Lincoln-Douglas Debate
Notes
Part 1: Vocabulary
Affirmative or the A/ Aff defends the resolution
Negative or N/ Neg rejects the resolution
Resolution is the law, topic, or policy that each side will be arguing.
Sample: Capital punishment is justified
Aff-proves it is justified
Neg-Proves it is not justified
Value Premise -or the goal
Criterion- the method of achieving that goal
Burden of Proof- Prove that you are right
Criterion
Utilitarianism -Greatest good for the greatest number of people
Teleology-The end justifies the means (or no matter what you do to achieve an end it is justified)
Deontology-The means justifies the end (opposite of teleology. If the means is not moral it should not be used to produce a positive end)
Consequentialism-The consequences produced are either minor or major
Humanitarianism- Respecting human rights and the well being of the majority of human beings
Value Premise
Universal Values-Things that are held as global and are cherished and respected worldwide
Universal
Distributive Justice
Peace
Justice
Equality
Humanitarianism
Family
Take note that a few of the universal values are also intrinsic values. I know you are probably thinking....well why is it that freedom, safety, and liberty aren't on the universal side. Well basically, some countries and people do not hold these things as valuable. Matter of fact many people and countries think quite the opposite. Think of a value as something that is a goal that human beings try to strive for. Something intangible that is of superior worth.
Intrinsic Values-Values that are essential and needed for everyday life
Let's take a look at some of the intrinsic and instrumental values in our society
Intrinsic
Justice
Freedom
Equality
Family
Globalism
Privacy
Safety
Liberty
Constitutional Law
Part 2: Writing a case
Just like a 5 paragraph essay
Introduction
1st: Think of a "grabber" such as a quote, or anecdote
2nd: State the resolution like this:
"I Affirm/Negate the resolution, Resolved: capital punishment is justified."
3rd: Value Premise/ Criterion
Define the terms of the resolution:
"Capital punishment"
Capital and then punishment
Justified
Counter define using negatives (what the word is not)
Writing the case…con’t.
Writing your Arguments
Create four Toulmin Models that
Relate to each other
To the criterion: phrase or a sentence
It is wrong to kill innocent people
To the Value premise: asks what value does the resolution care about.
Research
Both sides
Don’t know what your opponent is going to do so, find as much info as you can.
Conclusion
Sum up what your arguments are…why they are best.
Tell the audience how your opponent failed to prove you wrong.
Cross Examination
Ask questions about your opponents arguments
Try to find the holes in their arguments.
Part 3: Toulmin Model
How to make a logical arguments: The Toulmin Model
The Toulmin model
A claim is the point an arguer is trying to make. The claim is the proposition or assertion an arguer wants another to accept.
The claim answers the question, "So what is your point?"
example: "You should send a birthday card to Mimi, because she sent you one on your birthday."
example: "I drove last time, so this time it is your turn to drive."
There are three basic types of claims:
fact: claims which focus on empirically verifiable phenomena
judgment/value: claims involving opinions, attitudes, and subjective evaluations of things
policy: claims advocating courses of action that should be undertaken
The Toulmin Model Continued
Grounds refers to the proof or evidence an arguer offers. Grounds answers the questions, "What is your proof?" or "How come?" or "Why?"
Grounds can consist of statistics, quotations, reports, findings, physical evidence, or various forms of reasoning.
example: "It looks like rain. The barometer is falling."
example: "The other Howard Johnson's restaurants I've been in had clean restrooms, so I'll bet this one has clean restrooms too."
grounds can be based on:
evidence: facts, statistics, reports, or physical proof,
source credibility: authorities, experts, celebrity endorsers, a close friend, or someone's say-so
analysis and reasoning: reasons may be offered as proof
The Toulmin Model Again
The warrant is the inferential leap that connects the claim with the grounds.
implicit (unstated) and requires the listener to recognize the underlying reasoning that makes sense of the claim in light of the grounds.
The warrant performs a "linking" function by establishing a mental connection between the grounds and the claim
example: "Muffin is running a temperature. I'll bet she has an infection." warrant: sign reasoning; a fever is a reliable sign of an infection
example: "That dog is probably friendly. It is a Golden Retriever." warrant: generalization; most or all Golden Retrievers are friendly
warrants can be based on:
Ethos, logos, pathos
shared values: free speech, right to know, fairness, etc.
note: these categories aren't mutually exclusive, there is considerable overlap among the three
The Toulmin Model: The sequel
Backing provides additional justification for the warrant.
Backing usually consists of evidence to support the type of reasoning employed by the warrant.
The qualifier states the degree of force or probability to be attached to the claim.
The qualifier states how sure the arguer is about his/her claim
The rebuttal acknowledges exceptions or limitations to the argument.
The rebuttal admits to those circumstances or situations where the argument would not hold.
Arguments: Research & Evidence
Should come from reliable sources NOT wikipedia
Need citations, Name and Title of source
Arguments: Blocks
Think Ahead
Think of ways that your opponent will counter your argument and set yourself up to defend your points.
Faulty assumptions
In a debate you have to find your opponents faulty assumptions!
For example: Cubans speak Spanish, I am Cuban, I can speak Spanish.
But actually… not everyone who is Cuban may necessarily be able to speak Spanish. They may have left at a very young age.
See Web Site
Part 4: Rebuttal: Arguments/ Fallacies
Project: Fallacy
Rebuttal:
You are going to tear down your opponents arguments.
1.Briefly restate you opponent’s argument
2. State your responses
3. Connect your argument to YOUR criterion and tell the audience why you are right
Rebuttal
Argue about the opponents Value Premise and Criterion
If an argument is not responded to=dropped
Think ahead!!
For example say: The Aff/Neg will say that all Cubans can speak Spanish if they are truly Cuban, however that is not always the case.
The End: Crystallize your case
Conclusion:
The reasons why the judge should vote your way
Restate the best points of your debate.
FLOW… taking notes