Lincoln-Douglas Table of Contents

Transcription

1 Lincoln-Douglas Lecture Notes These lecture notes are meant to aid you the student with the information that is taught in class in print form. Having this at your hands helps the content of the lectures to sink-in, and helps you refer back to the things your teacher taught for particular lessons. That said, realize that this material is presented to you just as it is presented to your teacher. It is not edited for the average reader. Understand these are lecture notes, not textbook material. Lincoln-Douglas Table of Contents LESSON 1: PREVIEW OF LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE... 2 LESSON 2: THE RESOLUTION & FLOWING... 7 LESSON 3: VALUES & CRITERIA LESSON 4: APPLICATIONS & SUPPORT LESSON 5: CASE CONSTRUCTION LESSON 6: THE NEGATIVE & 4-POINT REFUTATION LESSON 7: CROSS-EXAMINATION LESSON 8: REBUTTALS LESSON 9: LOGICAL FALLACIES LESSON 10: BRIEFING LESSON 11: SCRIMMAGE I LESSON 12: SCRIMMAGE II Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 1

2 Lesson 1: Preview of Lincoln-Douglas Debate Red Book Curriculum is an introduction to Lincoln-Douglas value debate. Introduction - This course is for beginners (though experienced debaters can definitely pick up on a few things, too). Lincoln-Douglas - Modeled after the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in Value - Anything that you value (i.e. anything that you hold in high regard). Value debate is different from policy debate, which deals more with domestic or foreign laws. Consider the following statements: Seatbelts should be worn for safety. (value) Tickets should be given to those not wearing seatbelts. (policy) Western culture should more highly value privacy. (value in Stoa) The US should repeal the PATRIOT Act. (policy in Stoa) The US has a moral obligation to assist other nations that are in need. (value in NCFCA) The US should spend $140 million in relief funds for Haiti. (policy in NCFCA) Debate - The form of discourse where one side argues with its opposition. There are several differences between value and policy debate. The NCFCA and Stoa, homeschool leagues, offer both formats for home schoolers: Lincoln-Douglas (which is what this course is about) and Team-Policy (the policy format). Team-Policy (TP) Teams of Two Policy topics Asks What should be done? Research work 1.5-hour rounds Lincoln-Douglas (LD) Individual Value topics Asks Why should we believe this? Philosophical work 45-min. rounds The Lincoln-Douglas resolution: Resolved: Privacy is undervalued. (Stoa) Resolved: That governments have a moral obligation to assist other nations in need. (NCFCA) Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 2

3 Consider the following questions as you begin to study this resolution: Stoa: In what ways is privacy similar or different than freedom, liberty, independence, etc? How has social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) changed our perception of privacy? What messages does our culture offer about staying informed? Is it more or less expected that people, businesses, government, etc. be transparent? Can privacy be protected by law? How? Whose responsibility is it to enforce? Are privacy and security mutually exclusive? NCFCA: When the US government assists another nation, what is typically involved? Who should decide the standard for what it means to be a nation in need? Do nations that are in need have an obligation to refuse assistance and be selfsufficient? What role does private charity play in international aid? In what conditions must the government step in to ensure a safe environment for private assistance? Do governments have a moral obligation to assist nations that are based on opposing values, or should aid be delivered regardless of national interests? Registering Red Book at (as explained in the Publisher s Note at the beginning of the book) will allow every student access to all this material. Lecture / Class Discussion Logical Equations Before being able to effectively persuade the powers that be to value certain ideas over others, you need to be able to think logically. How to think must precede what to think. Champion debaters will eventually come up with winning arguments for and against the resolution, but it first takes deliberate study of logic and reason. You will now shift gears to explain basic logic. Logic is defined a number of different ways, though it is easy to view it as mathematical thinking. As math brings order to the physical world, so logic brings order to our thoughts, our beliefs and our behaviors. A basic mathematical equation can be written out as: Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 3

4 1 + 2 = 3 We can substitute letters, as in algebra, and these letters can signify values other than numerical values, such as: Let's try plugging in some values: a + b = c black + white = gray Simple enough, right? This mathematical equation becomes a logical equation when we plug in statements of fact to lead to a conclusion. Consider this: Christians are saved + Saved people go to heaven = Christians go to heaven Is this true? Most of your students would say yes, this is true. Is it valid? Validity and truth are different. A true statement may not necessarily be valid, and vice versa. In this case, the equation is both true (yes, Christians go to heaven) as well as valid (all the variables in the equation do not invalidate the logic). How about this equation: Christians are saved + Saved people go to heaven = Unsaved people do not go to heaven Most Christians would agree that this is true, but the equation is not valid. Unsaved is a new term in the equation. Though saved is in the premise of the equation, the conclusion defines unsaved, a totally new and opposite variable. This is an example of a true/ invalid equation. Here is an example of an untrue/valid statement: Christians are saved + Saved people go to hell = Christians go to hell This equation is absolutely valid, but of course it is not true. How can this be? It is because of the minor premise of the equation, Saved people go to hell. Because this premise is untrue, the conclusion is untrue, and the entire equation is false. We have been using equation to define this logical reasoning, but a more accurate term is syllogism. A syllogism is simply a model of reasoning where a conclusion is drawn from two premises. You know the answer is 3 because you added As debaters, the better able we are to deconstruct an argument into a syllogism, the better able we are to identify flaws in our opponents reasoning. Re-read this year s resolution. While the first may be considered a major premise by itself, notice the syllogism behind each: Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 4

