ld case writing (cook)

8/6/2019 LD Case Writing (Cook)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ld-case-writing-cook 1/73

LincolnLincoln--Douglas DebateDouglas Debate

³Case Writing´³Case Writing´



Tim Cook

Salado High [email protected]

http://www.extemptopicanalysis.com/LD%20Debate.asp

What is LD Debate?

PowerPoint

Introduction To LD Debate

Lecture Notes

Trends in LD

Lecture Notes

Lincoln-Douglas Case Writing

Lecture Notes



Parts of a Case

1. Introduction

2. Resolutional Interpretation3. Standard (Value/Criteria)

4. Contentions

5. Conclusions



Gener al Consider ations

Cases do not win rounds but provide an excellent foundation inorder to win rounds

Prove what you must prove in order to win

Anticipate what the other side may say

Select the strongest arguments within the realm of the resolution ± don¶t select the weakest!

Each argument should be an independent reason why the judge

should vote for you




They are ever changing documents!

They should NOT be the same tournament to tournament

Plan out responses to what people have said to you.

Go through many drafts! Subjects and verbs are your friends ± fragments are not.

Use rhetoric

Internal structure makes all judges happy ± words like ³First, Second,Next, Sub point A, Sub point B etc)



Introductions



Over view

The intr oduction is designed to gr ab the judge's attention

and lend emotional suppor t to the position you are about to

tak e. It can be a quote or descr iptive par agr aph, analogy,or just about anything else. It should lead directly to your

side of the resolution, one of your points, or your value. It

is best to end the intr oduction with the resolution, stating

something lik e: For this reason, I stand fir mly in suppor t

of today's resolution, that...



Intr oductions

State the resolution as it is wor ded

Do not add ³not´ if you are negating



AT A MINIMUM

� I affirm/I negate

� State the resolution word for word



EXAMPLES

#1

According to United States Supreme CourtJustice Byron White,"[The] basic purpose of [the 4th] Amendment, as

recognized in countless decisions of this Court,is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions bygovernmental officials."Byron White, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Opinion of the Court, New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) pg. 335.

Because of the critical role of the 4th Amendment, I must affirm today¶s resolutionResolved: Drug testing of high schoolextracurricular activity participants is justified.



#2

³The only obligation I have a right to assume, is to do at

any time what I think right.´Thus wrote Henry David Thoreau in his 19th centuryessay On Civil Disobedience. Thoreau not onlydescribed the role an individual must fulfill as aconscientious member of society, he also described the

dire consequences lived by those who never attempt tosway societies conscience.Thus, I stand resolved: ³An individual¶s obligation tosociety ought to outweigh societies obligation to theindividual.´



Resolutional Interpr etation



Over view

Framework/Resolutional Analysis/Observations

Here is the most logical place to put any

information or arguments pertinent tounderstanding how you are viewing the

resolution. The easiest way to transition from

here is just to say, "The resolution requiresfurther clarification" or "My position requires

further clarification."



Definitions

Give definitions of the words in the resolution, and noothers. Anything else that needs to be defined shouldbe when the new word or concept is presented in case. Also, don't define every word in the resolution, only thebig ones. Lastly, in the case of resolutional phrases (asopposed to single words) like 'democratic ideals,'always try to find a definition of the phrase, rather than

combining the definitions of the individual words. If youcan't find that, though, defining the parts is okay.




Don¶t be abusive with your definitions (use thereasonability standard here)

Define only key words and phrases you don¶t have to

define ALL words in the resolution ± some peopletend to go overboard.

Must have complete source citations (even if youdon¶t read them)

Use contextual definitions whenever possible

Give implications

You might want to discuss what the word is not.



AT A MINIMUM

1. Define key terms2. Source for definitions

Use definitions to strategically set up case

Framework ± observations and analysis

Used to narrow or specify position and justify it

Used to decide burdens in the round



Context of the resolution

Resolved: A just society ought not use the deathpenalty as a form of punishment.

