Lincoln-DouglasDebate!!

K. Derry

Public Speaking, Rhetoric, & Debate

You will be able to…

• Display solid logic, lucid reasoning, and depth of analysis

• Utilize evidence without being driven by it

• Present a clash of ideas by countering/refuting arguments of the opposing team

• Communicate ideas with clarity, organization, eloquence, and professional decorum

History

• Abraham Lincoln• Stephen Douglas• 1858 campaign for one of the Illinois seats in the U.S.

Senate• Issues surrounding practice of slavery, not just legality

of• Disagreed on resolution• Douglas: local community and state decision• Lincoln: national government decision• Power to make decision!!• Debate in front of everyday common citizens

Video Resources

http://nfltv.org/2009/10/28/nfl-showcase/http://nfltv.org/2009/10/30/2002-charlotte-nationals/

What is it? Clear and understandable to a “common”

or community audience Topics or “resolutions”

Statements of facts One debater proves false, one true

Related to social values How people should act with each other Example: “society ought to have a strict

separation of church and state” Don’t need to prove how the strict separation of

church and state would happen Just talk about whether there should be a separation,

and why

Structure

One-on-one Affirmative: prove the resolution is

true Negative: prove the resolution is false Each reads a constructive case

Presents major arguments Similar to persuasive speech

Use of goal or value (value premise)

Structure cont’d

Introduction attention-getting device (quote, stat) Explanation of what the quote or stat

means and how it helps support the resolution or

proves it wrong Clearly state the resolution as it is

written and your position

Example IntroductionVoter turnout and other areas of citizen participation in

our nation’s affairs continue to decline. Yet at the same time, crises in other nations shed light on the fact that many of us take our good fortune for granted. Continuing conflict in China, Cuba, and Guatemala illustrates the dangers of oppressive government. Chaos in Somalia, Sierra Leone, and the former Yugoslavia demonstrates the problems of anarchy. Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger once said, “Seldom are we faced with a decision between right and wrong…more often than not, we must determine the least harmful course of action.” Today, we face a similar problem. As a result, I will prove that even an oppressive government is better than no government.

Structure cont’d

Defining your resolution Definition of important words and

phrases in context of resolution Whole phrases is preferable

“political” and “oppression” vs. “political oppression”

Read! about the topic to determine contextual definitions

Black Law’s Dictionary

Definition exampleFor clarity in today’s debate, I offer the

following definitions taken from Black Law’s Dictionary:

Oppressive government A government that, through its institutions, withholds from the people internationally recognized civil, economic, and/or human rights.

No government A nation-state existing without formal institutions that provide control and benefits to its citizens

ATB: What is the best restaurant in town?

How do you decide between these choices?

Which mechanism is the most important?

Eliminate some choices of the best restaurant, then decide if this mechanism can be used to definitely choose one of the choices.

Value Criterion A way or mechanism for choosing

between many options A way to weigh between competing

options Or a lens through which to narrow the

scope of the question being asked Usually many valid Value Criteria to

answer a given question, but some are superior to others

Criterion Activity

Come up with the best possible criterion for choosing between the options

Answer the original question: What is the best restaurant in town? Using each of the criteria listed.

Value Larger goal of the resolution What the resolution is trying to achieve

Suggested by phrasing of the resolution Justice Societal welfare Protection of rights Human worth Protection of life Fulfillment of governmental obligations Governmental legitimacy See handout “Types of Values”

Previous activity are questions of fact; LD resolutions are questions of value (some larger question)

The possession of nuclear weapons is immoral. What larger questions are being asked by this

resolution? What is an appropriate value for this resolution? Brainstorm appropriate value criterion to measure

these values Example: Protection of life (most important value)

because the resolution questions if possessing the destructive power of nuclear weapons is worth the potential risk, the question becomes how one could decide which action prevents the most loss of life. Value Criterion: minimizing the risk of nuclear war or

minimizing harm to innocent lives Verb phrases

The Value Premise Social Value

Freedom, identity, individualism “An oppressive government is better than

no government” What is the value? ___________ Keeps things in order and keeps us safe

State the value (the most important goal) and give a definition What it is Why it is important Relate to resolution

Value Premise Example

The affirmative will uphold the value of self-actualization. Self-actualization means the individual has ample opportunity to determine for himself or herself what is necessary for a happy life. Self-actualization is important for the resolution because the system of government (or lack thereof) should be determined more or less valuable based on the quality of space the individual has for this self-actualization.

