’t.

20. Assignment for Thursday, 1/5 Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence. • A Value • Explain why the value would be appropriate • A Value Criterion to evaluate this value • A reason why this value criterion would be a good mechanism for deciding between arguments

21. Thesis • Statement • Overall argument the debater plans to make in the rest of the case • Begins with a statement of the resolution (including what side the debater is on) • And the relationship of the value and criterion to that side of the resolution

22. Thesis example An oppressive government is better than no government because oppressive government will make social interaction more possible than an absence of government, and that will lead to better self-actualization for the individual.

23. Body of Case • Presentation of main arguments • Two or three • Called a contention • Begins with a tagline: simple sentence • Explanation of argument

24. Case Example • Introduction and Resolution Analysis Voter turnout and other areas of citizen participation in our nation’s affairs continue to decline. Yet at the same time, crises in other nations shed light on the fact that many of us take our good fortune for granted. Continuing conflict in China, Cuba, and Guatemala illustrates the dangers of oppressive government. Chaos in Somaliz, Sierra Leone, and the former Yugoslavia demonstrates the problems of anarchy. Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger once noted, “Seldom are we faced with a decision between right and wrong…more often than not, we must determine the least harmful course of action.” As a result, I stand in affirmation that an oppressive government is better than no government.

25. Definition For clarity in today’s debate, I offer the following definitions taken from Black Law’s Dictionary: Oppressive government A government that, through its institutions, withholds from the people internationally recognized civil, economic, and/or human rights. No government A nation-state existing without formal institutions that provide control and benefits to its citizens

26. Value Premise The affirmative will uphold the value of self-actualization. Self-actualization means the individual has ample opportunity to determine for himself or herself what is necessary for a happy life. Self-actualization is important for the resolution because the system of government (or lack thereof) should be determined more or less valuable based on the quality of space the individual has for this self-actualization.

27. Criterion In order to determine which position in today’s round best provides opportunity for self-actualization, the affirmative proposes the criterion of participation. This means that the individual has the best opportunity to interact with society regardless of the type of governing system in place. This criterion is important to the value of self-actualization because without the ability to interact meaningfully with society, the individual will be unable to determine for himself or herself what is beneficial and what isn’t.

28. Thesis Oppressive government is better than no government because it provides social interaction better than an absence of government, and that ultimately leads to self-actualization for the individual. • Contention Taglines Contention One: Democracy is more readily achieved from oppression than from anarchy. Contention Two: Democracy leads to better self-actualization.

29. Format of LD Debate First Affirmative Constructive 6 minutes Cross-Examination (Neg. asks Aff.) 3 minutes First Negative Constructive 7 minutes Cross-Examination (Aff. asks Neg.) 3 minutes First Affirmative Rebuttal 4 minutes First Negative Rebuttal 6 minutes Second Affirmative Rebuttal 3 minutes Prep Time for each Debater 4 minutes

30. First Affirmative Constructive • Affirmative States their Case • Reading of prepared speech • Use speech to present arguments without interruption • Negative debater takes notes • Remain standing at end of speech

31. Cross-Examination • Negative Asks Questions • Clarification • Find problems

32. Example • K is affirmative • M is negative M—Could you please repeat what you said your criterion was? K—My criterion was equity. M—And what is equity? K—Equity is impartiality. M—Okay, thanks. How do you define justice? K—Justice is fairness, goodness, and equity. A just government would protect rights.

33. Example cont’d M—So equity is a basic principle of justice? K—yes M—Do all people benefit equally from health care? K—They could or they couldn’t. It’s an implementation problem. Regardless of whether they actually do or don’t, I still say that a just government should provide health care. M—So, if people benefit in different ways from health care, isn’t that a violation of equity? K—No M—Why not? K—Every person has the equitable ability to receive health care not just some people.

34. Example cont’d M—Without governmental provision of health care, do all people lose the basic right of subsistence and die? K—No. Not all people, but there will be some who suffer and it’s the responsibility of the government to prevent as much suffering as possible.

35. First Negative Constructive • 7 minutes total • Read prepared speech: about 3-4 minutes • Talk about the affirmative’s arguments • Start with value premise and criterion • Explain why your value is more appropriate to the resolution • Explain why your criterion is better for achieving it • Explain why each of the affirmative’s main contentions is not true • Try to use your own arguments • Conclusion that summarizes your case and reasons why affirmative case isn’t true

36. First Negative Constructive example Now that my case has been established, let’s talk about some problems with my opponent’s case. The first problem with her case is her criterion. She says justice is based in equity, or equal treatment of people. This is a problem because all people in a society aren’t the same. They have different needs, interests, and goals. These disparities make treating everyone equally nearly impossible. Her only contention is that health care is a basic right that helps to support the natural right to life; however, this doesn’t directly relate to why a government should provide it. Remember, my own argument says that there are two parts of any society: the government and the producers. This means that the people are responsible for producing goods and services and the government is simply meant to make and enforce laws.

37. Affirmative Cross-Examination • Affirmative’s chance to ask the negative questions • About the negative case • About arguments the negative made against the affirmative case • Affirmative: clear up as much as possible • Prepare good reasons why the negative side and the responses against the affirmative are not true

38. Affirmative Cross-Examination Example K—What is justice? M—Justice is the harmonious balance of part and whole. K—And what does that mean? M—It means that the different parts of society have to perform their prescribed roles. K—So if I’m a murderer, is it just for me to continue murdering? M—No. As a member of society, you have a role as a producer. There is no prescribed role in society for murderers. K—If I am fulfilling my role in society, I am just. M—Yes K—What is the role of a government? M—To provide law. K—Why is that what the government is supposed to do and nothing else?

