|
 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||
|
LD is an acronym for Lincoln Douglas. The name refers to the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois in 1858. Seven debates were held. Although Lincoln lost the Senate race in 1858, he beat Douglas in the 1860 race for the US Presidency. As you might imagine, LD debate has not been around that long. In fact the predecessor of LD was Policy debate (also called Cross Examination debate). The story goes that Policy debate got so fast and indiscernible that funding was threatened. As a result many would argue that LD is meant to be the slower-paced and more user-friendly debate but LD has also become complicated and fast-paced in many cases. The most important distinction between LD and Policy debate is in the questions that are debated. Questions can be divided into three different categories. First, questions of fact are topics that can be answered with a definitive “yes” or “no”. The statement: the earth is round, is a question of fact. Neither LD nor Policy debate uses questions of fact. If they did, one side would always be able to win if they were able to obtain the right information. Since every debater must debate both sides of the question, debaters would be forced to lose half of their rounds regardless of their skill or talent. This would defeat the purpose of debate as a learning activity that develops analytical and thinking skills. Next, LD debaters debate questions of value, or questions that have some moral focus which cannot be answered with an absolute “yes” or “no”. Debaters often debate the meaning of life (Resolved: Sanctity of life ought to be valued above quality of life), the morality of actions (Resolved: Capital punishment is morally justified), and the justness of government (Resolved: Violent revolution is a just response to oppression). Debaters argue right or wrong with philosophy and logic but do not propose solutions to these problems. Last, Policy debaters examine questions of policy. Questions of policy invite individuals to examine a current problem, present a solution to that problem and use research to back up arguments. The second and most visual difference between LD and policy is that LD rounds involve one debater debating against one other debater. Policy debate involves two debaters (one team) debating against two other debaters (the other team). Although Policy debaters “have their partner to fall back on” each debater in a Policy round must give half of the speeches representing their side of the topic. As an LDer you will debate on your own, without a partner. Although this may sound scary, LD rounds tend to be less research intensive, with slower and shorter speeches. SECTION 1 QUICK CHECK: (Check Your Answers!) List the two biggest differences between LD and Policy Debate. 2. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Give an example of each of the type of “question” that can be discussed and then list which type of debate uses each question. 2. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 3. _____________________________________________________________________________________ How does it work? Debate is a competitive event. Committed debaters attend many tournaments during the year, and some even attend debate camps during the summer. A few weeks before a tournament you will be given a statement. This statement will differ depending on where you debate and in which league. This statement is called the resolution. The NFL (National Forensics League) releases one resolution every two months. Some states have separate leagues that release topics at different times. For example, the UIL in Texas releases LD topics twice a year. An example of a topic, or resolution, is Resolved: Random testing of student athletes for illegal drug use is justified. Every resolution has two purposes. First, the obvious purpose is to give a debater a heads-up about what he or she will be debating. Next, a resolution allocates ground between the two opponents in a debate round. Ground is an important concept (especially for the advanced debater) and is a word that describes the equitable distribution of debatable area within any given topic. One example of a topic that does not distribute ground equally is Resolved: Killing cute little puppies for fun is moral. It would be unfair for any debater that was designated to disagree with this resolution because that debater could never win (or at the very least would be at a great disadvantage). Resolutions are written in such a way that each debater should have an equal opportunity to win. That way, the winner of the round will be the debater with the best ability rather than the one who got lucky and was able to debate the “easy side”. Having a resolution without equally distributed ground is like trying to debate a question of fact: the round is decided on the basis of who draws the “good side” rather than who has done the most research or developed the most skill. The special format used for arguments is called a case. This case, much like the type that a lawyer would make, outlines all of the assets of your side and points out the faults of the other side. It will also establish the limits of the resolution with definitions. Defining words in the resolution is an important duty that many debaters overlook. Definitions work to equally distribute ground between the two competitors. After all the preliminary writing and researching is done, you will be ready to debate a real round. This does not entail two people yelling arguments at each other Jerry Springer style, as many might imagine. In fact, debate differs from an argument in three very distinct ways. First, there is no dialogue – or discussion – between a debater and her opponent. In fact, very little confrontation is involved. Only a period of six minutes (two three- minute slots) of cross-examination time is spent talking to one another. Next, each debate is strictly structured. Debaters cannot talk any time they want to. Each debater is allocated a specific number of minutes at specific times during the debate round. Last, a debater will never convince her opponent that her side is best. Unlike an argument where an individual can compromise or even convince the other person, in a debate round a debater cannot compromise or be convinced of the other debater’s argument – that debater would automatically lose because he or she would no longer be arguing for his or her side of the resolution. SECTION 2 QUICK CHECK: (Check Your Answers!) 