5 Stoa: Privacy is a value + Privacy could be valued more than it is currently = Privacy is undervalued NCFCA: Government action can be based on moral obligation + There is a moral obligation to help nations in need = Governments have a moral obligation to assist other nations in need List the following syllogisms for the students and ask if they are logical: Sharing information reduces privacy + Less privacy limits freedom = Sharing information limits freedom Needy nations have corrupt governments + Corrupt governments misuse monetary assistance = Needy nations misuse monetary assistance Justice is incapable of being completely upheld + Failure is defined as being incapable of doing something = Trying to uphold justice leads to failure These are logical. There is nothing that the first part of the equation says to invalidate the conclusion. Debaters can disagree with whether they are true or not, point out the generalizations and even question the link between terms within each premise, but those are beside the point. The syllogisms are logical. Today's Logic Can you think of syllogisms in recent news items? Consider the following: Major premise: The US should start cutting its debt Minor premise: Foreign aid adds to our nation s debt Conclusion: The US should start cutting foreign aid This is certainly a strong argument, though contentious given that different people have different political backgrounds and beliefs. But add in facts about the actual percentage of our nation s budget that is spent on foreign aid and you put the whole conversation in perspective. During your class, there will likely be many current articles online that have logical syllogisms embedded. Dig up some current articles and discuss them in class. Your students should get passionate about the issues of the day, but they should be more passionate about being correct in their thinking for it leads to truthful (as opposed to foolish) conclusions. What are some other issues in the news? Let discussion flow. Ask probing questions forcing students to validate their claims. If, say, a student makes the claim based on a questionable news source, ask, "How do you know that to be true?" Even if that student cannot give Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 5

6 credit to the statement, another student may. If a student cites a source, question the source s credibility. Get the students thinking about their claims. Do not be critical of the students argumentation (quite yet). You do not want to shut down healthy debate in a debate class! That said, move onto the reason for this dialogue: The Toulmin Model. 1 British philosopher Stephen Toulmin laid out the depths of the reasons we give: Data Warrant Backing Claim Qualifications Conditions of Rebuttal Without going into great detail during class, identify a few of the students reasons as valid or invalid because of some of these parts of reasoning. Don't get "down" on a student for necessarily giving an invalid argument, but encourage him or her to validate the claim he or she made. This is a central element to successful debating: being able to dissect an argument down to its minute details. A debater can totally cripple an opponent s case if they show it to be flawed from the beginning, just as a debater s case can be made all the stronger if early on any such flaws can be weeded out. There are a number of logical fallacies that are so common in politics and culture that we oftentimes do not even think about them. (Note: Logical fallacies will be addressed in a later lesson.) If time allows, go around the room and share the names of your favorite orators (e.g., Martin Luther King Jr., JFK, Churchill, Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, etc). Ask: what sets that person apart for you? What characteristics make them a strong orator? What elements of their speaking make them enjoyable to listen to? Then, ask for whoever would like to participate to share the names of their favorite writers or political thinkers. This could range from Hemingway to Martin Luther, Chaucer to Glenn Beck. Not everyone might agree, but the point is to identify some examples as role-models for good speaking and thinking skills. Realize that good speakers are good writers. Communicate that writing will be an important element of this class, especially when the students come to writing their own debate cases. It is not enough to merely think good thoughts, one must be able to communicate them clearly. This is a huge part of debate. 1 Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 6

7 Affirmative vs. Negative Lesson 2: The Resolution & Flowing In debate, there are two sides: the Affirmative and Negative. The Affirmative affirms the resolution and contends that the statement of the resolution is true. The Negative negates the resolution and refutes the Affirmative, showing that the resolution is false. While in Team-Policy debate the whole debate round centers on the Affirmative case, in Lincoln- Douglas, both the Affirmative and Negative debaters offer cases for/against the resolution. Flow of an LD round Flowing in debate simply means writing down what is said. When you think of having a flow of an LD round, you want to see the flow of arguments. We do this to see how arguments progress throughout the round. Writing down your opponent s arguments helps you to know what you need to respond to, and writing down what you are going to say in response to your opponent s arguments helps you when you are at the lectern. After today s discussion and lecture, students should have a better understanding as to the terms of the resolution and what the resolution is asking the debater to uphold/oppose. Copy the following flowchart onto the white board. The five columns represent the five speeches of the Lincoln-Douglas round. Have students copy it on their own legal pads or plain paper. AC NC/1NR 1AR 2NR 2AR AC Affirmative Constructive. This is the first speech of the round. The affirmative debater will present a case showing why the resolution is justified/should be upheld. 6 minutes Although not on the flowsheet, the AC will be immediately followed by a time of Cross- Examination (CX). The negative will question the affirmative on aspects of the AC, probing for admissions. Negative may set up his/her own case through questions. 3 minutes NC/1NR Negative Constructive/First Negative Rebuttal. This is the first speech of the negative. Its purpose is twofold: present a case negating the resolution (constructive) and refute the case presented by the affirmative in the AC (rebuttal). 7 minutes Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 7

