WNDI STAFF PAGES
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously, it is a
one-on-one debate.
The affirmative tries to give
good reasons for the resolution—FOR THE RESOLUTION AS A WHOLE, RARELY A
SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. Examples are almost always used to show a specific instance
of what the debater is discussing—not as a strategic, specific case on the
resolution.
The negative tries to give
good reasons against the affirmative case/the resolution (again, the aff case is almost always the same as the resolution).
Typically, the debaters
argue that you should decide the round based upon the value (an ideal such as “saving
lives”) and criteria (a mechanism for weighing the value such as
utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest
number) that each side presents.
Example
The resolution is “RESOLVED:
Security is more important than Civil Liberties.”
The affirmative side will emphasize
a value/criteria focused on security/saving
lives/protection.
The negative side will
emphasize a value/criteria focused on freedom/rights/liberties.
The two sides should clash
with each other’s arguments and demonstrate why their side is more compelling.
Detailed Example
The resolution is “RESOLVED:
When in conflict, public health ought to be prioritized over intellectual
property rights.
Affirmative Case:
Value: Saving Lives is good.
Criteria: Utilitarianism, greatest good for the greatest number.
Contention I: Public health
is key to saving lives and providing the greatest good
for the greatest number.
Contention II: Intellectual
Property Rights leaves lives in danger violating utilitarianism. IPR means
drugs don’t get sold inexpensively and so many people die.
Negative case:
Value: Agree that saving
lives is good. Criteria: Profit Incentive is critical to saving lives.
Contention I: IPR profit
incentive leads to new drugs that save lives.
Contention II: IPR profit
incentive provides the greatest good.
A brief explanation of LD
debate:
1. A "value" is an
advantage.
2. A criterion can work one
of two ways:
a. "value
criteria" are basically plans - only they are plans with solvency
advocates who have been dead for 300 years. For example, a criterion like
"Locke's social contract" is a proposal to achieve certain values
through use of a liberal (consent-based), legislative government devoted
to protecting the property interests of its citizens.
b. "voting
criteria" are not like plans at all - the best analogy is a critic's
judging philosophy. When LD was first invented, the desire to move away
from policy debate led its creators to suggest a way that the paradigm adopted
by the critic could become a subject for debate. Instead of learning that
one's critic was a "policymaker," etc. the debaters would suggest
paradigms for adjudicating the debate. In LD, these criteria are
"weighing mechanisms" like utilitarianism (use value/greatest good
for greatest number of people/calculation of goodness or badness of an action),
deontology (the means justify the ends - Kant), teleology (the means justify
the ends - commonly associated with utilitarianism), cost/benefit analysis, and
futurism (what's best for future generations).
When you debate LDers, they will try to confuse you about which type of
criteria they are using: I encourage them to attempt to make their
"plans" look like "weighing mechanisms" and vice-versa.
3. The
most valuable case wins the debate. The criterion is used either to
establish that one case can achieve a value (value criteria/plan) or that one
value is preferable in weight to another (voting criteria/weighing
mechanism).
4. The resolution is not
"parametricized" or proven by a single
example. Rather, your goal is to show that the resolution should be
generally affirmed or negated as a principle. This means that you must
extend proof (analysis, empirical examples, statistical data) that would
convince someone of the viability of the resolution or its
null as an abstract belief.
5. The negative most
commonly is thought of as having the same burdens as the affirmative. In
nearly all debates, the negative also presents a value and criterion and the
negative's burden in disproving the resolution is equal to the affirmative's
burden to prove the resolution as a general principle.
MAKING DECISIONS IN LD
DEBATES
List out
the arguments for and against the topic. Do the arguments for outweigh the arguments against? Be sure to
consider the value and criteria presented in deciding which side's arguments
are more important. Does the affirmative case support the topic? USE YOUR NOTES
OF THEIR ARGUMENTS. Explain in, at least, a paragraph, which issues convinced
you to vote the way that you did. If you need more room, ask the ballot table
for an additional ballot.
Here is an example
decision you might make:
·
"The negative established that promoting
democracy winds up just imposing economic hardship on countries. The
affirmative tried to focus on freedom as an imperative. The negative,
demonstrated, however, that promotion of democracy actually winds up
undermining freedom because corporations dominate and undermine individual
voices. In the end, I concluded that democracy promotion is unfortunately not a
good ideal."
·
Explain your
decision. USE COMPLETE, CLEAR SENTENCES.
"I voted negative because they showed that democratic ideals . . ."
·
Explain why you
did not vote for the arguments of the losing team. Try to point to arguments that
the winning team made that convinced you against these arguments. "The affirmative arguments about
democracy helping freedom ignored the three negative arguments showing . . . "
·
Explain what
the losing team needed to do to win the debate. "The affirmative needed better analysis showing that democracy
has empirically helped people."
LD DEBATE TIMES
·
6 minutes for
affirmative speech
·
3 minutes for
cross-examination
·
7 minutes for
negative speech
·
3 minutes for
cross-examination
·
4 minutes for
first aff. rebuttal
·
6 minutes for
negative rebuttal
·
3 minutes for
the last aff. rebuttal
·
4 minutes of
preparation time