2. _____________________________________________________________________________________ List the three reasons that debate is different from an argument. 2. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 3. _____________________________________________________________________________________ CHAPTER REVIEW: 1-1, Short Answer (Check Your Answers!) Give an example of a resolution where ground would be distributed unevenly and explain why this would be unfair. CHAPTER REVIEW: 1-2, Matching (Check Your Answers!) CHAPTER REVIEW: 1-3, Multiple Choice (Check Your Answers!) Writing a good case is the first step to winning a round. Unfortunately, teaching someone case structure is similar to teaching someone how to see. I can describe how a case is structured and what that structure means in a debate round, but until it is actually put into practice, understanding how this case interrelates with the other elements of the round may seem confusing. At first, the different components of a case may seem arbitrary and contrived (like busy work!) but over time, you will understand that they help to synthesize your view point and to show the judge the fundamental benefits of your side more clearly. The basic components of a case are the value, criterion and contentions. All of these things must be present in every case. They work like a pyramid. You want what is at the top, but you can’t get there unless you use the steps starting at the bottom. You have to build the pyramid right or the steps will be missing, and you won’t be able to climb to the top to reach your goal. What is a value? The value is the standard that your judge will use to decide who wins the round. The best way to understand this is to pretend that you are a candidate running for office. Your campaign platform is like your value. You may promise, for example, that you will provide better health care if you are elected. Voters that think health care is the most important issue will vote for you. Your judge is like the voter, and your value is like the candidate’s campaign platform. You need to convince your judge that your value is the most important thing in the round and therefore the thing that he or she should vote for. How do I pick a value? In order to pick a good value you must remember three things: 1. A value must be intrinsically valuable. 2. A value must be universally valuable. 3. A value must be valuable in context of the resolution. 1. A value must be intrinsically valuable. Something is intrinsically valuable when you love it because of what it is, not because of what it does for you. For example, I value the blanket that is on my bed, but I don’t value it because it is intrinsically valuable. I value it because it gives me warmth, or it is beautiful. I use the blanket to experience warmth or beauty. Warmth and beauty are values because of what they are, not what they get me. Appropriate values are usually lofty and wonderful ideas or things. The following are all values:
These are just examples and there are obviously many more. A good way to determine if something is intrinsically valuable, ask yourself: Why do I value _______? If the answer is that you just do, or that _______ is a good thing, then you have something that is intrinsically valuable. It is important to note that choosing an intrinsic value is important, but not required by the rules of LD debate. In fact, most of case structure is not set out in the technical rules anywhere. Instead, using proper case structure is like using good manners at a formal dinner. It is expected, and unless you are very well versed in how the activity works, you should not deviate from convention. That said, some debaters will use values that are not intrinsic. They may do this because of strategic reasons or simply because they have not been taught better. I recommend an intrinsic value because using such a value creates clarity in the debate round. When debaters use values that are not intrinsic it is easy for them to revise meanings throughout the round – well, I said my value was good actions, but what I really meant was moral actions, but what I meant was MORALITY. Simply put, why would you use a value that leads to other values (values that aren’t intrinsic lead to other values) if you could just use an intrinsic value in the first place? 2. A value must be universally valuable. Most people, not just debaters or judges, should find your value valuable. This does not mean most people in the world, but most people in the area you are debating. There are two reasons that your value should be universally valuable. 1. If your judge does not find your value worthwhile it will be hard to convince him or her to vote for it. 2. Having a value that most people think is valuable keeps you from messing up. (I know, this one sounds kind of funny.) Many times, as novices learn more and more complex debate concepts they mistake philosophical terms as values because of their definitions. For example, Deontology says that the means justify the ends. Most basically deontology results in moral intent in actions. Many novice debaters feel smart because they think they have found a big word for morality. Deontology is not morality, however, because it is only a process for deciding what is moral. In other words deontology is like color safe laundry detergent. It washes out stains and makes colors brighter. The detergent is not the color, but only what brings out the color. If you pick a value that is used in every day language, you can be sure it is a value and avoid using a term incorrectly. Also, if you use a term like Deontology, it is very likely that some judges will not know what you mean, so you will waste your time trying to convince judges that your value is actually valuable rather than making real arguments. The following examples violate both the first and second principles of finding a value. None of the following are values.