8 Again not on the flowsheet, the NC will be immediately followed by another CX (though you should still take notes for the CXs). The affirmative will question the negative on aspects of the NC, probing for admissions. Affirmative should bolster his/her own case through questions. 3 minutes 1AR First Affirmative Rebuttal. This is the first speech of the round dedicated solely to rebuttal/refutation. With the exception of arguments against the negative case, no new arguments may be presented, though new examples may be used to support original arguments. The affirmative must refute the negative case and the arguments against his own case. 4 minutes 2NR Second Negative Rebuttal. This is the last speech of the round for the negative. No new arguments may be presented, though new examples may be used to support original arguments. Negative must address as many arguments as possible for his case and against his opponent s. May propose Voting Issues in this speech main issues the negative believes he/she won that should result in him/her winning the round. 6 minutes 2AR Second Affirmative Rebuttal. This is the last speech of the round for the affirmative. No new arguments may be presented, though new examples may be used to support original arguments. Affirmative must address as many arguments as possible for his case and against his opponent s. May propose Voting Issues in this speech main issues the affirmative believes he/she won that should result in him/her winning the round. 3 minutes Note: In addition to everything listed above, each debater will receive 3 minutes of total prep time to use at any point before their respective speeches (e.g., the Affirmative could use prep time before the 1AR and/or 2AR, etc). There is one exception: Debaters are not allowed to use prep time before Cross-Examinations. Value Debate in the season Value debate requires students to think through the reasoning, logic and philosophies behind the way things are done in society, government and certain political and economic systems. This year students will be tasked with the burden to value one idea over another, and prove why their position is justified. Both leagues propose resolutions (proposed statements of fact) that put up a value and force the affirmative to show that the ideal must be valued more than it is currently (Stoa) or that it should be valued at all (NCFCA). The Stoa resolution asks debaters to prove that privacy is undervalued and presumably should be valued more than it is currently, and the NCFCA resolution asks students to prove that there is a moral obligation to help nations in need, and that it is government s responsibility to do this. Depending on which league you choose to affiliate with, you will argue one of these resolutions. Whichever topic you debate, you will have the opportunity to take both positions i.e., stand in support and in opposition to the statement of the resolution. Both resolutions tackle important issues that it would behoove students to understand. Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 8

9 In the Stoa resolution, debaters are asked to prove that privacy in undervalued, and show why their own value either justifies or negates this stance. Examples such as the Patriot Act signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, a month after 9/11 force one to consider the merits of valuing privacy compared to values such as national security and prevention. Other examples like data mining by businesses and campaigns through Facebook applications and logins illustrate the necessity for a changing, comprehensive strategy for protecting privacy in the 21st century. Since the resolution does not specify how much privacy is being undervalued or what kind of privacy is going unprotected, debaters have the opportunity to take the resolution in various directions, including looking at information gathering and sharing via the Internet, cases of phone tapping and undercover recording, identity theft, witness and child protection examples, and the issue of using anonymous sources for news stories and national policy advising, to name a few. Take, for example, the article in Red Book: Stoa Edition Finding the Happy Medium. While it has implications for individuals in a society, it is common to think of privacy in terms of government oversight. With examples of using executive privilege by President Nixon during the Watergate Scandal and most recently by President Obama over the Fast and Furious scandal, privacy comes into conflict with other values such as transparency and accountability. Government entities and bills such as the Privacy, Governmental Liaison and Disclosure office (PGLD) and the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) play an active role in how the government handles privacy on daily basis. In the NCFCA resolution, students are given a distinct value moral obligation. They are asked to prove that governments have a duty to assist nations that are in need. It is key for debaters to realize that moral obligation and national policy are two different ideas, since every country has a unique approach to international involvement. Every argument that is made for assisting other nations must find its roots in a comprehensive and detailed view of morality and moral necessity. Students must show that getting involved in affairs that affect other nations supersedes even those nations wishes or the desires of citizens in a particular nation, or provide instances where the necessity to provide assistance aligned with the acceptance of the majority of people. There will be much debate concerning the definition of nations that are in need, as some will point to Iraq under Saddam Hussein as an example of the US needing to provide assistance while others will look at more humanitarian examples like aiding Indonesia and other nations affected by the 2004 earthquake and resulting tsunami in the Indian Ocean and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. Red Book: NCFCA Edition is chalk-full of ideas that tug at the heart of the resolution, both from the perspective of one supporting the resolution and assisting nations in need, and from the perspective of the opposition. Debaters will get a better understanding of moral obligation and the reasoning behind different types of international involvement. Consider the following questions to continue developing a thorough understanding of this year s resolution: Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 9

