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

Value=an idea or concept that is worthy of placing high preference upon *moral/ethical*political *pragmatic/practical*artistic This is not debatable. Commonly Used Values Utility Human Dignity Quality of Life Social Welfare/Societal Good Education Justice/Equity Progress Democracy Stability Equality Family Liberty/Freedom Privacy Self Determination Anarchy Efficiency/Economy Environmental Sustainability Diversity Integrity/Honesty/Truth Life Safety/Security

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 best Contextual=the value that best fits the heart of the resolution’s dilemma Additional Value Enhancement=the value that enhances other values Value Realization=the value that positively affects the most people in a society Maslow’s Hierarchy=the value that is more important/more needed for the human experience: physical needssafety/security belonging self-esteem self-actualization

Value Criteria=a set of standards by which to judge the superior worth of the value Cost Benefit Analysis=has the most benefits and the least harms Utilitarianism=the greatest happiness for the greatest number/could create oppressive majority Futurism=the greatest good for the future/life is worth living today Deontology=respect for persons; decisions must be based on what is right regardless of the outcome Social Contract=man receives benefits of society and has a responsibility to be of benefit to society

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 a.Compare your value to your opponent’s using the common methods of evaluation b.Compare your value to your opponent’s using the round’s criteria I.The Case a.Establish that affirming or negating the resolution causes benefits that enhance the value

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.

Constructive Case 1.Determine Value. Link to Resolution. How does affirming the resolution produce the value? 2.Choose Criteria. 3.What is the major conflict/common theme? 4.What are the arguments that are major conflict points? 5.Build a list of arguments-all that you can brainstorm. 6.Organize by grouping similar arguments. Create a natural progression of 2-4 main contentions. 1 st address value and link 2 nd resolution topic-what are the benefits of affirming or negating? 3 rd why is your value and criteria more important and appropriate? 1.Anticipate opposing arguments. 2.Collect evidence. 3.Polish. 4.Write opposing case.

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

Rebuttal 1.Extend arguments: provide new logic, analysis, and evidence to further your points and attack opposing points. 2.Launch new attacks with logic, analysis, and evidence. 3.Don’t introduce new arguments. 4.Roadmap and signpost, but don’t repeat. 5.Don’t drop points! 6.Point out opponent’s dropped points. 7.Carefully cross-apply arguments. 8.Filter and group arguments according to importance. 9.End on a good note: rapport and voting issues

Attack opposition’s: value criteria definitions (if needed) case points Ways to attack opposition’s arguments: limited application limited time frame contradiction assumption of inherent good unrealistic evidence validity and credibility insignificant impacts harms your arguments are better because…