A just society: this means that we are not tied down

to proving that the application of the death penalty ina certain time or place is good, but that a just societyought or ought not use the death penalty.

Cannot assume the resolution has some kind of implicit limit (i.e. ³We should only talk about examplesfrom America.´) without some kind of textual clue. Inthis topic, there is no geographic context.

What context IS implicit in the resolution: The actor isalmost certainly a government or ³state´ in the justsociety.



EXAMPLES

#1 Resolved: Sanctuary cities ar e morally justified.

For clarity I offer the following definition:

Lisa Anderson defines Sanctuary cities as cities that adopt a don¶task, don¶t tell policy towards the immigration status of peoplewhen it comes to most municipal benefits and services. Thepolicies generally don¶t extend to those arrested for criminaloffenses or convicted crimes.

Anderson, Lisa, ³'Sanctuary cities' draw fire, no light,´ Chicago Tribune, Tribune national correspondent, December 12, 2007,

The implication of this definition is that crime isn¶t going to beperpetuated through sanctuary cities. The government still hasthe ability to punish illegal immigrants through prison or deportation if they commit a criminal offense.



#2

Resolved: A just government should provide health car e to its citizens.

First allow me to define a few terms.

And Provide as to supply with.Encarta World English Dictionary

There are a variety of ways the state could provide health care to their citizens.

The implication for the round is the affirmative does not necessarily have to defendsocialized medicine. Since the resolution doesn¶t specify the way in which thegovernment should provide health care, indicts of specific systems do notactually address the normative question of the resolution. Any system enactedpoorly or ineffectively would give way to these arguments, but these argumentsdo not address the normative question in the resolution - should a state providehealth care.



Standard



Overview

The standard is the value and criteria

relationship the debater presents to prove theresolution true or false. All arguments should

link to the standard and are ³weighed´ by them.



The value

Goal of the round, something you want to achieve

The value is the first part of the standards debate.Values are principles we apply to determine if something is good or bad, right or wrong, worthwhile or not. Values are not tangible things you can touch or puton a shelf. Values cannot be proven true or false, and itis sometimes hard to discuss them because they areabstract concepts.



The value

Value: The first thing to keep in mind is not to make it too wordy.

Ex: My value in today's round will be...

Ex: The most important value in the round is my value of...

Stick with the simple 'My value is ______, because ________' and

here is where you will justify why yours is the better value. The best

way to do this is in terms of relevance to the topic. By that I mean

that you should explain why your value is what the resolution wants

us to debate. It's usually based on wording in the resolution! Ex: 'Ivalue democratic ideals, because it is prescribed by the resolution,'

or 'because they are the end specified by the resolution.'



Common Values

· Justice· Freedom/ Liberty· Life

· Human Rights· Democracy· Equality· Societal Welfare· Legitimate Government· Individualism / Autonomy· Safety

· Progress· Privacy



Philosopher¶s idea

Keep in mind that using a philosopher¶s idea as

a value is generally a very bad idea. Most of the

time that¶s not even a value! ³John Locke'sSocial Contract´ is not a value! Something like

³social welfare´ or ³legitimate government´

would be more appropriate.³-isms´ are not values. Better: V = ³equality´; C= ³promote Communism´



How to choose an appropriate value:

A. Identify the object of evaluation

For example if the resolution reads: ³Drug testing of extracurricular activity participants is justified, the focusof the debate should stem from the values associatedwith drug testing of extracurricular participants. Thusyou should determine which values will be best

enhanced by the object of evaluation.



Furthermore if the resolution reads: ³The public¶s rightto know is of greater value than the right to privacy of candidates for public office´ we find two objects of

evaluation. They are the public¶s right to know and thecandidate¶s right to privacy, and you must determine onboth sides what value best enhances both objects of evaluation. Thus if the resolution is comparative two

different values may be appropriate.



B. Identify the evaluative term

For example if the resolution reads: ³Affirmative action

programs are justified in American Society,´ thedebaters should use the evaluative term, justified, to set

the parameters in determining the duties of each

debater in affirming or negating the resolution.

