Lincoln-Douglas Strategies and Tactics Chapter 13 Key Terms: defining terms, value premise (value term) criteria for

evaluation, value hierarchy, justification, counterdefinition, countercriteria, value implications, stock issues, prima facie case Objectives: 1. To research and write a Lincoln !ouglas affirmative case ". To e#plain and demonstrate negative case strategies in Lincoln !ouglas de$ate %. To e#plain the affirmative and negative responsi$ilities in Lincoln !ouglas re$uttals ntroduction Lincoln !ouglas focuses on value propositions, which re&uire de$aters to argue a$out the merits of particular value statements. Lincoln !ouglas de$ate places less emphasis on evidence and '()* on analysis (analy+e e#amples and infer from those e#amples of your case). ,t is usually more communication oriented than policy de$ate. Lincoln !ouglas emphasi+es good communication, meaning persuasive speaking, more analysis, and the development of a$stract ideas. -peeches need to $e straightforward. -peak concisely, vividly, and word arguments with care. Developing the !""irmative Case #a""irmative constructive speech$ The Lincoln !ouglas de$ate $egins with the affirmative constructive speech. The affirmative must present a prima facie case. .or a case to $e prima facie, the case needs to include the following stock issues: 1) De"inition o" terms define the meanings of the important words in the resolution in order to assure that everyone will $e talking a$out the same thing. Three types of definitions/ a. %ormal de"inition found in dictionaries, encyclopedias, or almanacs $. Conte&tual de"inition found in $ooks0sources written $y e#perts, who define a term $y using it with other terms c. Operational de"inition the term would $e defined $y its usage The type of definition should vary depending on the resolution $eing de$ated. 1lways use the definition that gives the clearest, most precise meaning to the terms. 'ractice de"ining terms o" the resolution( what are the terms that need defining2 )esolved: the 3nited -tates government ought to (should) provide for the medical care of its citi+ens. )esolved: the principle of majority rule ought to (should) $e valued a$ove the principle of minority rights. )esolved: that secondary education (high school) in the 3nited -tates ought to (should) $e a privilege, not a right. )esolved: an individual4s freedom of e#pression is of greater value than political correctness. ") )alue premise the particular value that the affirmative $elieves is most important in understanding and accepting the resolution. *esolved: laws protecting citi+ens from themselves are justified. 5hich terms need to $e defined2 5hich is the value term2 5hat does it mean and $e as specific as possi$le. %) Criteria "or evaluation the means $y which the values in the resolution are measured. They are important to the outcome of the de$ate. The affirmative needs to stay consistent with the criteria, or else the affirmative could lose the de$ate. *esolved: that secondary education is a privilege, not a right. 5hat is the value term2 5hat should the criteria $e2

5hen e#ploring possi$le criteria for evaluation, Lincoln !ouglas de$aters should include research into philosophy. There are many philosophers that have already created criteria or philosophical theories people should live $y. 5hy recreate the wheel2 6) )alue hierarchy specific values and criteria are used in the de$ate. 5hen the hierarchy is not specified in the resolution, the affirmative must esta$lish it. *esolved: protecting an adolescent4s privacy is more important than allowing a parent to invade that privacy. 5hat terms need to $e defined2 5hat is the value term2 ,n the resolution, which is stated as having more value than the other2 1st esta$lish your hierarchy, then justify your hierarchy 7ustification involves discussing the hierarchy in the conte#t of the su$ject area of the resolution. !eveloping arguments a$out why an adolescent4s privacy is more important than the rights of parents. *#. *esolved: The security of a society outweighs the personal freedoms of individuals. The affirmative can make two arguments: 1) security $enefits society and ") personal freedoms can $e limited without inconveniencing anyone with everyone4s safety intact. Sample )alue +usti"ication !rgument Organi,ation ,. -tatement of 8roposition ,,. !efinition of Terms a. !efine what is $eing evaluated $y either a formal definition if the term is a$stract (good, $ad, li$erty, justice) or a conte#tual or operational definition if the term is concrete (military spending, health $enefits, rock and roll) $. -tate criteria for reaching a judgment a$out the proposition in the round (calling for a comparative, e#clusive, assertive, or on $alance judgment). -tate how such a judgment can $e reached in the round of de$ate. ,,,. 9alue Link :ontention a. -how how an a$stract value is related to a concrete value. $. -how support for the link. $.i. ;istorical precedent. $.ii. 8u$lic opinion consensus. $.iii. *#pert or e#perienced opinion. ,9. *#ample :ontentions a. -how how the e#ample pertains to the general value. $. -how that the e#ample is important. 9. (ffset :ontentions a. -how how alternative links are untrue. $. -how how alternative opinion is wrong or misdirected. c. -how how countere#amples are unimportant. Developing the -egative 'osition #negative constructive speech$ The <egative has the $asic responsi$ility of clash, either with the affirmative or the topic itself. ,f the negative does not clash with the affirmative4s position, the affirmative can argue that the negative has not fulfilled its o$ligations and should lose. There are three options for the negative: 1) directly refute the affirmative, ") present the negative case, or %) com$ine refutation and a negative case. ,n order to make the $est negative case, most take the third option. Overvie. o" -egative 'osition

The first task is to provide an overview of the negative position. The negative will want to give the judge an idea of the negative position against the resolution and the affirmative case. ,t allows the judge to anticipate the negative4s arguments against the resolution and the arguments against the affirmative case. 'resumption =,nnocent until proven guilty,> can $e used here for the presumption. 5e presume that those in the court of law are innocent until proven guilty. This means that presumption rests with the negative. ,t is the responsi$ility of the affirmative to prove that the status &uo is $ad and needs to change, thus they are in favor of the resolution. The negative only has the $urden of rejoinder, which is the $urden of having to respond to the affirmative4s case once it has $een presented. *e"utation (kay, so you4re refuting the affirmative4s arguments. ?ood. ?reat. @ou should do so one at a time. 5hat , mean to say is, argue each of the affirmative4s arguments one at a time. This will allow you to focus on refuting the affirmative plan as a whole. ,nstead of saying =you> you should state =(n the affirmative4s first contention of/> or =(n the affirmative4s first argument concerning the/> This will help detach personal feelings as well as focusing the negative arguments. ,t4s like you4re telling the judge e#actly what is wrong with the affirmative plan, spelling it out for him, so he knows e#actly where and what one is arguing. 5hen refuting the affirmative case, there are two lines of arguments open to the negative/ a.1. The affirmative4s definition of terms a.1.1.a. :ounterarguments a.1.1.$. countercriteria a.". !irectly attack the affirmative4s arguments or value justification :ounterarguments :ountercriteria 1. The security of a society outweighs the personal freedoms of individuals. ". !eveloped nations have an ethical responsi$ility to eliminate poverty in developing nations. %. 1 just social order ought to place the principle of e&uality a$ove that of li$erty. 6. That democracy is overvalued $y the 3nited -tates ?overnment. A. ,llegal immigrants are negatively impacting the educational system of :alifornia. B. The war in ,ra& will $e $etter handled $y a )epu$lican president than a !emocratic president. C. ,t is less important to value religious freedom in the classroom than to protect against it. D. 'edical ethics should take precedence over medical technology. E. 1nimal e#perimentation is still justifia$le. 1F. 8ay students for good grades is justified 11. *m$ryonic stem cell research is morally wrong. (<ewspapers, 'arch 1Fth, "FFE)