10 Stoa: Which is more fundamental, privacy or national security? What are some examples of privacy and security conflicting? Being interdependent? o Patriot Act, CISPA, executive privilege, identity theft, etc. Historically, have Americans valued one over the other? Why? Give examples. In what ways do you have privacy? What sets America apart from nations like China? Does individual privacy ever conflict with societal demands? Give examples. How has privacy become a big issue in recent years? Think current events. Why is it even important to have privacy? Why is not all information shared? NCFCA: Given the context of the resolution, how should assist and in need be defined? Do governments ever have a moral obligation to not get involved? In what instances? Can moral obligation alone be justification for providing assistance? What role does morality play in a government s foundation and rule of law? Which one is more important: morals or human rights? How are they different? In what nations have we assisted where we should not have? Where we should have? Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 10

11 Lesson 3: Values & Criteria This lecture will discuss values and criteria, the two most vital components of Lincoln- Douglas debate. In this lesson, students will better understand the two types of values (intrinsic and instrumental) as well as the three types of criteria (means, measuring, and limiting). Values Draw the parallel between the exercise that you began this lesson with and the word value in Lincoln-Douglas Value Debate. Values in Lincoln-Douglas debate are exactly what they sound like: anything that you value. In LD, values serve as the justification for or against the resolution. Before we jump into the specific values in this year s resolution, examine some of the differences in what people can and do value. Realize that there are different types of values: family, friends, and associates, compared to food, shelter and clothing. Maybe you value relationships. Maybe you value some friendships over others. Your personality are you rational or emotional? It will depend on what you value, either emotions or reason. As such, values can be both tangible and abstract. For example: Steak is food for the stomach (tangible) The Bible is food for the soul (abstract) A car is a mode of transportation (abstract) My car gets me to work (tangible) Good friends are priceless (abstract) Psychiatrists charge X dollars/hr (tangible) Life, love, and pain are abstract concepts, though breathing, hugging and crying are tangible ways of communicating them. As already mentioned, values in LD serve as the justification for or against the resolution. That said, there are two specific functions of values: they can be intrinsic (good in and of themselves) or instrumental (good because they get you something). We will examine both more thoroughly. Intrinsic An intrinsic value is a value that is good in and of itself. It is good because it is good; a value that has inherent worth. For example, life could be an intrinsic value. Most would agree that life is inherently worth valuing. Kings and princes should not refrain from murdering peasants just because the peasants can pay them taxes and further their wealth, but because not murdering innocent peasants would be the right thing to do. Freedom action without restraint, the absence of slavery is intrinsically good. Good is intrinsically good, while evil is intrinsically bad. In the above application, the intrinsic value is your final destination, your end goal. Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 11

12 Instrumental An instrumental value, also referred to as a pragmatic value, is the means by which you can achieve some type of ends. The ends are your final destination, while your instrumental value is the way to get you there. Freedom could be viewed as an intrinsic value (the absence of slavery is, of course, a great thing), but it could also be viewed as an instrumental tool for a higher good (i.e., is freedom itself good, or do you value it because of all the things that you can do while you are free?). Lincoln-Douglas debate is often referred to as value debate. Values are necessary components of LD, and understanding the function of values is critical to your success in running them. Do the ends justify the means, or, to paraphrase Mark Twain, is success a journey, not a destination? Instrumental values are often viewed as the means to get you to an intrinsic value, as viewpoint is basic enough for beginning students to grasp. That said, realize that the above characterization of instrumental and intrinsic values is relatively basic. Further research will reveal and help distinguish between intrinsic, final, instrumental, pragmatic, extrinsic, and other value types. A common strategy is to view intrinsic values compared to extrinsic values, and instrumental values to final ends values. We won t get into those here. (If you are interested in learning more about the unique properties of different types of values, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2 is a good resource.) As mentioned, students can value anything that they believe supports or opposes the resolution. Put the following resolutions on the white board and have the students identify the values within each statement and the function of each: Resolved: Privacy is undervalued. (Stoa) Privacy (either, though mainly instrumental) Resolved: That governments have a moral obligation to assist other nations in need (NCFCA) Moral obligation Assist/assistance Nations in need (intrinsic) (either, though intrinsic in light of moral obligation ) (either) 2 Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 12