3. A value must be valuable in context of the resolution. In addition to promising your judge that you will achieve your value, you must also prove that your value is the most appropriate thing to value within the resolution. For example, if I value quality of life, I am telling my judge that this is the most important thing within the resolution. In essence, the reason that the judge would affirm or negate the resolution is to best achieve Quality of Life. To find a good value you must think carefully about the resolution. Begin by asking yourself: What does the resolution want me to value? Some resolutions imply a value. The resolution: Increased reliance on technology undermines quality of life in America implies a value of quality of life. The affirmative (the side that agrees with the resolution) is trying to prove that you can’t get quality of life if you rely on technology. The negative (the side that disagrees with the resolution) is trying to prove that technology increases quality of life. Both strive to achieve quality of life through either the use of technology or the absence of it. It is always safe to use a value implied in the resolution but you can also pick a value that is not implied in the resolution. An example that would work in this resolution is progress. The negative might try to prove that technology creates progress, and therefore progress is the best value. Some resolutions don’t imply a value. An example would be, Resolved: Native American Sovereignty ought to be valued above state sovereignty. In this case, you must find your own value. Sovereignty, the right to rule yoursel) is not a value because you don’t value sovereignty; you value what it gets you. You might be able to prove that sovereignty gets you liberty. Liberty would be a good value. SECTION 1 QUICK CHECK: (Check Your Answers!) Think of three values not already listed in this section. Think of two values that do not meet at least one of the requirements of a value and explain why. How do I write the value part of my case? In your case you will want to explain what your value is and why it is important in context of the resolution. Using the resolution: The random testing of student athletes for illegal drug use is justified, I might read a paragraph like the following to establish my value: “In today’s debate the highest ranking value is of quality of life. Quality of life is living with security, fairness, trust, equality and health. Quality of life is the foundation of life’s pyramid; however, without random drug testing this foundation crumbles from drug use.” SECTION 2 QUICK CHECK: (Check Your Answers!) The highest value within today’s round is __________________. _____________ is defined as _________________________________________________________. ___________ is the most important thing to value in this round because __________________________________________________________. What is a criterion? If you want your judge to vote on this ‘value’ thing, how are you going to make sure that you actually achieve the value with your case? The answer to this question is the criterion. Assume that your value is quality of life. You know that, in order to have quality of life you have to have things like friends, food, water, shelter, etc. All of these things are criteria (plural for criterion). For the criterion portion of your case you need to find a concept that will allow you to achieve all of these things and therefore allow you to get to your value. How do I pick a criterion? As you begin to search for a criterion, you need to think about what you might need to get your value. Think about the resolution, and what makes your side different from your opponent’s side. How do you uniquely achieve your value, or how does your opponent endanger your value? If you can make this idea into a succinct word or phrase, you probably have a criterion. Pretend that you are affirming (agreeing with) the resolution, Resolved: The random testing of student athletes for illegal drugs is justified. Your value is quality of life. Something that might harm quality of life is drug use – something that drug testing of student athletes would prevent. Drug use would create an unsafe society. In this scenario your side would preserve quality of life by making us safe. Your opponent would destroy quality of life by making us unsafe (preventing random drug testing). A good criterion for your case, then, would be safety. There is also a second function of the criterion, other than just getting to your value. Your criterion should also be the way that you advocate looking at the round. More simplistically, you are arguing to the judge that he or she should evaluate actions in context of the round according to your criterion. For example, if your criterion is consequentialism (or doing the actions with the best consequences) you may think that Robin Hood (who stole from the rich and gave to the poor) was a pretty good guy. On the other hand, your opponent, with a criterion of Deontology (or doing only actions that are motivated by good morals) may disagree that Robin Hood was a pretty good guy because stealing is morally wrong. With your criterion, you not only get to your value, but you also set the standard for which type of decisions should be made. If you win your criterion, your judge will believe that not only your criterion gets to your value, but also that your criterion is the best decision-maker for the whole round, and that we should evaluate all issues (even your opponents!) on the basis of your criterion. As you can see, the criterion can be a serious strategic weapon! There are two types of