Choosing the Criterion Supports the value Different purposes

How debater plans to achieve their value premise Ex., a value of stability may require individual

choice in some societies. When people are involved in decisions and can make their own choices, they are more likely to be happy.

As a definition for the value Clarifies values that are broad and could have

different definitions Ex., justice

Criterion Example(affirmative) In order to determine which

position in today’s round best provides opportunity for self-actualization, the affirmative proposes the criterion of participation. This means that the individual has the best opportunity to interact with society regardless of the type of governing system in place. This criterion is important to the value of self-actualization because without the ability to interact meaningfully with society, the individual will be unable to determine for himself or herself what is beneficial and what isn’t.

Assignment for Thursday, 1/5

Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.

A Value Explain why the value would be appropriate A Value Criterion to evaluate this value A reason why this value criterion would be

a good mechanism for deciding between arguments

Thesis

Statement Overall argument the debater plans to

make in the rest of the case Begins with a statement of the resolution

(including what side the debater is on) And the relationship of the value and

criterion to that side of the resolution

Thesis example

An oppressive government is better than no government because oppressive government will make social interaction more possible than an absence of government, and that will lead to better self-actualization for the individual.

Body of Case

Presentation of main arguments Two or three

Called a contention Begins with a tagline: simple sentence Explanation of argument

Case Example Introduction and Resolution AnalysisVoter turnout and other areas of citizen participation in

our nation’s affairs continue to decline. Yet at the same time, crises in other nations shed light on the fact that many of us take our good fortune for granted. Continuing conflict in China, Cuba, and Guatemala illustrates the dangers of oppressive government. Chaos in Somaliz, Sierra Leone, and the former Yugoslavia demonstrates the problems of anarchy. Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger once noted, “Seldom are we faced with a decision between right and wrong…more often than not, we must determine the least harmful course of action.” As a result, I stand in affirmation that an oppressive government is better than no government.

DefinitionFor clarity in today’s debate, I offer the

following definitions taken from Black Law’s Dictionary:

Oppressive government A government that, through its institutions, withholds from the people internationally recognized civil, economic, and/or human rights.

No government A nation-state existing without formal institutions that provide control and benefits to its citizens

Value PremiseThe affirmative will uphold the value of self-

actualization. Self-actualization means the individual has ample opportunity to determine for himself or herself what is necessary for a happy life. Self-actualization is important for the resolution because the system of government (or lack thereof) should be determined more or less valuable based on the quality of space the individual has for this self-actualization.

CriterionIn order to determine which position in today’s

round best provides opportunity for self-actualization, the affirmative proposes the criterion of participation. This means that the individual has the best opportunity to interact with society regardless of the type of governing system in place. This criterion is important to the value of self-actualization because without the ability to interact meaningfully with society, the individual will be unable to determine for himself or herself what is beneficial and what isn’t.

ThesisOppressive government is better than no

government because it provides social interaction better than an absence of government, and that ultimately leads to self-actualization for the individual.

Contention Taglines Contention One: Democracy is more readily

achieved from oppression than from anarchy.

Contention Two: Democracy leads to better self-actualization.

Format of LD Debate

First Affirmative Constructive 6 minutesCross-Examination (Neg. asks Aff.) 3 minutesFirst Negative Constructive 7 minutesCross-Examination (Aff. asks Neg.) 3 minutesFirst Affirmative Rebuttal 4

minutesFirst Negative Rebuttal 6 minutesSecond Affirmative Rebuttal 3 minutesPrep Time for each Debater 4 minutes

First Affirmative Constructive

Affirmative States their Case Reading of prepared speech Use speech to present arguments

without interruption Negative debater takes notes Remain standing at end of speech

Cross-Examination

Negative Asks Questions Clarification Find problems

Example K is affirmative M is negative

M—Could you please repeat what you said your criterion was?

K—My criterion was equity.M—And what is equity?K—Equity is impartiality.M—Okay, thanks. How do you define justice?K—Justice is fairness, goodness, and equity. A

just government would protect rights.

