3. Its about the plan – advantages/disadvantages/solving a problem Example: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its democracy assistance for one or more of the following: Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen.

4. Resolved: Stand Your Ground laws are a legitimate expansion of the doctrine of self defense.

5. A government has the obligation to lessen the economic gap between its rich and poor citizens

6.  Affirmative Constructive- 6 minutes Affirmative Constructive-  Negative Cross Examination of Affirmative- 3 minutes Negative Cross Examination of Affirmative-  Negative Constructive- 7 minutes  Affirmative Cross Examination of Negative- 3 minutes  First Affirmative Rebuttal- 4 minutes First Affirmative Rebuttal-  Negative Rebuttal- 6 minutes  Second Affirmative Rebuttal- 3 minutes  Throughout the debate, each speaker will have a specified amount of preparation time, usually 4 minutes.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFOLNdSOWE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFFOLNdSOWE

7.  1. OpeningOpening  2. statement of the resolution  3. Value  4. Value Criterion (standard)  5. Definitions  6. (Optional) observations  7. Contentions and subpointsContentions and subpoints  8. Closing

8.  Starting with an example performance:  Resolved: Students should be allowed to bring their cel phones to school.  Three good arguments for this would be?  Three good arguments against this would be?

9.  Each of the fully formed arguments we developed -  Makes a statement of possible truth,  that is called the Claim- an example:  Making immigration a human right would end human trafficking.

10.  Claims can be :  Analytical  Intuitive premises: appeal to common sense and common experiences to valid these.  Empirical [based in concrete facts ] premises :  These are real world – the evidence can be counted, directly observed, etc.  They require hard evidence to prove true.

11. Gives support for that argument in terms of some reason why this argument is true, - THIS IS CALLED THE WARRANT… Its logical!

12.  Analytical warrants – it logical!  Empirical warrants – here are examples that collectively prove the general point  Psychological warrants – here is why people tend to act this way.

13.  A warrant: (WHY is your claim true, why should I believe you??)  E.G. This is true because a study by Professor Jones shows that states that favor rehabilitation have lower recidivism rates than those which favor punishment.  OR This is true because it is logical for people to avoid pain and thus to be moderate their behavior to achieve this goal.  You should be able to explain how your “warrant” links to your value criterion!  Thus the Jones evidence achieves my value criterion of increasing public security. Less crime means a safer environment for all citizens.

15.  A warrant answers the question: why is this true  Empirical [facutal] claims require empirical [facutal] warrants  Empirical claims are actual inductive arguments  In Ohio rehabilitation was superior to punishment, in Maine, rehabilitation was superior to punishment…. [a bunch of individual examples – usually not read in a round ], instead you may say….  My study was done in 30 states and in each case rehabilitation proved superior to punishment.  Therefore rehabilitation is superior to punishment.

16. Generalization Specific case Conclusion Turn this into a properly structured deductive argument: It is logical for people to avoid pain and thus to be moderate their behavior to achieve this goal.

17.  Analytical warrants are deductive arguments  Psychologists tells us that rewards are superior to punishments in changing behavior. Rehabilitation provides rewards for changed behavior, punishment does not.  Therefore rehabilitation is superior.  NOTE: This is also an example of a psychological argument, it needs psychological support !!  Always try to figure out what the general principle is that the argument is based on.

18. FINALLY, the IMACT Explicitly explains the importance of this argument in terms of how the argument proves the position true or how the implications of the argument affects people.

19.  Impacts: so what? Why should I care even if this is so?  Why should I care that recidivism rates are lower if we use rehabilitation?  Example of an impact that should make me care: when recidivism rates go down, crime goes down and people are more secure.  We care in general because the evidence means you achieve your value criterion and therefore better achieve your value.

20. Claim Warrant Impact

21.  arguments to persuade  arguments to convince  of definition  of fact

22.  Power of language:  Riot  Civil disturbances  Insurrection  Gang-inspired thieves (thuggery)  Anarchy  The difference it makes

23.  What is flowing?  Strongly suggested follow up – Go to the class website here:  http://nfltv.org/2010/03/15/learning-ld- debate/ http://nfltv.org/2010/03/15/learning-ld- debate/  Specifically look at their Demo Debate. It will reinforce things we talked about and offer other basic ideas and techniques