criteria, but both types allow you to get your value and to advocate a way to evaluate actions. Some criteria look and sound like values - but don’t sweat it - these are the easiest to work with. For example, you can use safety as a criterion to get you the value of quality of life. These criteria seem like they are intrinsically valuable (valuable because of what they are, not what they get you) but don’t be fooled, if you use a criterion like safety, you are saying that safety is good because it gets you quality of life. The difference in a value of safety and a criterion of safety is how you look at the meaning of the word. Those who use safety as a value like to be safe because they think safety is good in and of itself. Those who use safety as a criterion like safety because when they have safety they have a better life or more happiness. Just as a side note: This is the easiest type of criterion to use because it can be explained quickly and effectively and because it requires no knowledge of philosophy. In some areas, however, this type of criterion is not acceptable. In these areas, only the second type of criterion should be used. The second type of criterion is harder to use, but in the end, it works better. Philosophy comes in here. Remember that we said that we needed a house, friends, food, water, shelter, etc. to have a good quality of life. It would be foolish to use all of these things as criteria because if you don’t have one of the group then you cannot have your value. (Keep in mind that the criterion is the requirement for having your value. If you don’t get even part of the criterion then you don’t get the value.) If you use a philosophy as a criterion, then you will be able to encompass all of these principles in one statement. For example, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs gets you all of the requirements of happiness in a logical not to mention credible, manner. Because Maslow’s philosophy has been around a long time, and also because it doesn’t change as a result of which topic you happen to be debating, it is much more credible than your own personal opinion of what makes humanity happy (which will change during the next round anyway). The use of a philosophy as a criterion allows a complex standard to be set for establishing your value. For example, if you were to have a value of morality, what would your criterion be? For you to consider yourself moral may be completely opposite from what it takes for others to consider themselves moral. Both of these standards would, no doubt, be complex. It would be safe to assume that the world should not be bound by the individual moral code of Joe Blow Novice Debater, so then how do you achieve morality in your debate round if you don’t get to set your own standard? The answer is the use of a credible philosophy that has stood the test of time. There are several moral philosophers. Kant, Rawls, JS Mill and Bentham are just examples. These philosophers set out general guidelines to test actions in order to see if they are moral or not. Other philosophers examine the justness of government such as Rousseau, Locke and Hobbes There are also several general philosophies that are acceptable to use. Deontology, Utilitarianism, Social Contract, Cost Benefit Analysis and Consequentialism are just a few. Several of theses general theories stem from specific philosophers. As you become more knowledgeable in philosophy you will be able to go from the relatively simple theory of Deontology to the complex theories of someone like Kant. SECTION 3 QUICK CHECK: (Check Your Answers!) Give two examples of a criterion that could also be used as a value. How do I write the criterion part of my case? In order to write an effective criterion, you need to define it and explain how it gets you to your value. Below is an example using the value of quality of life with the resolution, Resolved: The random testing of student athletes for illegal drug use is justified . “The criterion of utilitarianism best supports my value of quality of life. Utilitarianism is a philosophy that evaluates actions in order to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. By providing for the greatest good for the greatest number of people, quality of life can be achieved on a large scale and for most of the population.” Again, the definition is in bold and the link between value and criterion is underlined. SECTION 4 QUICK CHECK: (Check Your Answers!) The criterion that best supports my value is _________________. _____________ is defined as ______________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________. _________ best achieves my value of _________________ because _____________________________________________________. What are contentions? So far you have learned that the value is the judging standard and that the criterion helps you get your value. What you haven’t given the judge yet are the real reasons that your side is better. This is the point when the contentions come in. There are usually between two and four contentions in a case. Most cases have three. The contentions establish why your side achieves your criterion and therefore provides for your value. (Remember the pyramid – you have to start at the bottom with the contentions, the contentions get you your criterion, and your criterion gets you your value.) For example, assume that the resolution is: The random testing of student athletes for illegal drug use is justified. If your value is quality of life and your criterion is utilitarianism, a contention might prove that random drug testing of student athletes helps to prevent drug use among all