Debate presentation

2.  Lincoln-Douglas Debate is
a VALUE debate, meaning it is a debate about
what ought to be rather than specific policy.
 It is often a topic regarding the conflict between
the rights of the individual opposed to the
rights of the larger society.
 The UIL resolution changes every semester. The
national resolution changes every two months.

3.  A round of Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a one on
one debate, as opposed to CX or PF, which are
two on two. Or Congress which can have many
debaters in the round.
 At a debate tournament, each student will
debate at least 3-4 times. The larger the
tournament, the more rounds will be
guaranteed.

4.  During a tournament, debaters will argue both
sides of the topic. A debater must be able to
argue both sides of the topic.
 Usually, each debater will be assigned the
affirmative side for two rounds and the negative
side on two other rounds.
 A Lincoln-Douglas debate round lasts about 45
minutes. The times for the various
speeches are very structured, as are the purposes
of the speeches.

5.  6 minute Affirmative Constructive (AC)
 3 minute Negative Cross Examination
 7 minute Negative Constructive/Rebuttal (NC)
 3 minute Affirmative Cross Examination
(questions/answers)
 4 minute Affirmative Reconstructive/Rebuttal (1AR)
 6 minute Negative Reconstructive/Rebuttal (NR)
 3 minute Affirmative
Reconstructive/Rebuttal/Crystallization (2AR)
 It helps to memorize: "6 - 3 - 7 - 3 - 4 - 6 - 3"
 4 minutes of Prep time for each debater.

6.  AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE 6
MINUTES
 Read case
 NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE 7
MINUTES
 Read Case
 Clash with affirmative case
 1ST AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL 4
MINUTES
 Affirmative overview
 Clash with negative case
 Extend and/or rebuild affirmative case
 NEGATIVE REBUTTAL 6 MINUTES
 Negative overview
 Clash with affirmative case
 Extend and/or rebuild negative case
 Provide voters
 2ND AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL 3
MINUTES
 Clash with negative case
 Rebuild affirmative case
 Provide voters

7.  My team utilizes DEBATE BRIEFS
 A Brief is a collection of evidence, arguments,
current topic analysis, definitions, etc.
 Briefs are helpful, but remember that other
teams may also have these collections
 Evidence should also be found on the internet,
but only use CREDIBLE sources

8.  You will need to write TWO speeches: the
affirmative (6 min.) that says that the
resolution is true and the negative (3-4 min)
that says that the resolution is false.

9.  Step One: The Resolution.
The resolution is a statement
of the topic of the debate. The
entire debate is a test of the
validity of this statement.
Therefore, wording and
semantics are crucial.
Each important word must be
defined from different
angles.
 Step Two: The Value
Premise.
 Remember that we said that
Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a
VALUE debate about what
ought to be, right?
 Each debate speech will center
on a value that you choose as
the cornerstone of your position.
I know this seems very, very
vague. Don’t worry, we’ll be
spending a lot of time talking
about values.

10.  “From this four-step procedure comes the ‘stock
issues’ of a proposition of value. They are
 1. How should we define the object of evaluation?
 2. By what criteria shall we evaluate it?
 3. What is the relationship between the evaluate term
and the object of evaluation?
 4. What is the hierarchy of values, and is the
affirmative value nearer to the top of this hierarchy
than any competitive value proposed by the negative?
 (Lincoln-Douglas Debate: Defining and Judging Value
Debate, NFISDA, Richard Hunsaker, 1990, page 7)

11.  Value
 Criterion (or Standard)
 Contentions
 Definition of terms- Not necessarily stated in
the AC/NC, but are critical to have in case the
round shifts into a topicality debate.

12.  “Yet, over twenty years after Lincoln-Douglas
debate made its debut as a high school event,
there is still no consensus on the use and
application of the value premise or criteria.”
 NEW PERSPECTIVES ON VALUES AND CRITERIA IN LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE: THE CASE CONTEXTUAL
STANDARDS, Minh A. Luong, NFL Rostrum

13.  These are concepts or rules used to evaluate the
round. Since both sides will likely make some
convincing arguments in the course of the round,
standards are used to determine which arguments
matter more.