The evaluative term gives debaters a guideline in

determining what must be proved. In the above

resolution, justification must be proved. Thus the value

could be justice.



H ow to establish a value:

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 legitimategovernment. Interpretations can be varied on what alegitimate government is. Some could interpret

legitimate government as a government thatprotects individual rights, as others could interpret alegitimate government as a government that providessecurity for its citizens. Thus a definition must be givento give your opponent and your judge an understandingof 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. What words in the resolution brought

you to your value? Indicate those words when

you are writing. For example, since the resolutionquestions what a just punishment is the value could be

justice.



C. Show the value¶s implications

Implications give an understanding of the

importance of the value. It also gives your judgean idea of why your value is needed and is

important. In other words, justify your selection

as the best, most important, supreme or

only one for the debate.



For example if your value is morality, you could say«

Cambridge Professor Mark Cooray establishes theimportance of morality,

³Without morality all kinds of injustices and oppressions

against individual persons are sanctioned. No society

can function efficiently or humanely and no civilizationcan endure without this value.´



The criterion

³A standard by which something can be measuredor judged...´ (UIL Guide Page 10)

³«.a way to measure or judge whether or notupholding the resolution achieves or enhances thevalue.´(UIL Guide Page 13)



The criterion

Your criterion is comparable to a filter (will it ³dosomething´).

For example, there may be many ways to achieve justice, but this is one way to achieve it (through an

action of the resolution). Your criterion serves as aconcrete way to achieve an abstract value, such as justice.

For example, you can use "maximizing individual rights"as a criterion for the value social welfare. It doesn'tneed to be a physical action, but must be concrete

enough so that you know how to achieve it, and thereis little ambiguity about this.

Think of your value criterion as a way to achieve your value.



The criterion

The "criterion" or "value criterion" is the conceptual

mechanism the debater proposes to achieve and weigh

the value. Oftentimes, the debater will simply talk aboutthe 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.



The criterion

A criterion will usually be stated as a gerund (upholding

a system of checks and balances).



The criterion

Values and criteria can be debated over which

provides for a fairer debate, which one

is more relevant, if the burden is fulfillable,

sufficient, begs, etc.



The criterion

So overall the criterion is something you use to achieve

your value. Furthermore the criterion is the most critical

part of the debate, because it¶s the criterion everythingshould impact back to. The criterion is what you use to

weigh the round and all arguments should stem from

the criterion debate.



How to choose and establish anappropriate criterion:

1. 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 truebecause if you are saying you value something, youmust 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.



2. Provide justifications.

Give warrants under your criterion, why your criterion is

so important. The more justifications you give, themore offense as to why your standard is more important

and why you should affirm or negate.



AT A MINIMUM

I. State value A. Define valueB. Link to resolutionC. Importance of the value

II. State criterion A. Define criterion (this requires a bright line statement ± how doyou intend to meet it ± how does your opponent violate it?) Spikesout begs

B. Explain how is achieves the value, Spikes out insufficient, ³Necessary condition´ (i.e. it is impossible to achieve the value

without achieving the criterion).C. JustificationsBest ways to justify criterion:It¶s the fundamental part of the value.Prerequisite for other endsIt encompasses other ways to achieve



EXAMPLES#1

I value democratic ideals, because they are specified as

the end goal of the resolution. What makes democracy

unique from all other forms of government is that the

power exists at the level of the people, instead of at thelevel of a ruling body. Since the people rule themselves,

the only job of the government is to act as a rights

protector and enforcer of laws, as the individual is

incapable of protecting herself against the rest of society. With that in mind, the criterion most inherent to

democratic ideals in the context of the resolution is the

maximization of rights protection.