13 Criteria After values, the next biggest part of Lincoln-Douglas debate is the criteria (plural of criterion ). Perhaps you have heard this term in other settings. Job applicants have to meet a certain criteria; buildings have certain safety criteria; when rating a movie or album, you have your own criteria. Values function in relation to the resolution, while criteria function in relation to the value. In Lincoln-Douglas debate, criteria function in a rather specific way. Just like values have different functions, criteria have different functions. There are three specific types of criteria in Lincoln-Douglas debate: Means Criterion A Means Criterion is simply a means to an end (i.e., a means to achieving your value). Similar to how an instrumental value gets you to an even higher goal, a Means Criterion gets you to your value. For example, I use money to pay for gas. Money is the criterion that gets me gas, something I value for my car so that I can get to work. Measuring-Stick Criterion A Measuring-Stick Criterion is a way to measure your success in upholding a particular value. Was the movie a success? That depends. How many awards did it receive? Success was the end goal, and it is measured by the awards it receives. Limiting Criterion A Limiting Criterion limits the extent to which you will uphold a particular value. Take all-you-can-eat buffets: Billy, feel free to eat as much as you want, just stop when you re full. You value being fed and the thriftiness of all-you-can-eat buffets, but you limit the amount of food you will consume so that you do not get sick. It is important to always remember that criteria function in relation to the value. In other words, a criterion is used as a standard for a value. Imagine the value as your goal for either affirming or negating the resolution; the criterion can function as either a means to achieve your value, a way to measure your success in upholding your value, or a way to limit to what extent you would like to uphold that particular value. To understand each of these three functions of criteria, we will look at a particular value freedom. Freedom is a great value. The absence of externally imposed restraints has fueled wars and conflict since the beginning of time. People want to have freedom, and some are intent on keeping that from happening. From Lincoln to Wilberforce, child armies in Africa to sextrafficking in Nepal, freedom continues to be sought worldwide. Now let us look at this value through the eyes of three different criteria: 1. Freedom through the means of Life Value: Freedom Criterion: Life Function: Means Criterion Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 13

14 In this context, our end goal (value) is Freedom, but in order to be free one must be alive. Thus, the criterion of Life functions as the means to help us reach our value of Freedom. It is the means to which we reach our ends. 2. Freedom as measured by the Bill of Rights Value: Freedom Criterion: Bill of Rights Function: Measuring-Stick Criterion Here, our end goal or value is still Freedom, but we are saying that we are measuring our success at upholding the value through the criterion of the Bill of Rights. So, we are upholding freedom as measured or by the standard of the Bill of Rights, which carries clout under rule of law since the Constitution is the law of the land. 3. Freedom as limited by Equality Value: Freedom Criterion: Equality Function: Limiting Criterion In this last example, Freedom is still our value, but we are limiting how far we will uphold it through the criterion of Equality. Ask yourself this: is complete freedom always a good thing? With an emphasis on complete, the answer is no. Having Equality as our criterion helps limit the value of Freedom so that we can still achieve Freedom, but equally. Values and criteria are the stock issues of Lincoln-Douglas debate. Understanding the unique functions of each is vital to a successful season. Voting for a value means voting for that side of the debate and that side of the resolution. A strong value, coupled with a strong criterion, is the difference between a win and a loss. Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 14

15 1. News Discussion Lesson 4: Applications & Support You should be keeping up with the news on the topic. In Lincoln-Douglas, it is helpful to make sure you know of any headlines that deal with the LD resolution. An easy way to do this, and have relevant headlines delivered right to your inbox, is to register for Google News Alerts. This is a great tool for students to be notified of current events that happen surrounding the topic for the year. Think about which key terms you need to stay current with. For Stoa, possible terms include privacy settings and privacy laws, even PATRIOT Act. For NCFCA, foreign aid and aid + countries + need or a combination therein. The more generic your search terms, the more results you will have. If you think of specific applications or examples for this year s resolution, you can make alerts for those terms, too. For example, in the NCFCA resolution, you may want one for USAID and international relief fund, since both tie into aiding nations in need. After thinking up key search terms about the topic, follow these steps: a) Make sure you are logged into your Google account. b) Go to c) Type in search terms that are appropriate to the year s topic. d) Select your preferences on how you would like to receive notifications. With this set up, you will receive s with the latest news on resolution-specific situations around the world. While Lincoln-Douglas does not require students to have the most recent headlines on the topic (which will be discussed later), it is always a good idea to see how the topic is being played out in current events. Think about the different point of views on the issues, and also of historical examples that highlight the same issues. Ideas to get you started: Stoa Should Facebook and Google be more vocal about changes to their privacy settings? Why were wiretappings used in the UK and what were the consequences? Is China s cyber-security attack on the US hurting our privacy or security, or both? In making news reports or through lawsuits, is it OK to interview a child? What if he/ she is the only witness? Should anonymous sources ever be used? Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 15