14.  A Value is anything of worth. It is whatever the Aff or Neg
debater hopes to achieve through their advocacy.
 “Values, by definition, will be broad and perhaps vague…
Although the criterion clarifies the value by being more specific,
it is still difficult to completely define every aspect of the value.
Philosophers have tried to do that for more than two thousand
years; it seems unlikely that debaters will succeed in half-an
hour.”
(SEEKING CLARITY THROUGH THE FOG: ON THE USE OF
VALUES AND CRITERION IN LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE,
Courtney J. Balentine and Minh A. Luong, NFL Rostrum)

15.  The wording of certain resolutions may
implicitly prescribe the best value for the round.
For example, the resolution "Democracy is best
served by strict separation of church and state"
implicitly suggests a value of "democracy".
Since the wording of the resolution guides the
selection of values the two debaters may have
identical or similar values. In these
circumstances focus is usually shifted to the
criterion.

16.  Justice
 Freedom/ Liberty
 Sanctity of Life vs. Quality of Life
 Human Rights
 Free Expression / Speech
 Democracy
 Equality
 Societal Good / General Will /
Society
 Majority Rule
 National Interest / National
Security
 Legitimate Government
 Individualism / Autonomy
 Safety
 Progress
 Privacy
Value Hierarchy
Societal Welfare
Safety Progress Democracy
Justice
Leg’t govt Rights Autonomy

17. A. Provide an adequate and appropriate definition of your value.
Most values are abstract, and can have different interpretations by both debaters. Thus
when you give a value a specific definition needs to be given.
For example look at the value such as legitimate government. Interpretations can be
varied on what a legitimate government is. Some could interpret legitimate government
as a government that protects individual rights, as others could interpret a legitimate
government as a government that provides security for its citizens. Thus a definition
must be given to give your opponent and your judge an understanding of what a
legitimate government actually is.
B. Show the value’s resolutional implications:
Resolutional implications simply show why your value is intrinsic to the resolution. As a
debater you must link how the value is related to the resolution.
C. Show the value’s real world implications:
Real world implications give an understanding of the importance of the value. It also
gives your judge an idea of why your value is needed and is important.

18.  Further define and limit the value
 The mechanism to achieve the value
 They allow us to tell when the requirements of
the value are met
 If the value can be understood as “What do we
want” the criterion can be understood as “How
are we going to get it”

19.  “a standard by which something can be measured or judged”
(UIL Guide, page 12)
 “a way to measure or judge whether or not upholding the
resolution achieves or enhances the value” (UIL Guide, page
13)
 “…it is certainly the area where the most confusion and
difference of opinion exist...” (UIL Guide, page 12)

20.  The "criterion" or "value criterion" is the conceptual mechanism
the debater proposes to achieve and weigh the value.
Oftentimes, the debater will simply talk about the criterion, so it
is sometimes referred to as the standard, in and of itself. First
and foremost, the criterion is how the debater achieves the
value.
 Given a value of liberty, for example, debaters might propose a
criterion of protecting free speech, reasoning that free speech
is the most important aspect of liberty and that possessing it
will allow society to criticize government thereby maintaining
other types of liberty.

21.  Philosophic
 The more traditional
criterion.
 This is the part of the AC
or NC that will introduce
the philosophic concept
that will serve as the
underpinning for the
AFF/NEG Advocacy
 Contextual
 You will recognize it by
the inclusion of an action
 Examples:
 Upholding a system of
checks and balances
 Ensuring rights for the
oppressed.
 Increasing access to
healthcare

22.  Social Contract
 Categorical Imperative
 Utility
 Harm Principle
 Cost Benefit Analysis
 Market Place of Ideas
 Pragmatism
 Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

23.  A. Establish how your criterion achieves your value. You must prove how
your criterion achieves your value, or else you are not affirming or negating.
This is true because if you are saying you value something, you must prove
how you achieve this value in the context of the round. If your value is justice
you can’t just say why justice is important, you must also prove why your
criterion achieves justice.
 B. Provide justifications. Give warrants under your criterion, on why your
criterion is so important. The more justifications you give, gives you more
offense on why your standard is more important and why you should affirm
or negate.
 C. Provide Burdens. Under the criterion set up a burden framework. Tell
your judge what your opponent has to do to win your criterion. This is good
for two reasons. First a lot of opponent’s drop burdens. Two, burdens set up
a better debate. If you come out and tell your opponent what they have to do
to win, it allows the judge to weigh the round a lot easier.