#2

The implicit value is justice. There are several different conceptionsof what makes an action just. However all agree that violations of human worth are unjust. According to liberal theories justice isrooted in the individual. Therefore any action that violates the moral

worth of a human being would be unjust. BegsMore teological theories view justice as being rooted in thecommunities or society as a whole. However these theories wouldstill condemn violations of human worth amongst a body of individuals. Furthermore, because justice establishes rules for

individual interaction, justice inherently entails respect for humanworth asserting individuals are worthy of a particular treatment.Thus human worth is a precondition to any system of justice,because we wouldn¶t attempt to establish rules for a common goodif we could treat individuals however we wanted. SufficientThus, the criterion in today¶s round is maximizing respect for

human worth.



#3

The value implicit in the resolution is that of morality.This is true because:1. The resolution questions the proper implementation

of standards of morality, without citing any specific

ends this implementation is supposed to reach.2. Ought is a normative statement, which according to

the American Heritage Dictionary is used to indicateobligation. The existence of any obligations, externalto obligations to oneself, is dependent on the

existence of a sense of morality. This is truebecause, in the absence of morality, there would beno motivation, or societal burden on a person to carryout an action. Therefore, any action necessary to, or resulting in the increase of, morality ought to beundertaken.



Necessary to the concept of morality is a respect for human worth(flag as ³criterion´).

The notion of morality presupposes that there are morallyacceptable and unacceptable ways to treat human beings. This is

true because systems of morality center on questions of the moralacceptability of actions or concepts with reference to their humanconsequences. For instance, the harming of an inanimate object for reasons specifically constrained to the worth of that object,independent of any outside effects that harming that object couldhave, would never be considered immoral. Conversely, thearbitrary harming of a human being is considered unjust inside theparameters that it harms a human being, and does not requireanalysis of outside effects to determine its justice. Therefore, theprotection of human worth is a prerequisite to the existence of theconceptions morality is premised on, making it a prerequisite to

justice itself.



Contentions



Overview

A contention is debate jargon for points. These

points explain how the debater achieves thecriterion. In LD there are normally 2-3 main

arguments, which have warrants (reasons that

they are true) and impacts (why they matter).



Thesis statement

It should sum up your case position, in that it should

give the big reason you are for or against the resolution.

For that reason, it involves the criterion.

Object of Evaluation + Criterion Statement = Thesis

The affirmative¶s thesis and sole contention is: The

government has a reciprocal obligation to immigrants,since they have tacitly consented.

My thesis and sole contention: is that the death penaltyrespects human life.



Each contention should be a se par ate reason that you are achieving your cr iter ion.

Off ense vs. def ense

The flow below demonstr ates 2 off ensive examples and one def ense example.

Contention: death penalty r espects human lif e

First, the evidence concerning the deterrenteffect of the death penalty is overwhelming.

J acoby

Emory University

capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect

18 fewer murders

Second, protecting guards, other inmates,and innocent killed by murderers paroled

Sunstein and Vermeule

within-prison homicides of guards and fellow inmates.paroled into the general population, some of them will kill again.the permanent incapacitation of murderers through execution save lives on net.

Third, life imprisonment is not sufficient

Sunstein and Vermeule

a refusal to impose capital punishment will condemnnumerous innocent people to death.On moral grounds, a choice that effectively condemnslarge numbers of people to death is objectionablefailure to impose capital punishment is a serious moral wrong.



The contention structure

Claim: The thing you are arguing.Warrant: The reason your argument is true. This can be

your own analysis, but it is almost always morestrategic to include a card.

Impact:(a)The implications of your argument being true on your

criterion (why this argument means you win your criterion, or why your opponent can't win it).

(b) There can also be impacts external to your criterion,

or at least slightly more removed from it. Don't forget,you can also use evidence to support the fact thatyour impact will happen. Doing so often makes theimpact more believable.



The Toulmin Model of Ar gumentation

Common warrants in LD:

1. Analytical³It is about to rain because it is cloudy´

2. Evidentiary³According to the Washington Post«´

3. Empirically³This happened in Maryland«´

N ice to have all three!

http://students.ou.edu/S/Charles.R.Swadley- 1/argumentation.htm



Fallacies

Fallacies - an error in reasoning.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

List 42 common fallacies

Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

Appeal to Authority

Appeal to Belief

Appeal to Common Practice

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

Appeal to Emotion

Appeal to Fear



Fallacy: Slippery Slope Also Known as: The Camel's Nose.Description of Slippery Slope

The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event mustinevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of theevent in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradationsbetween one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to whythe intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument"has the following form:

Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one

event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such aclaim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

Examples of Slippery Slope

"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging$40,000 a semester!"