16 How would successful companies like Apple and Google be impacted if the federal government imposed tougher regulations on privacy laws and information sharing? Is it OK for the federal government to access peoples GPS location through their phone without a warrant? Could the Sandusky-Penn State fiasco been averted with more transparency? NCFCA Did other nations come to the aid of the US after Hurricane Katrina/FEMA response? Which had a bigger impact in Haiti following the earthquake: government assistance or individual donations/contributions? What about for Joplin, MO? Japan? Should alliances and international coalitions like NATO and the UN play a larger role in the US response toward nations in need? Is the Euro crisis an argument against financial aid packages? Was getting involved in Iraq more important than following proper channels of law? What would/should govern the US s decision to get involved in Syria: Popularity of intervention among citizens, national policy, international charters, or something else? Is foreign aid like food and water of the same consequence as military aid? Should nations be limited in what they can trade (food, weapons, etc.) with nations like Iran? Would assisting nations that hold a different set of values help or hurt the mission of Spreading Democracy? 2. Lecture: Applications & Support You will often hear the word Applications in an LD round. Applications are merely examples current events, examples from history, etc. that support and illustrate specific arguments. Debaters use applications to show the impact of their arguments and the consequences of their philosophies, applied to the real world. Applications fall under a bigger category called Support. Go to any Team-Policy class or debate round, and you will likely hear a particular buzzword: evidence evidence evidence. For policy debate, evidence is crucial. Debaters are asked to propose or negate specific policies, and having technical evidence from PhDs, congressmen, economists, and policy wonks is crucial. But that is Team-Policy. In Lincoln-Douglas debate, evidence is more generic. In LD, instead of evidence, debaters are required to offered support. Support in LD can come in a variety of ways. Write each of Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 16

17 the following terms on the white board and discuss them, asking the debaters to throw-out a specific illustration for each: Philosophy. From Plato and Aristotle to Hume, Hobbes and Locke, philosophy plays an important role in Lincoln-Douglas debate. Since the resolutions deal with issues that have been around for centuries, it is never a bad idea to quote the ideas of those from previous years, especially if their philosophies are still relevant to present-day issues. For example, if you are discussing Stoa s privacy resolution, a lot of the philosophies guiding issues of privacy occur toward the turn of the 20th century, though earlier roots going back to Aristotle point out the distinction between political activity in the public sphere and familial/relational dynamics in the private realm. For NCFCA, when discussing nations in need, it is important to point out the economic structure of developed, developing, and third-world nations. Economic philosophies from Friedrich Hayek, John Maynard Keynes and Frédéric Bastiat would be worth researching. Heard of Capitalism? Socialism? Both are examples of specific philosophies. To illustrate difficult concepts such as Natural Law and freedom of the individual within a society, it would be helpful to reference a philosophy, if nothing else to bring in another perspective. Logic. Briefly discussed for the first week s lecture, logic plays an important role in academic debate. Debaters should be logical, both in their argumentation and presentation, though they can use logic itself to support their arguments or dissuade the judge from believing their opponent s arguments. Setting up the major and minor premises in a clear manner can often lead to a persuasive conclusion that supports their claims. For example, look at the following claim and the logic that is used to support that claim: Claim: Justice, my opponent s value, should not be valued (though mine should). 1. Justice is incapable of being completely upheld 2. Failure is defined as being incapable of doing something, a lack of success 3. Trying to uphold justice leads to failure 4. Humans Rights, my value, is capable of being upheld successfully Analogies. Comparing two different ideas and drawing a word picture can often be a powerful way of communicating your message. As a violin teacher who has had to teach students as young as 4 and 5 years old, analogies are useful for conveying your point. In debate, analogies can be equally powerful. Since the resolution requires students to study and argue difficult topics, having the ability to offer an analogy to explain those topics is key. I remember my first year in LD, using the analogy of a house to describe democracy in America. The house, with rooms such as the Freedom of Press and the right to vote, rested on a bedrock of morality brought to the table Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 17

