Lincoln/Douglas Debate 101

1. My opponent does not exist. He is merely a dissenting voice to the truth which I speak. Melvin B. Tolson Lincoln/Douglas Debate 101

2. Value=an idea or concept that is worthy of placing high preference upon *moral/ethical *political *pragmatic/practical *artisticThis is not debatable.Commonly Used ValuesUtilityHuman DignityQuality of LifeSocial Welfare/Societal GoodEducationJustice/EquityProgress Efficiency/EconomyEnvironmental SustainabilityDiversityIntegrity/Honesty/TruthLifeSafety/Security DemocracyStabilityEqualityFamilyLiberty/FreedomPrivacySelf DeterminationAnarchy

3. Value Hierarchy=determination of which value should be given highest preference in any given situation. This is where the debate lies. Which value fits your line of argumentation?Methods of Comparison:Inclusive=the value applying to all humankind (past and present) is bestContextual=the value that best fits the heart of the resolution’s dilemmaAdditional Value Enhancement=the value that enhances other valuesValue Realization=the value that positively affects the most people in a societyMaslow’s Hierarchy=the value that is more important/more needed for the human experience: physical needs safety/security belonging self-esteem self-actualization

4. Value Criteria=a set of standards by which to judge the superior worth of the valueCost Benefit Analysis=has the most benefits and the least harmsUtilitarianism=the greatest happiness for the greatest number/could create oppressive majorityFuturism=the greatest good for the future/life is worth living todayDeontology=respect for persons; decisions must be based on what is right regardless of the outcomeSocial Contract=man receives benefits of society and has a responsibility to be of benefit to society

5. The Three Levels of Debate • Link the Resolution to the Value a. Derive a value from the resolution b. Prove that the value is important to society II. Value Comparisons • Compare your value to your opponent’s using the common methods of evaluation • Compare your value to your opponent’s using the round’s criteria • The Case a. Establish that affirming or negating the resolution causes benefits that enhance the value

6. Oratorical Theory Persuasive Series of orations Logic over evidence Realistic scenarios Debate Theory Structured: Refutation, Comparison, and Deliberation of Stock Issues Rapid delivery Evidence Artificial reality vs.

7. Constructive Case • Determine Value. Link to Resolution. How does affirming the resolution produce the value? • Choose Criteria. • What is the major conflict/common theme? • What are the arguments that are major conflict points? • Build a list of arguments-all that you can brainstorm. • Organize by grouping similar arguments. Create a natural progression of 2-4 main contentions. 1st address value and link 2nd resolution topic-what are the benefits of affirming or negating? 3rd why is your value and criteria more important and appropriate? • Anticipate opposing arguments. • Collect evidence. • Polish. • Write opposing case.

8. Have case outline and pre-flow! Roadmap and Signpost! • Game Plan: • Rate • Structure • Content • Rapport

9. Rebuttal Extend arguments: provide new logic, analysis, and evidence to further your points and attack opposing points. Launch new attacks with logic, analysis, and evidence. Don’t introduce new arguments. Roadmap and signpost, but don’t repeat. Don’t drop points! Point out opponent’s dropped points. Carefully cross-apply arguments. Filter and group arguments according to importance. End on a good note: rapport and voting issues

10. Attack opposition’s:valuecriteriadefinitions (if needed)case pointsWays to attack opposition’s arguments:limited applicationlimited time framecontradictionassumption of inherent goodunrealisticevidence validity and credibilityinsignificant impactsharmsyour arguments are better because…