"The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the governmentsends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."



Taglines

A word should also be said about taglines. You should

use the resolutional phrases and your criterion almost

every time. The proper way to construct them is as

follows:

Restrictions on the rights of non-citizens are consistentwith democratic ideals because they maximize the

rights of all citizens.



Other thoughts

Aim for a few independent reasons in eachcontention

Check for contradictions

Case examples and Illustrations-use them!

Make them relevant to the topic!

Words provide pictures and give us a vision about

what we are voting for and against!

Find current day examples if at all possible



How to win the contentions:

1. Always link the contentions/ or impact back to thecriterion. Don¶t go off on tangents within the

contention if it has no relation to the criterion. This istrue because it¶s the standards that allow the judgeto weigh the round. How can a judge weigh thecontention if that isn¶t what you are asking the judgeto weigh?



2. Impacts, Impacts, Impacts, Impacts. Impacts allow

the judge to weigh in case specific arguments. There is

no way the judge can weigh arguments against each

other, if the judge doesn¶t know the impacts of thearguments. (Magnitude, longevity, timeframe, potential

vs. guaranteed)



3. Provide plenty of cards/evidence. While rhetoric is

also needed, evidence is essential to any contention.

Evidence provides the warrants/impacts that are often

overlooked. Furthermore in extending evidence itmakes it a lot easier to extend evidence compared with

rhetoric. This is true because evidence usually has

more structure compared with your own rhetoric.



AT A MINIMUM

Thesis/Tag line/Contention(s)

ClaimWarrant

Impact



EXAMPLE

My thesis and sole contention: is that the death penalty under mines the protection of lif e.

Defensive

Respect for life demands a heavy moral presumption against deliberate killing. This places amoral burden of proof squarely on the negative.

Professor Stephen Nathanson explains,First, they remind us of moral gravity of acts of killing. Second, they show that the initial burden of proof is always onthose who favor some form of killing. If deliberate killing is generally wrong, then an act of ki lling will be wrong unless one

can show it to be a justifiable exception to the general prohibition. Furthermore, anyone seriously committed torespecting life will want to insure that the list of justifications for killing will be as short aspossible. We show our respect for life by demanding that the taking of life be permitted only when the most powerful reasons have beenoffered. Casually adding to the list of justifiable exceptions to this principle is inconsistent with the reverence for life which is expressed byopponents and supporters of the death penalty alike.

It follows from these points that in the debate about the morality of the death penalty, themoral burden of proof rests on the death penalty supporters. Politically, of course, the burden will shirt,depending on the current state of the law and public opinion. The poli tical burden of proof falls on those who are dissatisfied with the statusquo, and opponents of the death penalty now bear that burden because there are many states which permit executions and because approval

of this policy is widespread. Nonetheless, from a moral point of view, the initial burden falls on deathpenalty supporters. It is they who must beat the burden of showing that the use of death asa punishment for murder is morally permissible, that it is not on a par with murder, that is meritsinclusion on the list of justifiable exceptions to the general prohibition of ki lling.Stephen Nathanson, Professor of Philosophy at Norteasteastern University, 2001(An Eye for and Eye? Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD. 2nd Ed. P. 9)



The death penalty undermines life in four ways.Offensive

First, the death penalty undermines the life of the offender.

The death penalty is not justified because the convicted has already been rendered impotent And incapable of harming others. The only instance of justified killing would be in self defense,which excludes the death penalty by definition as it kills in cold blood with no imminent danger to

any one.