18 by our Founding Fathers. Morality was my value, and I demonstrated how the system of democracy (the house) is valued more than its foundation (morals). This painted a clear picture for judges, making it a successful case. Hypothetical situations. These are great to support your arguments as they, done correctly, bring the topic and difficult issues to your judge in a personal, understandable kind of way. Instead of ranting off unemployment numbers and statistics concerning our trade deficit with China, a student can offer the judge a hypothetical situation: Judge, if you re one of the 800 million active users on Facebook, chances are that you ve posted a status update or two. Maybe you ve posted about why you dislike a certain type of laundry detergent or grocery store, or how the service at a particular fast-food restaurant wasn t up to par. Then immediately you refresh the page and find an ad or two on Facebook for that product or similar store. That s because what you post online is far from private. Today your friends include thousands of companies. Or: Judge, imagine you re in Walmart. Look around. Pick up a toy. Find the sticker on the bottom. Where was the toy made? Chances are, it was made in China. Pick up another product. And another. Still seeing the China sticker? That is because % of the products we use on a daily basis are imported from China. This is how it harms our economic security, something we need to provide aid to countries in need... Creating a hypothetical situation can help support your argument in an informal yet genuinely valid way. Speaking in terms of logic, hypotheticals say if A, then B. If you go to Walmart, chances are you will find goods made in China. If you go to McDonald s, you will find a $1 menu. If you are accused of a crime, you are innocent until proven guilty. Quotes. Maybe one of the single greatest tools for forming an all-inclusive perception of a particular topic, quotes are incredibly helpful in supporting your arguments. Instead of merely talking about the price of Liberty, quote Patrick Henry. Do not just talk about victims of identity fraud, quote victims of identity fraud. What was Chief Justice Roberts thinking in the Obamacare ruling? We can only know if we quote him. What are some of the main principles discussed in Frédéric Bastiat s The Law? Read and quote them. Since many of the terms discussed in this year s resolution are ideas (based on general principles) that have been around for centuries, chances are someone already knows about them and has something solid to say. If nothing else, quotes help students to get a better understanding on the difficult topics in order to form educated opinions and arguments. As Spanish philosopher George Santayana said, Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. In LD, students can quote anyone; from Founding Fathers, JFK and Reagan, to Wilberforce, Churchill, Voltaire, Plato and van Goethe. No person if off limits if the quote is relevant to the arguments Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 18

19 and topic at hand. If you are discussing technical topics, quoting someone specialized in the field is always a good idea. Personal stories. Both resolutions are very topical, so students should have a treasure trove of personal stories that directly relate, whether they know it yet or not. Never underestimate the power of a personal story. Perhaps a family member or someone you know has been the victim of identity theft. How was the value of privacy weighted very important or not as much? For assistance to nations in need, how many natural disasters have we seen in the last few years that have forced us to determine the appropriate amount of aid? How many stories of tragedy and triumph have we experienced? Fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, power outages disasters happen every day. Whatever the example, a short, relevant personal story can support your arguments and help you connect with your judge. Current events. While Lincoln-Douglas debate does not rely as heavily on current events as Team-Policy, tying current events into the topic at hand is a great way to keep the issues fresh and to support your arguments with real-world applications. As mentioned earlier, subscribing to Google Alerts helps find specific current events that affirm or negate the topic and particular arguments. That said, read the news every day. Develop a healthy media diet. Know what is going on locally, regionally, nationally and internationally, and how the same topic can bring up different issues around the world. If you have not already, go through the above terms again, having the students think of specific examples that could be relevant to this year s resolution. Debaters who rely on their own ideas as support in argumentation often fail at convincing a judge to their side. Why? Because middle- and high-school debaters are not the most developed sources for ideas. Debaters who back up their thoughts with philosophy, logic, analogies, hypothetical situations, quotes, personal stories and current events bring validity to their claims. It is proven: Support makes your ideas stronger. Hugs and high fives aside, just as support groups exist to prop-up individuals, support in LD serves to prop-up your arguments. Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 19

20 Lesson 5: Case Construction After reading the two cases and getting an idea as to how a case looks, it is time to write a case of your own. Use the following outline: Introduction. Start with an attention-getter (quote, historical example, etc.). Tie the attention-getter to the topic at hand (what you will be discussing today). State the resolution. Definitions. Define key words in the resolution, stating the source for each definition. Value. Offer a value that supports your side of the resolution. A common approach is to say, Today I will be valuing. Discuss why it is your value and how it ties to the resolution. Give a quote or example that supports the value. Criterion. Think about your value. Remembering the three functions of a criterion, ask yourself what kind of criterion you need for your value. Do you need to limit your value, do you need a means to achieve your value, or do you need to provide a measure of your success in upholding the value? Pick a function for your criterion, then transition from your value to your criterion by saying, In order to achieve/limit/ measure the success of upholding this value, I offer as my criterion. Discuss the criterion s function in relation to your value. Give a quote or example that supports the criterion. Contention 1. Usually dedicated to establishing your value as the dominant, most important value in the round. For example, with a value of Liberty, Contention 1: Liberty is paramount. Contention 2. Usually connects value to criterion. For example, with a value of Liberty and criterion of Life, Contention 2: Liberty is achieved when Life is upheld. Contention 3. Usually used to tie value/criterion to resolution. For example, with the NCFCA resolution, Contention 3: International aid helps protect Life, therefore advances Liberty. Conclusion. Brief paragraph summarizing your stance on the resolution, your value and criterion, and your reasoning as to why you believe the justification is true/false in light of your applications and support. Note: Contentions are just arguments that show why a case/value/position is justified. Some debaters may opt to refer to them as Main Points or Arguments. Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 20

