At the following link, find the various rules, regulations, and even sample ballots for all the major debate and speech events you'll find at Washington state tournaments.
WSFA rules [pdf]
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Adventures in Ethics: a resource for LD novices
I highly recommend Daniel Holbrook's Adventures in Ethics as a free introduction to the subject. The document, 28 pages long, includes a list of logical fallacies, a taxonomy of eight basic ethical theories, and snappy descriptions of each. I've taken the liberty of reproducing the map of the basic theories above. (Holbrook is an associate professor of philosophy at Washington State University.)
All you need to read it is a brain, an internet-ready computer, and Adobe Acrobat Reader. If you've come this far, you've already met the first two prerequisites.
important philosophers for LD debate
When it comes to Lincoln-Douglas debate, everyone knows you should know a little philosophy--okay, more than a little, a lot--but time is precious. How should you focus your energy and effort?
I've arranged groups of philosophers by their potential usefulness to you. The "basic study" group, for example, is composed of the philosophers you are most likely to hear cited in a round. (I almost wrote "encounter," but realized that the more literal-minded members of my audience might have found such language confusing instead of humorous.)
Warning: the following list is based on practicality, not any Platonic standard of LD-oughtness. Also, the list is provisional--a work in progress. I've almost certainly missed somebody important. Suggest names in the comments, and I'll add them.
Last, if you don't know it already, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a great place to meet--encounter--read about many of these philosophers. Check it out.
Plato on justice, rights, and the ideal State (hint: not a democracy)
Aristotle on justice, rights, and democracy
Hobbes on the Social Contract, especially regarding sovereignty, punishment, and the State of Nature
Locke on the Social Contract (but understand his foundations in empirical knowledge and natural theology, which grounds rights)
Rousseau on the Social Contract
Kant on rights, duties, and his formulation of morality encompassing both, The Categorical Imperative
Mill on democracy, utility, free speech, and the Harm Principle
Marx on justice, equality, societal values, revolution, and more
Rawls on a new, pluralist approach to the Social Contract and "justice as fairness," including the Original Position / Veil of Ignorance, the First and Second principle of Justice, democracy, neo-Kantianism
Maslow on value, especially his Hierarchy of Needs
de Beauvoir on ethics and gender
Berlin on ethics (especially pluralism) and politics
Dewey on moral and political pragmatism and democracy
Hayek on freedom
Hegel on Hegel
Hume on the Social Contract
Arendt on democracy and totalitarianism
Dworkin on morality and law
Dahl on democracy
Schumpeter on democracy
Kierkegaard on reason
Aquinas on Natural Law and Just War Theory
Popper on anti-Platonism
Sartre on freedom and ethics
Habermas on democracy and deliberation
Nozick (especially against Rawls) on rights, freedom, and the Social Contract
Foucault on rights and justice (especially concerning criminality and punishment)
Beccaria on criminal justice and punishment
Bentham on Utilitarianism
Rand on Objectivism, especially as it concerns morality and freedom
Adorno on critiquing the West
Baudrillard on... good luck.
Derrida on deconstruction
Gadamer on hermeneutics
Levinas on ethics and the Other
Nietzsche on anything
Rorty on pragmatism and democracy
I've arranged groups of philosophers by their potential usefulness to you. The "basic study" group, for example, is composed of the philosophers you are most likely to hear cited in a round. (I almost wrote "encounter," but realized that the more literal-minded members of my audience might have found such language confusing instead of humorous.)
Warning: the following list is based on practicality, not any Platonic standard of LD-oughtness. Also, the list is provisional--a work in progress. I've almost certainly missed somebody important. Suggest names in the comments, and I'll add them.
Last, if you don't know it already, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is a great place to meet--encounter--read about many of these philosophers. Check it out.