Professor Llyod Steffen elaborates,Because we in moral community recognize and affirm life itself as a good²even apreeminent good²of life, we understand and accept a moral obligation to pursue, protect,and promote this good. Conversely, we understand that killing deprives persons of this basicgood. The moral community thus regards killing as a transgression or moral violation of themost serious kind and does not sanction or justify killing except for specific and morallycompelling reasons, such as self-defense.

Capital punishment is a killing. It has been subject to intense moral scrutiny because itinflicts a directly willed and intended killing, the very kind of killing that is most suspect froma moral point of view. It is a form of kill ing that springs not from the heat of irrational passion, but from reason and an invocation of

justice, yet, ironically, for all its appeal to rationality, it makes no obvious appeal to the most ration reason for justifying a killing on could offer²self-defense. And the lack of grounds for appeal to arational self-defense argument is practical as well as theoretical, since the person facingexecution, by virtue of being confined and r emoved from society, has been r ender ed impotent and incapable of har ming others.

Lloyd Steffen, Pro. Of Religious Studies & Chaplain, Lehigh University, 1998(Executing Justice, Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, p. 91)



Second, the death penalty inherently ends the life of the wrongfully convicted.

When the state executes the innocent, it acts contradictory to the protection of life- it terminateslife.

According to Amnesty International:

The likelihood that innocent people will be condemned to death and executed is inher ent in all jurisdictions which resort to capital punishment. Few mistakes made by government officials can

equal the horror of executing an innocent person. But all systems of justice are fallible; eventhe extensive legal safeguard within the criminal justice system of the United States of America(USA) have manifestly failed to prevent wrongful death sentences in many cases. Furthermore,many of these basic safeguards have been seriously undermined in recent years, increasing therisk of lethal and irreversible error.

Amnesty International, 12 November 1998,http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR510691998



Third, the death penalty diverts resources that could be utilized more effectively to protect life.

Carol S. Steiker develops,«there are always alternative means to prevent such future harms, including policing initiativesand other direct community interventions in the short term, and funding for social programs suchas education, health car e, mental health services, and drug tr eatment in the medium andlong term. « the threshold deontologist can easily respond that there will always remain the choicebetween further alternative preventive strategies and capital punishment. We are never likely toachieve a world in which we have reached optimal spending on nonlethal preventive strategiesand have nothing left to do but adopt capital punishment. Nor is it likely, in the event that we ever

did achieve such a utopian world, that capital punishment could generate, even remotely, thesame marginal deterrent effect, in light of the fact that the murders and murderers in such aworld would be of a far different genesis than those in the world in which we currently live.On a grander moral scale, preventing murders is only one way in which the state protects thelives of its citizens. It does so also through public health policies, environmental protection,workplace safety regulation, and the like. If the dollars spent on an execution that would preventeighteen murders could be spent to prevent an equal number of people from dying in workplaceaccidents or from AIDS without violating any categorical moral prohibition, why should athreshold deontologist agree that any catastrophic threshold permitting violation of such a moral

prohibition has been met? Given the costliness of the administration of capital punishment, itseems unlikely that a deontologist would ever properly conclude that the marginal deterrenceafforded by executions so far outweighed other possible savings of lives with the same dollars so

as to cross some catastrophic threshold.

«there are many plausible alternative strategies to reducing homicide rates that could feasiblybe adopted, the best proof being that some of them have been adopted in some states.Moreover, even if these policies are less politically popular than capital punishment, it is hard tosee how that affects the moral duties of those who believe that capital punishment is

categorically wrong. Surely, their moral obligation is to work toward feasible alternatives.Carol S. Steiker; Stanford Law Review, Vol. 58, 2005. ³No, Capital Punishment Is Not Morally Required: Deterrence, Deontology, and the Death Penalty´



Fourth, the death penalty acts as a signal to society that it permissible to kill.