21 Lesson 6: The Negative & 4-Point Refutation This is the first speech of the negative. Last week you wrote an affirmative case, to be delivered in the Affirmative Constructive (AC). Now it is time to write the Negative Constructive (NC). Remember from Lesson 2: Flowing that the entire NC is 7 minutes long. Remember the responsibilities of the negative: 1. Present your own negative case 3-4 min. 2. Refute the affirmative case (AC) 3-4 min. Let us go through both separately... Presenting your own case Logistics of the a Negative Constructive case: second speech of the round pages, typed, single-spaced 3-4 min. After reading the two cases and getting an idea as to how a negative case looks, it is time to write a negative case of your own. Use the following outline: Introduction. Start with an attention-getter (quote, historical example, etc.). Tie the attention-getter to the topic at hand (what you will be discussing today). State the resolution and why you stand opposed to it. Definitions. Define key words in the resolution, stating the source for each definition. This is only needed if a) the AC did not define key terms in the resolution or b) you would like to add/clarify the terms with your own definitions. Value. Offer a value that supports your side of the resolution. A common approach is to say, Today I will be valuing. Discuss why it is your value and how it ties to the resolution. Show why your value is a justification for voting against the resolution. Give a quote or example that supports the value. Criterion. Think about your value. Remembering the three functions of a criterion, ask yourself what kind of criterion you need for your value. Do you need to limit your value, do you need a means to achieve your value, or do you need to provide a measure of your success in upholding the value? Pick a function for your criterion, then transition from your value to your criterion by saying, In order to achieve/limit/ measure the success of upholding this value, I offer as my criterion. Discuss the criterion s function in relation to your value. Give a quote or example that supports the criterion. Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 21

22 Contention 1. Usually dedicated to establishing your value as the dominant, most important value in the round. For example, with a value of Liberty, Contention 1: Liberty is paramount. Contention 2. Usually connects value to criterion. For example, with a value of Liberty and criterion of Life, Contention 2: Liberty is achieved when Life is upheld. Contention 3. Usually used to tie value/criterion to resolution. For example, with the NCFCA resolution, Contention 3: International intervention harms Life, therefore denies Liberty. Conclusion. Brief paragraph summarizing your stance on the resolution, your value and criterion, and your reasoning as to why you believe the justification is true/false in light of your applications and support. Note: Contentions are just arguments that show why a case/value/position is justified. Some debaters may opt to refer to them as Main Points or Arguments. Refuting the affirmative case Remember that this is the second component of the Negative Constructive. After presenting his/her own case as to why the resolution is false, the NC must then refute the affirmative claims made in the Affirmative Constructive. This is best learned through something called 4-Point Refutation an organized way to respond to and refute individual arguments in a debate round. (This technique will also come in handy in the later lesson on Rebuttals.) 4-Point Refutation 1. Identify. Identify the argument you are addressing. For example, My opponent s first argument was that Privacy is undervalued in our society. 2. Respond. Respond to the argument with your own argument. For example, I believe that Privacy is being value correctly in our society. (Note how this point is respond not refute. Sometimes you will come across arguments that you will actually agree with. In responding to these arguments, say that you agree and then show how it helps your case.) 3. Support. Support your argument. For example, An example of Privacy being valued correctly in our society can be seen with lawsuits against wiretapping. (Refer back to Lesson 4 to remind the students of the different forms of support in LD.) 4. Impact. Impact your argument by showing how it affects your case, your opponent s case, or the resolution itself. For example, Since Justice is valued correctly in our society, my opponent s case lacks justification, and I should win. Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 22

23 Lesson 7: Cross-Examination One of the hardest parts of debate to master and, consequently, the most enjoyable is Cross-Examination. Ultimately, your case can be as polished as possible and your debate binder stuffed with applications, but you can still lose a round. Think like a judge for a moment. The best judges still find it difficult to follow every detail and every argument. You are responsible to bring up the arguments that will lead a judge to confirm a winning ballot. There is no better opportunity in the round to address these arguments up than during crossexamination. CX gives you, the debater, the opportunity to show the judge that you are confident you understand the resolution you understand the rules of debate you understand your opponents case you deserve to win the debate round That said, remember that CX is one of the toughest debate strategies to master. You need to improvise and be quick and challenging, something most are not comfortable with at first. But you are not alone! Debaters often cite CX as the most challenging practice, though the same debaters will attest that once CX is mastered, victory is much easier to attain. What is Cross-Examination? Cross-examination (CX) is a lively exchange between an examiner and an examinee (witness) in a question-and-answer format. The examiner will ask questions, and the witness will offer answers. Examinees are not able to ask questions, though both debaters get an opportunity to cross-examine their opponent (there are 2 CXs in an LD round). Cross-examination is the only time during the debate where the two debaters interact. Think of it as somewhere in-between the interaction of two candidates in a presidential debate and the interaction of a prosecutor and his witness in a courtroom. Purposes of Cross-Ex There are two main purposes for cross-ex: a. Set-up your case (primary questions) b. Expose flaws in opponent s case through admissions (secondary questions) We will look at how to accomplish both. Primary questions bring up new issues and examples and are useful for setting-up your next speech. Secondary questions are useful for developing the issues and examples that have already been introduced. On a basic level, Section 2 Lincoln-Douglas Page 23