1 / 22

Lincoln Douglas Debate

Lincoln Douglas Debate. Unlocking the Doors to Persuasion. Part One: An Overview. The Resolution is based in a VALUE conflict (ex. Whether the Individual is more valuable than the Society, or whether something is Just) The Resolution is determined by the National Forensic League (NFL)

jin
Download Presentation

Lincoln Douglas Debate

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation 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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lincoln Douglas Debate Unlocking the Doors to Persuasion

  2. Part One: An Overview • The Resolution is based in a VALUE conflict (ex. Whether the Individual is more valuable than the Society, or whether something is Just) • The Resolution is determined by the National Forensic League (NFL) • The Resolution will change every 2 months

  3. Part One: An Overview • There are 2 debaters in the round: • AFFIRMATIVE upholds the Resolution the way it is stated • NEGATIVE argues against the Resolution

  4. Part One: An Overview • Definitions • The central theme of LD Debate. • Pay close attention to the definitions you use- it is best to use the first one out of the dictionary, since this is the most common, and the one your judge will be most familiar with (and will agree with) • Look at the Abe & Steve debate: the whole point of that debate was whether slaves were DEFINED as human beings or not.

  5. Part One: An Overview • The September/October Topic is: • RESOLVED: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. • What are the key words that need to be defined in this Resolution?

  6. Part One: An Overview • The September/October Topic is: • RESOLVED: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. • What is the ET (evaluative term) in this Resolution? • What is the OE (object of evaluation)?

  7. Part One: An Overview • VALUES • Can be anything, as long as they are supported (Criteria) • Be able to explain why it is important off the top of your head without quoting from your case • BELIEVE in your Value

  8. Part One: An Overview • Sample VALUES • Individualism • Utilitarianism • Life • Quality of Life • Freedom • Civilization • Progress • Global Security • Safety • Justice • Human Dignity

  9. Part One: An Overview • CRITERIA • Philosophies and/or contracts that will uphold the Value you choose • A theory to help you prove your Value is more persuasive

  10. Part One: An Overview • Sample CRITERIAS • Locke’s Social Contract • Rousseau’s Social Contract • Hobb’s Social Contract • Rawls’ Distributive Justice • Bentham’s Principle of Utilitarianism • Mill’s Utilitarianism • Kant’s Categorical Imperitive • Maslow’s Theory of Self-Actualization

  11. Part One: An Overview • Three main ways to win an LD round • Prove that your value is supported by your case, not supported by your opponent's case, and superior to your opponent’s value • Prove that your case better supports your value than your opponent’s case supports theirs • Prove that your case better supports BOTH values than your opponent’s case supports either one

  12. Part One: An Overview • Round Structure • 1 AC (affirmative constructive) = 6 min. • Neg. cx (cross examine) of Aff = 3 min. • 1 NC (negative constructive+NR) = 7 min. • Aff. cx of Neg = 3 min. • 1 AR (affirmative rebuttal) = 4 • 1 NR (negative rebuttal) = 6 • 2 AR (affirmative rebuttal) = 3 min. • (Each side also has 4 total minutes of Prep Time)

  13. Part Two: Case-writing • Introduction • Opening quotation(s) • Justification for your side • State the Resolution • State your Value • State your Criteria • Define all Terms • Preview your Contentions (main claims)

  14. Part Two: Case-writing • Body • “Contentions” are your main points. Your main claim is called your “Tag Line” (statement of your opinion) • Contention I • Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis • Support of your VALUE • Contention II • Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis • Support of your CRITERIA • Contention III • Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis • Further support of your side of the RESOLUTION

  15. Part Two: Case-writing • Body • Contention I (claim- ex. “Taking the life of even one individual undermines the basic right to life.”) • SUBPOINT ONE: Taking a life is immoral. • Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis • SUBPOINT TWO: It is immoral to assume any life is more valuable than another. • Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis • Support of your VALUE • Contention II (claim- ex. “Killing even one person will not result in the greatest good.”) • Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis (Subpoints 1, 2) • Support of your CRITERIA • Contention III (claim- ex. “Violating life also violates other basic rights.”) • Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis (Subpoints 1, 2) • Further support of your side of the RESOLUTION

  16. Part Two: Case-writing • Conclusion • Affirmative: • Summarize main ideas • Re-stated Value/Criteria • Ending quotation(s) • Negative: • Summarize main ideas • Re-stated Value/Criteria • Ending quotation(s) • ATTACK AFFIRMATIVE

  17. Part Two: Case-writing • Attacking • Their Value & Criteria • Point out flaws in how these uphold the Resolution • Point out flaws in their philosophy usage • Each Contention • Point out flaws in reasoning/logic • Point out flaws in evidence or philosophy usage • Central Ideas of their Case • Point out flaws in reasoning/logic • Point out items they should have addressed, but did not

  18. Part Three: Cross Examination • In cx, the Negative tries to cast doubt upon the Aff position (and vice versa) • Do NOT make statements in cx- as questions and gain answers only • Don’t allow your opponent to evade answering your questions • In cx, try to boil your opponent’s case down to a few simple points • NEVER be rude during cx- always thank your opponent for the answers

  19. Part Three: Cross Examination • Ask clarification questions for information you may have missed on your Flow Sheet • As the Answerer, answer as clearly and simply as possible • Have confidence in your case • Be polite, don’t get angry • Look out to the JUDGE during cx, do not look at your opponent

  20. Part Four: Rebuttals • Follow the same rules outlined for the last half of the 1NC • NO NEW POINTS may be brought up in these speeches • Back-up evidence is useful, but not necessary. LD should not be an evidence war! • The last 2AC should be used to CRYSTALLIZE the round (and state why you have won the round)

  21. Part Five: Speaking Style • The judge is the god or goddess in the room • It is the judge you must impress • Your opponent does not exist- they are merely a dissenting voice to the truth you speak • Convince yourself you are right in order to win the round • Speak to the type of judge you think you have (experienced or not, etc.)

  22. Part Five: Speaking Style • Speak smoothly, without use of “uh….” • Vary your tone, rate, volume and inflection for emphasis • Practice your case in front of a mirror • Utilize controlled gestures and eye contact with your judge • Give yourself time to breathe • Be polite and conversational 

More Related