Example cont’dM—So equity is a basic principle of justice?K—yesM—Do all people benefit equally from health care?K—They could or they couldn’t. It’s an implementation

problem. Regardless of whether they actually do or don’t, I still say that a just government should provide health care.

M—So, if people benefit in different ways from health care, isn’t that a violation of equity?

K—NoM—Why not?K—Every person has the equitable ability to receive

health care not just some people.

Example cont’d

M—Without governmental provision of health care, do all people lose the basic right of subsistence and die?

K—No. Not all people, but there will be some who suffer and it’s the responsibility of the government to prevent as much suffering as possible.

First Negative Constructive 7 minutes total Read prepared speech: about 3-4 minutes Talk about the affirmative’s arguments

Start with value premise and criterion Explain why your value is more appropriate to the

resolution Explain why your criterion is better for achieving it Explain why each of the affirmative’s main

contentions is not true Try to use your own arguments

Conclusion that summarizes your case and reasons why affirmative case isn’t true

First Negative Constructive exampleNow that my case has been established, let’s talk about some

problems with my opponent’s case. The first problem with her case is her criterion. She says justice is based in equity, or equal treatment of people. This is a problem because all people in a society aren’t the same. They have different needs, interests, and goals. These disparities make treating everyone equally nearly impossible. Her only contention is that health care is a basic right that helps to support the natural right to life; however, this doesn’t directly relate to why a government should provide it. Remember, my own argument says that there are two parts of any society: the government and the producers. This means that the people are responsible for producing goods and services and the government is simply meant to make and enforce laws.

Affirmative Cross-Examination Affirmative’s chance to ask the

negative questions About the negative case About arguments the negative made

against the affirmative case Affirmative: clear up as much as

possible Prepare good reasons why the negative

side and the responses against the affirmative are not true

Affirmative Cross-Examination ExampleK—What is justice?M—Justice is the harmonious balance of part and whole.K—And what does that mean?M—It means that the different parts of society have to perform

their prescribed roles.K—So if I’m a murderer, is it just for me to continue murdering?M—No. As a member of society, you have a role as a producer.

There is no prescribed role in society for murderers.K—If I am fulfilling my role in society, I am just.M—YesK—What is the role of a government?M—To provide law.K—Why is that what the government is supposed to do and

nothing else?

Example cont’dM—Because that’s the only role purpose of government.K—But, why?M—Because the government is a special group of people

who have that specific job. The other people in society give the power to make and enforce laws to one group and agree to split the rest of the work as producers.

K—So who provides health care?M—The doctor. The doctor is a member of the producer

class.K—Oaky. No more questions.

First Affirmative Rebuttal 4 minutes: 2 minutes on each argument Decide on the most important arguments Rebuild your own case or respond to arguments in the

negative case? Make arguments from beginning to the end

Example: Affirmative case Begin at the top of the affirmative case Why own value is better than the negative’s value Why the negative’s response against the affirmative’s value

isn’t true Repeat with the criterions for each main argument

Then… Go to the negative case and make arguments against what the

negative said Begin with the value and criterion Move to negative’s main arguments

Conclusion: summarize what was proven

1st Affirmative Rebuttal exampleMy opponent says my criterion of equity isn’t good

because people have different needs. She says justice is better defined as the harmonious balance of part and whole. However, while a government does need to perform its own job of making laws, the government also needs to be sure it provides for all of its people equally and protects the rights of all people. This means my criterion of equity is better because it shows how a government should perform its duties. This also means my opponent’s case helps support mine. She says that a government has a specific role, but I contend that the role of government is to protect the rights of the people. Because health care protects the right to life, it is the government’s responsibility to provide health care.

Example cont’dSo let’s look at why my affirmative case is still

true. I say a government must protect the rights of the people—including the right to life—in order to be just. Health care is a basic right because it directly affects the right to life and the quality of that life. Providing health care is the best way to protect the right to life because it maintains a positive energy for the people. When the government provides health care, the quality of life is protected equally. Therefore, a just government should provide health care to its citizens.