students because student athletes are most likely to be role models in schools. Preventing drug use among the whole student body provides utilitarianism (remember that this is the greatest good for the greatest number of people). If utilitarianism is provided for, you will also increase quality of life on a large scale. How do I write a contention? You should begin by brainstorming. Pretend that you are writing a persuasive paper. Find two or three main points. These will become your contentions. A contention should have three parts; a claim, a warrant and an impact. Claim The claim is the statement that the remainder of your contention will prove. The claim for the example above would be “Preventing drug use among student athletes, role models in most schools, will increase quality of life for all students.” The claim goes at the beginning of your contention. A claim is also referred to as a tag line. Later on you will learn that both your judge and your opponent take detailed notes in the round. The first thing that your opponent and judge will write down when they hear your contention is the tag line. In order to minimize confusion and enhance the quality of the debate, tag lines should be short and simple. If a tag line is too long, your judge and competitor will spend the whole time you are talking writing the tag line. This means that they won’t get the meaning of your contention because they will be writing instead of listening! Warrant The warrant goes right after the claim. The warrant of a contention is the reasoning behind the claim. The reasoning can come in a variety of forms. You can use pure and simple logic, you can use evidence and statistics to support your point or you can cite credible sources that support your view. No matter which option you choose, all must have reasons; simple statements will not cut it. If I wanted to prove that technology enhances education, citing a source that simply makes a statement rather than giving reasons that make the statement true is not valid. Just because the president, a physicist, or a Harvard professor said does not mean that it is true or that the statement has a warrant. Study the following examples: This has a warrant: This has a warrant: This does not: This does not: Note the differences between each source. The ones with a warrant have a reason and the ones without a warrant have only a statement. The evidence without a warrant leaves you asking: “How is that possible.” “I wonder what a good example of that would be.” or “How does that work?” Keep in mind that warrants don’t necessarily have to have statistics. Logical reasoning also works. Learning the difference between legitimate and illegitimate warrants will also help you during rebuttals. As many warrants take the form of quotes, also worth note here are the rules of evidence. Unlike most things in LD that don’t have real rules that are written down and enforced, the rules of evidence are governed by the different organizations that run tournaments. The specific rules of evidence are that you must have a full source citation including the author’s name, the author’s qualifications, the title of the article, the date it was published, and what page you are drawing the evidence from. Although you do not need to read the full citation, you should give enough of the citation to give the quote credibility. You must have the entire quote available without internal ellipses although you may read the quote in paraphrased form. For example, in the following piece of evidence you may read the underlined portion, but you must have the entire quote in your case: (Title: “Commentary: Drug test Burden Borne Unfairly by our Children” Author: Dave Kindred (Staff Writer) Source: The Atlanta Journal and Constitution Date: July 6, 1995) “All junior high and high school athletes in America are now more than just athletes. They also are suspects. Because they are athletes and they hang with athletes, they are suspects of such notoriety that they can be compelled to prove to the authorities that they do not use illegal drugs. Which is to say they are presumed guilty until proving themselves innocent. Incredible.” Make sure that you never take a quote out of context and that you are faithful to the author’s intent. If an author first gives a really great quote, but finishes up the sentence with “but I couldn’t disagree more” it would be inappropriate to cut the last part of the sentence off! Misrepresenting or having incomplete evidence can result in 1) your opponent winning the point 2) your opponent winning the round, and the result is simply up to your judge. Research should begin when you read for understanding and background information. You should mark ideas that would help develop values or case ideas. Highlight specific quotations that could support contentions. “Quotable” evidence should be from a reliable source, concise and make a persuasive point. Use of evidence in a debate round may be used to establish background (evidence that helps your understanding of the resolution), prove a point (statistics, quotes, examples), clarify and explain (examples definitions), impress and persuade (short quotes, examples, statistics that drive a point home, dramatic illustrations), or for refutation of your opponent’s arguments. Impact The impact directly follows the warrant. It is the “so what?” of your contention. For example; I can’t just prove that reducing drug use among role model athletes will prevent drug use throughout school. I must also show how all of this connects to my criterion and my value. The point may seem relatively obvious to you. After all, less drug use