39. Example cont’d M—Because that’s the only role purpose of government. K—But, why? M—Because the government is a special group of people who have that specific job. The other people in society give the power to make and enforce laws to one group and agree to split the rest of the work as producers. K—So who provides health care? M—The doctor. The doctor is a member of the producer class. K—Oaky. No more questions.

40. First Affirmative Rebuttal • 4 minutes: 2 minutes on each argument • Decide on the most important arguments • Rebuild your own case or respond to arguments in the negative case? • Make arguments from beginning to the end • Example: Affirmative case • Begin at the top of the affirmative case • Why own value is better than the negative’s value • Why the negative’s response against the affirmative’s value isn’t true • Repeat with the criterions for each main argument • Then… • Go to the negative case and make arguments against what the negative said • Begin with the value and criterion • Move to negative’s main arguments • Conclusion: summarize what was proven

41. 1st Affirmative Rebuttal example My opponent says my criterion of equity isn’t good because people have different needs. She says justice is better defined as the harmonious balance of part and whole. However, while a government does need to perform its own job of making laws, the government also needs to be sure it provides for all of its people equally and protects the rights of all people. This means my criterion of equity is better because it shows how a government should perform its duties. This also means my opponent’s case helps support mine. She says that a government has a specific role, but I contend that the role of government is to protect the rights of the people. Because health care protects the right to life, it is the government’s responsibility to provide health care.

42. Example cont’d So let’s look at why my affirmative case is still true. I say a government must protect the rights of the people—including the right to life—in order to be just. Health care is a basic right because it directly affects the right to life and the quality of that life. Providing health care is the best way to protect the right to life because it maintains a positive energy for the people. When the government provides health care, the quality of life is protected equally. Therefore, a just government should provide health care to its citizens.

43. First Negative Rebuttal • Only gives two speeches • 6 minutes • Decide which arguments are most important • Answer arguments the affirmative made against the negative case • Make more arguments against the affirmative case • Give reasons why the negative should win the debate • Begin with either the negative or affirmative • Be clear as to which side you are speaking • Usually begin with negative case • Explain why original arguments are still true • Then address affirmative case • Explain why affirmative arguments are not true • Answer the responses the affirmative made in their last speech • Explain again why negative value is still most appropriate • Explain why negative criterion is best way to achieve the resolution

44. First Negative Rebuttal example In my last speech, I said a government can’t provide for things based on the principle of equity because people will always have different needs and wants. If the government provides health care to the people, it won’t be equal because people will need and use it differently. All my opponent really tells you in her case is that the government should protect the rights of the people, but she never explains why this means the government should provide health care. The reason the government shouldn’t provide health care is because even if a government should act equally toward all of its people, it still only has to make and enforce laws. The rest of the people are the producers, which means they have the responsibility of filling in the “holes” the government doesn’t cover.

45. Example cont’d The doctor in society has the job of providing health care services to the people. The affirmative’s main attack on my case is that the government should protect the rights of the people and should do what it can to protect the rights of the people and should do what it can to protect the right to life. This may be true. However, the police have the job of making sure the laws are being enforced and the job of the government is to make the laws that the police enforce. The job of the rest of the people in society is then to provide for health care because they are the producers. So, you should vote for the negative because I have proven that while the government should provide equally for the people, this is impossible in terms of health care because people have such different needs. A government shouldn’t provide health care to its citizens. The producers in a society should provide health care.

46. Voting Issues • Time to give two or three reasons why negative has won the debate • 2 minutes on each case (negative and affirmative) • 2 minutes: explain what the major issues are and why negative won (“voting issues”) • Address value and criterion debate • Explain why value is more important • Why criterion is best way to achieve value • Resummarize own position • Why arguments are true and how and why the arguments relate to their value and criterion and prove the resolution false • Concluding statement (“And that’s why you negate…” or “so…(resolution) is not true”)

47. Second Affirmative Rebuttal • 3 minutes • Final speech of debate • Decide which arguments are most important • Which arguments will take up most of the time • Prepare a “story” • Begin with value and criterion • Explain why affirmative’s side is better and more appropriate for the resolution • Explain why their arguments show how they’ve met the criterion • how this relates to the value • and proves the resolution true • Talk about how their arguments are still true • And how they’ve met the criterion and value • Short final statement: summarize the most important reason the affirmative has won the debate

48. Second Affirmative Rebuttal example Enacting legislation is the same thing as providing for rights, so if the government enacts legislation to provide for the rights of the people, it is acting justly. This means that if I can prove that a government can enact legislation to provide health care to its citizens, then it should provide health care to its citizens. From the beginning of the debate, I have been arguing that a just government should enact legislation as its primary job. However, the difference between my opponent and me is that I say the legislation should include looking at the needs of the people, which means the government should provide health care for its citizens.

49. Persuasive Writing and Speaking • Claim: controversial statement, or a statement people could disagree with • Warrant: the reason why the argument is true; debater’s own explanation about the argument. • Data: information from a published, credible author that supports the claim; direct quote or summary of a study • Impact: reason why the argument is important; relate back to the value and criterion in some way; help prove the claim is true

50. Persuasive cont’d Claim: “My first argument is…” Warrant: “The reason this is true is…” Data: “This is supported by (author name) when they say…” Impact: “This is important because…”