First Negative Rebuttal Only gives two speeches 6 minutes Decide which arguments are most important Answer arguments the affirmative made against the negative case Make more arguments against the affirmative case Give reasons why the negative should win the debate Begin with either the negative or affirmative

Be clear as to which side you are speaking Usually begin with negative case

Explain why original arguments are still true Then address affirmative case

Explain why affirmative arguments are not true Answer the responses the affirmative made in their last speech

Explain again why negative value is still most appropriate Explain why negative criterion is best way to achieve the resolution

First Negative Rebuttal exampleIn my last speech, I said a government can’t provide for

things based on the principle of equity because people will always have different needs and wants. If the government provides health care to the people, it won’t be equal because people will need and use it differently. All my opponent really tells you in her case is that the government should protect the rights of the people, but she never explains why this means the government should provide health care. The reason the government shouldn’t provide health care is because even if a government should act equally toward all of its people, it still only has to make and enforce laws. The rest of the people are the producers, which means they have the responsibility of filling in the “holes” the government doesn’t cover.

Example cont’dThe doctor in society has the job of providing health care

services to the people. The affirmative’s main attack on my case is that the government should protect the rights of the people and should do what it can to protect the rights of the people and should do what it can to protect the right to life. This may be true. However, the police have the job of making sure the laws are being enforced and the job of the government is to make the laws that the police enforce. The job of the rest of the people in society is then to provide for health care because they are the producers. So, you should vote for the negative because I have proven that while the government should provide equally for the people, this is impossible in terms of health care because people have such different needs. A government shouldn’t provide health care to its citizens. The producers in a society should provide health care.

Voting Issues Time to give two or three reasons why negative has

won the debate 2 minutes on each case (negative and affirmative) 2 minutes: explain what the major issues are and why

negative won (“voting issues”) Address value and criterion debate

Explain why value is more important Why criterion is best way to achieve value

Resummarize own position Why arguments are true and how and why the

arguments relate to their value and criterion and prove the resolution false

Concluding statement (“And that’s why you negate…” or “so…(resolution) is not true”)

Second Affirmative Rebuttal 3 minutes Final speech of debate Decide which arguments are most important

Which arguments will take up most of the time Prepare a “story”

Begin with value and criterion Explain why affirmative’s side is better and more appropriate

for the resolution Explain why their arguments show how they’ve met the

criterion how this relates to the value and proves the resolution true

Talk about how their arguments are still true And how they’ve met the criterion and value

Short final statement: summarize the most important reason the affirmative has won the debate

Second Affirmative Rebuttal example

Enacting legislation is the same thing as providing for rights, so if the government enacts legislation to provide for the rights of the people, it is acting justly. This means that if I can prove that a government can enact legislation to provide health care to its citizens, then it should provide health care to its citizens. From the beginning of the debate, I have been arguing that a just government should enact legislation as its primary job. However, the difference between my opponent and me is that I say the legislation should include looking at the needs of the people, which means the government should provide health care for its citizens.

Persuasive Writing and Speaking Claim: controversial statement, or a

statement people could disagree with Warrant: the reason why the argument is

true; debater’s own explanation about the argument.

Data: information from a published, credible author that supports the claim; direct quote or summary of a study

Impact: reason why the argument is important; relate back to the value and criterion in some way; help prove the claim is true

Persuasive cont’d

Claim: “My first argument is…”Warrant: “The reason this is true is…”Data: “This is supported by (author

name) when they say…”Impact: “This is important because…”

Persuasive conclusion

Begin by restating the thesis Restate each main argument by

restating the taglines Concluding statement: eloquent and

persuasive, relate back to attention-getter at beginning of the case

Repetition to help audience remember!

Persuasive cont’d Approaches

Ethos: believable and trustworthy Be well read on the subject Good evidence Use examples

Pathos: appeal to emotion Visualization of meaningfull things “sell” Vocal variety—inflection

Logos: logic and reasoning How to best communicate the message Consider audience, in a specific place, in a specific time Local and current events Beliefs and interests of audience

Tips for Debate…and Life! Lincoln-Douglas is a full presentation

Not just on what you say, but how you say it and how you look Vocal inflection Posture Volume Dress

Treat opponent and audience with respect Have fun Be gracious Do your best Be open to new ideas and opinions

Works Cited

Woodhouse. Lincoln-Douglas Debate. New York: Rosen Publishing.