A just society has a moral obligation to refrain from capital punishment because the deathpenalty symbolically justifies killing and the state will use the power of the death penalty in unjustways to kill in the name of justice.Lloyd Steffen elaborates, A just society has a moral obligation to refrain from capital punishment, because the deathpenalty symbolically justifies killing. Plus and the state will use power of the death penalty inunjust ways to kill in the name of justice.The question we must ask, beyond the moral analysis considered up to this point, is what the death penalty ac tually means as a symbol. Is it aneffective symbol for justice, or does it draw its power as a symbol from another symbolic locus another center of meaning and value?The symbolic appeal that capital punishment makes in c laim to be just is simple enough to understand, for if justice means returning the of fenderstheir deserts, then the death penalty is the returns desert of an extreme punishment for an extreme crime. The statement ³a life for a

life´ makes a problem arise. The death penalty is an instrument of state policy and action, and itssymbol power gets deeper than association with retributive justice; in fact since I can be used asan instrument of state repression, its deeper symbolic value must be said to lie in the valuesbeyond any requirements of justice. The heart of the matter at the level of symbol is that thedeath penalty represents a rare instance of legitimated killing²like just war, tyrannicide, and

self-defense The death penalty as a symbol transforms moral meaning and authorizes suchkilling, and does so in the in the face of our ordinary moral propitiations against such killing;Ordinarily moral prohibited killings of members of the moral community become permitted acts.The authorization may be sought after in the name of justice, but justice may be effected byother means; and the power to execute, once claimed, can be²and has been²used to effectends that have nothing to do with serving justice.Lloyd Steffen, Prof. Of religious & chaplain, Lehigh University. 1998, page 143-4(Executing justice, Cleveland: the pilgrim press, p143-4)



Conclusion



Conclusion

This is usually unnecessary, but if you feel you can sum

up your case is a rhetorically compelling way, go for it.

Otherwise, don't worry about having a conclusion. Youusually won't have time for one anyway.

Brief 15-20 seconds

Last line should be remembered (memorize if at all

possible)



THE CASE!

I affirm/I negate

State the resolution word for word

Define key terms

( Optional)

Framework ± observations and analysis

State value

State criterion

Thesis/Tag line/Contention(s)ClaimWarrantImpact

Conclusion



Other Thoughts

Pre-standard arguments

Arguments that are evaluated before the standard

Resolved: The use of the state¶s power of Eminent Domain to promote private enterprise is



Resolved: The use of the state s power of Eminent Domain to promote private enterprise isunjust.

Before the negative case I am going to offer two reasons to reject theresolution: the resolution is a normative claim that declares a specific statepolicy as unjust. Implied within any normative claim is a judgment as to

how an agent ought to act. Therefore, any normative assessment of anaction presupposes agency on the part of the actor. You would never declare the act of hurricane as unjust, because the hurricane can't make adecision to change its action. The only way in which the state could beconsidered an autonomous agent, is if the agency of it citizens istranslated into policy making. Yet, the bureaucratic process of conglomerating mass opinion into a single government policy, ensures that

the agency of a state's citizens is not reflected at the policy level. As such,the state cannot be considered an agent, and therefore state action can'tbe labeled unjust.Second, it is impossible for the state's use of their power of eminentdomain to promote private enterprise. Private enterprise specifically refersto economic activity which is ³private,´ or independent of the government.When the government subsidizes an industry by giving it money, it is

universally understood as a step away from private enterprise and steptowards a nationalized economy. The use of eminent domain to giveproperty to corporations is in no way different; the government is using itspowers to intervene in the economy and therefore is not promoting privateenterprise. As such, the resolution cannot be affirmed because one can'tdeclare an action unjust, if that action can logically never happen.The two overviews demonstrate unique assumptions of the resolution and

proves them false.



Burdens

Something that must be done to win



R ef erences

How to Construct a Lincoln Douglas Debate Case,

http://www.wikihow.com/Construct-a-Lincoln-Douglas-Debate-Case

Introduction to LD Debate [PDF],

Cherian Koshy and Dr. Seth Halvorson,

http://www.nflonline.org/uploads/CoachingResources/IntroductiontoLDDebateOnlineText.pdf

Linc UIl

ld case writing (cook)

Documents