1. How to Affirm or Negate a Statement of Value

2.  What do you think a statement of value is?  What do you think the difference between a statement of value and statement of fact is?

3. Statement of Value  A value is an idea that a debater argues to be paramount. The contentions in a Lincoln-Douglas case uphold the value. Generally, the debater will present philosophical background to support and explain their case.

4.  A statement of value is what ought to be true rather than what is true.  Statements of value refer to metaphysical concepts such as “justice” and “morality,  Rather than everyday concepts of politics and society

5. What does it mean to stand in support of or affirm a statement of value?

6. Proving a Statement True vs. Affirming a Statement of Value  Declaring a statement true means that the speaker is making a categorical or “absolute” statement about the resolution  If the affirmative had prove the statement categorically true, then they have to prove that there are NO exceptions to the statement under any context as one exception would undermine the truthfulness of the resolution.

7. Matter of Principal  The affirmative should prove that the statement is true as a matter of principal or as a general case  Small exceptions made be had as long as they don’t invalidate the overall claim being made

8. Negating the Resolution  Negating a resolution means to prove, on balance or in an overriding portion of the situations that the action the resolution posits violates the nature of the evaluative method supplied by the resolution  Negating should show that the specific arguments provided by the affirmative debate are not sufficient enough to uphold the resolution or are untrue in and of themselves

9. Civil Disobedience in a Democracy is Morally Justified  What would we need to logically prove or know to affirm or negate this resolution?

10. Burdens  We must understand what burdens are placed upon the affirmative debater due to the text in the resolution

11. Effective Textual Analysis  1. An understanding of the definitions of the words in the resolution  Dictionary definition  Watch for “terms of art”- phrases with very specific meaning or context

12. Effective Textual Analysis  2. An understanding of the type of resolution at hand.  Comparative (x is more desirable than y)  Absolute (x action is just  Superlative (x is the best form of government

13. Textual Analysis  3. An Understanding of the Context, if any, Provided by the Resolution  Such as “in the United States,” “when in conflict”  Does this resolution provide a specific context? Does it limit or narrow the debate? How do these contexts clarify the conflict of the resolution? How do these contexts suggest burdens for what the affirmative or negative debater has to prove?

14. Textual Analysis  4. An understanding of the actor and action of the resolution  The actor is the agent/person/entity that will presumably carry out the action in the affirmative world  Ex. “US government,” “society,” “a government,” “international community,” “the UN”

15. Textual Analysis  5. A recognition of the evaluative term of the Resolution.  Terms that pose the moral, legal or ethical question of the resolution  EX. It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people  In the US, jury nullification is a legitimate check on government  International leaders ought to cancel the debt of highly indebted poor countries  Capitalism is the most just form of economic system

16. What would we need to logically prove or know to affirm or negate this resolution?