The Basics
Plato on justice, rights, and the ideal State (hint: not a democracy)
Aristotle on justice, rights, and democracy
Hobbes on the Social Contract, especially regarding sovereignty, punishment, and the State of Nature
Locke on the Social Contract (but understand his foundations in empirical knowledge and natural theology, which grounds rights)
Rousseau on the Social Contract
Kant on rights, duties, and his formulation of morality encompassing both, The Categorical Imperative
Mill on democracy, utility, free speech, and the Harm Principle
Marx on justice, equality, societal values, revolution, and more
Rawls on a new, pluralist approach to the Social Contract and "justice as fairness," including the Original Position / Veil of Ignorance, the First and Second principle of Justice, democracy, neo-Kantianism
Maslow on value, especially his Hierarchy of Needs
Advanced Study
de Beauvoir on ethics and gender
Berlin on ethics (especially pluralism) and politics
Dewey on moral and political pragmatism and democracy
Hayek on freedom
Hegel on Hegel
Hume on the Social Contract
Arendt on democracy and totalitarianism
Dworkin on morality and law
Dahl on democracy
Schumpeter on democracy
Kierkegaard on reason
Aquinas on Natural Law and Just War Theory
Popper on anti-Platonism
Sartre on freedom and ethics
Habermas on democracy and deliberation
Nozick (especially against Rawls) on rights, freedom, and the Social Contract
Foucault on rights and justice (especially concerning criminality and punishment)
Beccaria on criminal justice and punishment
Bentham on Utilitarianism
Rand on Objectivism, especially as it concerns morality and freedom
Kritik Central
Adorno on critiquing the West
Baudrillard on... good luck.
Derrida on deconstruction
Gadamer on hermeneutics
Levinas on ethics and the Other
Nietzsche on anything
Rorty on pragmatism and democracy
how to debate without seeming like a jerk
Being aggressive is essential in a debate. You have to appear confident in your arguments and strong in your refutations. But what happens when your opponent lacks that same confidence?
A debater writes,
That said, here are some general things to do / watch for:
1. Pay attention to your opponent's experience level. If you can tell they're a rookie, ease up a bit. If they don't understand something, and ask for clarification in CX, provide it for them, even if it gives them an avenue to attack you. The judge will appreciate the fact that you're helping the educational purpose of the activity.
2. Use less combative language. Instead of saying "My opponent would justify slavery..." say, "If we affirm the resolution, we might justify slavery." The "we" makes it sound inclusive for all, making the same point while less pointedly attacking the other side. Don't say "evil" or "heinous" or "disastrous," which, in some arguments, will make *you* sound unreasonable or dogmatic, anyway.
3. If you must talk about your opponent, include specific phrasing to make them sound reasonable. After all, they're obligated to uphold that side of the resolution not for personal reasons, but because that's how it works. Say, "My opponent's choice of utilitarianism is well-intentioned, but flawed, since valuing the greater good over individual happiness can lead to persecution of a minority. I'm sure my opponent would agree that slavery is a dreadful consequence of such logic, so we must look to my criterion of individual rights in this round...."
4. Breathe deeply. Relax. Smile. If you seem uptight, you'll seem more jerk-ish.
5. Look at the judge. Furrowed brow? Stern gaze? It's probably a cue to back off.
6. Record yourself debating, either on video or audio. Listen to your vocal quality. Look at your body language, your gestures and posture, your facial expressions. Do they radiate confidence or arrogance?
Most important, persist in your willingness to ask about these things. Such honest self-appraisal will carry you far.
A debater writes,
At a recent tournament, I made my opponent cry because I crushed the criterion of utilitarianism with the slavery argument--saying that it leads to a tyranny of the majority, which would justify slavery. I was wondering if that was a bad thing, because my coach says, "Always be polite while debating, and if you are able to destroy your opponent's argument, destroy it politely." I attempted to be polite, yet the tears still came and my judge docked points because I was "rude." Any tips on how to "destroy" my opponent's arguments politely?That's a tough call--without being there, it's impossible to know what your tone of voice was, precisely what words you used, etc. And sometimes it's just not your fault. I had a competitor one time who, frustrated because she had never heard of a particular philosophy before, broke down during the round and ran out crying. Her opponent hadn't done anything wrong--he was unfailingly polite in his presentation.
That said, here are some general things to do / watch for:
1. Pay attention to your opponent's experience level. If you can tell they're a rookie, ease up a bit. If they don't understand something, and ask for clarification in CX, provide it for them, even if it gives them an avenue to attack you. The judge will appreciate the fact that you're helping the educational purpose of the activity.