helps everyone (utilitarianism), and utilitarianism gives us a better quality of life, but if you don’t tell your judge and opponent that, then you are only assuming that he or she will make that connection. It would be like telling you that if I scream really loud, I will set off a nuclear weapon. My point may seem clear to me, but it is probably confusing to you. Besides clearing up your point and its relevance to your case and the resolution, the impact serves one other purpose. It draws a picture for the judge. It shows him or her step by step why you are right and why your case should win. Judges don’t like to think, and they shouldn’t have to – if you ask the judge to make arguments and connections for you, then you are asking the judge to debate rather than debating yourself. Instead, you should do everything within your power to make your points very clear. SECTION 5 QUICK CHECK: (Check Your Answers!) Explain why having three different parts of a contention is important. What might happen if you take a quote out of context and your opponent tells the judge? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ How do I write a contention? You must have a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Contention 2: Preventing drug use among student athletes, role models in most schools, will increase quality of life for all students. Other students look up to student athletes. Keeping athletes drug free will influence the student body in a positive way. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia reasoned that, “It seems to us self-evident that a drug problem largely fueled by the role model effect of the athletes, is effectively addressed by making sure that athletes do not use drugs” Students think that athletes are cool and they want to be cool also. They do this by mimicking the athlete’s behavior, good or bad. If the athlete is on drugs then some students will try drugs also. Because student athletes that use drugs hurt not only themselves but also others through their position as role models, we see that drugs do not provide for utilitarianism, or the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Instead, random drug testing of student athletes is necessary to prevent the harm of drugs in society and to provide for quality of life for all. SECTION 6 QUICK CHECK: (Check Your Answers!) Use the following format to write your own contention (assuming that your value is quality of life and your criterion is utilitarianism) on the topic: Resolved: The random testing of student athletes for illegal drug use is justified. Contention 1: (Claim) ______________________________________________________________________. This is true because (warrant) ________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________. This relates back to my criterion because ___________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________. This also directly affects my value because _____________________________________________________. If you choose to make only one argument in each contention, then this is all you need to know, but if you decide that you want more than one argument in each contention, keep reading. When you make more than one argument in a contention the arguments are called sub points. All sub points need a claim and a warrant but they will have a summarizing impact at the end of the contention. Some cases also impact every sub point. This is also okay. A sub point is correctly written within a contention. The tag line of the contention will act as an umbrella thesis sentence of the sub points. Again, in the following example, look for claims, warrants and an overarching impact: Contention 1: Random drug testing enhances fairness and safety on the playing field. Sub Point A: Randomized drug testing enhances quality of life by creating a fair environment for student athletes. If drug use were wiped out, athletes on the opposing teams will have a fair game against students free of steroids and other harmful drugs. Also, athletes will have a fair opportunity to make the team because no one will be in an enhanced performance level because of drugs. This makes the competition for team positions equal. Sub Point B: Randomized drug testing enhances quality of life by creating a safer environment for student athletes. With random drug tests, student athletes are less prone to hurt themselves as well as others. According to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, “The risk of immediate physical harm to an athletic drug user from those with whom he is playing his sport is particularly high. Apart form psychological effects, which include impairment of judgment, slow reaction time and a lessening of the perception of pain, the particular drugs scorned by the district’s policy have been demonstrated to pose substantial physical risks for athletes.” Because student athletes are prone to hurt themselves as well as others, prohibiting random drug tests would provide safety towards the athletes as well as others. When a safe and fair playing field is created, all students benefit thereby providing for utilitarianism. Additionally, fairness and safety are important components of quality of life. We should strive to provide both safety and fairness to as many students and members of society as possible. Notice that both fairness (sub point a) and safety (sub point b) have to do with the umbrella claim of the contention. The sub points must be components of the umbrella claim – in other words, sub point a and sub point b, when put together, must prove the umbrella claim. Understand that these parts - claim, warrant and impact - are NOT