24.  1. Vague/ Ambiguous
 2. Value Objection- a harmful effect of the value
 3. My value is more important
 4. My value is prerequisite-comes first
 5. No bright line- We don’t’ know when it is achieved.
 6. Not intrinsic to the resolution (Rez calls for
something else)
 7. Not intrinsically valuable (Not valuable In and of
itself)

25.  1. Circular to the value
 2. Insufficient- Not sufficient to achieve the
value
 3. My criterion is a precursor
 4. Ambiguous, Vague
 5. Not a criterion- i.e Cost Benefit Analysis
 6. Criterion objection-a harmful effect of the
criterion

26. The value I will be upholding in today’s debate is
___________________.
(Define)____________ means
_________________________________________________.
(Impact / Importance)_______________ is important
because______________________________________________
____________.
My value is upheld through the criterion of
__________________________.
(Define / Clarify)
_____________________________________________________.
My criterion to achieves __________________ (value) because
_____________________________________________________
________________.

27.  Contentions are where the evidence you
gathered from the internet/ the evidence from
purchased briefs come into play.
 Contentions, when done correctly, provide
offense for the AFF/NEG as to why the
resolution should be affirmed or negated.
 Contentions should not generally affirm or
negate the topic, they should have a clear link
to the value and criterion you present at the top
of your case.

28. Contention:
_______________________________________________________________
___.
A.
Analysis
Evidence / Example
Impact to value/ Criterion
B.
Analysis
Evidence / Example
Impact to value/ Criterion
C.
Analysis
Evidence / Example
Impact to value/ Criterion

29.  Establish Value Supremacy
 Do not drop arguments
 Have round vision
 In the NR/2AR give voters

30.  1. My first voter is the professor Delgado card.
 Extend the analysis from Delgado that unlimited free expression leads to dehumanization. You must
vote on the Delgado card, because the impact of dehumanization outweighs any other impacts in the
round on two levels.
 First, dehumanization outweighs any affirmative impacts on a magnitude level. Like Delgado explained
racial stigmatization of any kind will inevitably destroy us all, by dehumanizing certain classes of
groups. Minimal violations of freedom of expression can’t outweigh destruction of all.
 Second, dehumanization outweighs on a timeframe level. Dehumanization is occurring now. The harms
to dehumanization are happening now, so we must act immediately. My opponent’s harms of violating
freedom of expression only occur down the road.
 2. My second voter is contention two.
 First, at the point my opponent completely drops this contention on face you have too vote for it. This is
true because even if you don’t by the arguments, it doesn’t matter because there are no arguments on
the flow that say you should reject the arguments.
 However I give two explicit reasons on how political correctness can solve for dehumanization. Both
these reasons give you enough offense to negate, because at least I give you some reasons why we
should have political correctness.
 3. My third voter is the Professor Lawrence Card.
 You have to vote on this card, because it turns the whole affirmative case. The affirmative tells us we
should promote the market place of ideas, but he can’t even meet the market place of ideas. This is
exactly what the Lawrence cards tells you. You will never be able to meet the market place of ideas,
because certain speech will silence certain groups destroying their ideas from reaching the market
place of ideas.

32. -Categorical Imperative
Act only on that
maxim through
which you can at
the same time will
that it should
become a universal
law
-Duty ethics
i. Only absolutely good
is a good will
ii. Intent
-Only tells us what is not

33. -Utilitarianism
The greatest
happiness of the
greatest number
-Harm Principle-Can only
violate liberty if harmed
others

34. -Social Contract
Individuals enter
society expecting
that their individual
rights will be best
protected
i. All have basic rights
ii. Leave State of Nature
and sacrifice some
freedom for security
-Government’s first duty is
to protect the rights of
the people

35. -Humans are selfish and the
state of nature stinks
War of all against all in
which human life is
solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish and short
-Government needed as a
security mechanism-Good
use of force
-Individuals sacrifice all
autonomy

36. -General will-Takes in
views of all
The general will is
always rightful and
always tends to the
public good
-Government will always
act in citizens best
interest
-Desire of self
preservation