used by most debaters in their cases. If you tell your judge that your opponent’s contention lacks a warrant, they may not know what you are talking about. Explain to your judge the concept and why it is important. Similarly, when you read your case you will explicitly state “My value is…”, “My criterion is…”, “Contention 1…” but you will never say “My warrant for contention one is…” The reason that you should use these components is that when you do you are much less susceptible to little mistakes in argumentation. Other Elements You now know the case basics, but there are a few minor elements that are also expected in most cases. The introduction of your case should be short, compelling, and a big reason why you are right. It will be the first thing that your judge will hear when you begin to talk, so it should be good. It can be in the form of a short story or a quote. You will want to conclude your introduction with: “Because I agree with (insert name and credentials of the person who said quote here), I affirm the resolution that…” or you could say, “for this reason and those that follow I feel compelled to affirm today’s resolution…” With our example resolution, a good introduction might be:“The affects of a drug infested school are visited not just upon the users, but upon the entire student body and faculty…” It is because I agree with this statement, made in the New York times, I must affirm today’s resolution: Resolved: That random drug testing of student athletes for illegal drug use is justified. The definitions go right after the introduction. The purpose of having definitions is really self-defense. You want to set up a level playing field for both you and your opponent (equal allocation of ground!). You will use definitions to clear up any words with double meanings and to keep your opponent from misconstruing the meaning of the resolution. The affirmative is usually the only one who will present definitions. The only reason that definitions should be presented by the negative side is when a disagreement between the meaning of a word occurs. For Example: America could mean the United States or western hemisphere. As a side note, in many resolutions almost every word in the resolution will be defined. In our example resolution, The random testing of student athletes for illegal drug use is justified, every word should be defined except for “the,” “of,” “for,” and “is.” Many times, debaters choose to offer a preview of their contentions before they begin reading them. This preview comes directly after the definitions. A preview should only be used when you have a shorter case and therefore leftover time when you read it. In other words, a preview is not a necessary component of a case and should not be used when it would require cutting out more important evidence or reasoning. A preview is only valuable in that it improves clarity in your case – it gives your judge and opponent a synopsis of your arguments before you actually make them. A preview should use the following format and should state your contention tag lines verbatim. I will be using the following arguments in support of my case: Contention 1: ______________________________. Contention 2: ________________________________. Contention 3: ________________________________. Like the preview, a closing is not a necessary component of a case. A closing should, much like the introduction, be a story or a compelling quote. You should finish the closing by asking the judge to vote for your side. For example: The Supreme Court, in Vernonia v. Acton reasoned that “Random drug testing’s expressed purpose is to prevent student athletes from using drugs, to protect their health and safety and to provide drug users with assistance programs.” Fundamentally, this is why I urge an affirmative ballot in today’s round and I am now open for cross examination. If you had written this closing for a negative case (one that disagrees with the resolution) you might finish up the closing by saying “It is for these reasons that I urge a negative ballot in today’s round and I will now move on to attack the affirmative case.” As you will learn later, these closings help debaters to be persuasive as well as to remember what to do next (This is actually a huge problem with beginning debaters!). The length of your cases is very important. You want to present as much information as you can without leaving your judge hanging because you ran out of time. Affirmative cases should be 6 minutes long and negative cases should be from 3 ½ to 4 minutes long. You will need to time them several times because every time you say them you will get better at it, so you will be able to do it faster. You will also want to read your case fairly quickly. Fitting 700 words in an affirmative case and 375 in a negative case is not unreasonable. SECTION 7 QUICK CHECK: (Check Your Answers!) What do the introduction and closing of a case have in common? Why are they different? CHAPTER REVIEW:2-1, Short Answer (Check Your Answers!) What purpose do contentions serve in your debate case? Explain the two different types of criteria that you can use in your case. Which one is the best? Find one piece of evidence without a warrant and one piece with a warrant. CHAPTER REVIEW: 2-2 Multiple Choice (Check Your Answers!) A. I and IV 2. What are the different components to writing your value paragraph? A. II 3. What are the different components to writing your criterion paragraph? A. III |
|
|
|
[LD Handbook Home] [Handbook] [Teachers] [Ordering] [Services] [Praise] [Author] |
|
|
|
|
|
Please send any questions or comments to contact@ldhandbook.com |
|||
|
|
|||