2. Use less combative language. Instead of saying "My opponent would justify slavery..." say, "If we affirm the resolution, we might justify slavery." The "we" makes it sound inclusive for all, making the same point while less pointedly attacking the other side. Don't say "evil" or "heinous" or "disastrous," which, in some arguments, will make *you* sound unreasonable or dogmatic, anyway.
3. If you must talk about your opponent, include specific phrasing to make them sound reasonable. After all, they're obligated to uphold that side of the resolution not for personal reasons, but because that's how it works. Say, "My opponent's choice of utilitarianism is well-intentioned, but flawed, since valuing the greater good over individual happiness can lead to persecution of a minority. I'm sure my opponent would agree that slavery is a dreadful consequence of such logic, so we must look to my criterion of individual rights in this round...."
4. Breathe deeply. Relax. Smile. If you seem uptight, you'll seem more jerk-ish.
5. Look at the judge. Furrowed brow? Stern gaze? It's probably a cue to back off.
6. Record yourself debating, either on video or audio. Listen to your vocal quality. Look at your body language, your gestures and posture, your facial expressions. Do they radiate confidence or arrogance?
Most important, persist in your willingness to ask about these things. Such honest self-appraisal will carry you far.
how to earn more speaker points in Debate
Good, solid logic and reasons can carry you only so far in a debate. Your style matters.
Here are a few things you can do to increase your speaker points. (Have other ideas? Suggest 'em in the comments.)
1. Work on your prose.
Write your cases so they're elegant, not just functional. Learn some rhetorical devices and employ them (judiciously, of course). I particularly like anaphora and epistrophe, especially when allied with asyndeton and polysyndeton. Your case, at least on the Affirmative, is your first chance to shine. Don't waste it.
2. Work on your prosody.
The best speech is like music, with discernible rhythm and melody. Bust out of monotone, slow down a little, and emphasize the words that really count.
3. Introduce and conclude.
I know it's the fashion for some debaters to skip the "fluff" because, in their view, it wastes precious time, time that could be spent warranting or analyzing the resolution or dropping a second underview (yeah, I've seen it). However, don't underestimate the power of a snappy quote, or, heaven forfend, a poignant anecdote.
4. Be charming.
Simple things: eye contact, a smile. Don't ask your judge, "What's your paradigm?" Instead, ask what school they're from, or "What do you look for in a round?" or "Anything we should know before the round starts?" Sound like a human being, not Debate Robot 3000.
5. Be forceful, but not irritable.
Don't sound, or look, like a jerk.
6. Be gracious in defeat--and moreso in victory.
Say "Good round" when it was. On the other hand, don't say "Good round" if you thoroughly trashed your opponent. You will sound insincere and condescending. Thank the judge for judging instead, and don't speak unless your opponent wants to talk with you.
7. Have an organized approach.
Have a roadmap: "First I'll address my opponent's points, then rebuild my own." Line-by-line is safe for starters.
8. Be witty.
Pepper your thoughts with pithy quotes by folks like Mark Twain or Mae West. If you're good at telling jokes, use one as an analogy. (If you're not good at telling jokes, please, don't.)
9. Don't suck up to the judge.
Seriously. Don't compliment them (it'll ring hollow). Don't shake hands (it's awkward for some of us, and it spreads disease). Don't over-apologize for being late (it happens to everyone; it's usually extemp's fault).
10. Videotape yourself, and learn from the experience.
You'll be glad you did.
Here are a few things you can do to increase your speaker points. (Have other ideas? Suggest 'em in the comments.)
1. Work on your prose.
Write your cases so they're elegant, not just functional. Learn some rhetorical devices and employ them (judiciously, of course). I particularly like anaphora and epistrophe, especially when allied with asyndeton and polysyndeton. Your case, at least on the Affirmative, is your first chance to shine. Don't waste it.
2. Work on your prosody.
The best speech is like music, with discernible rhythm and melody. Bust out of monotone, slow down a little, and emphasize the words that really count.
3. Introduce and conclude.
I know it's the fashion for some debaters to skip the "fluff" because, in their view, it wastes precious time, time that could be spent warranting or analyzing the resolution or dropping a second underview (yeah, I've seen it). However, don't underestimate the power of a snappy quote, or, heaven forfend, a poignant anecdote.
4. Be charming.
Simple things: eye contact, a smile. Don't ask your judge, "What's your paradigm?" Instead, ask what school they're from, or "What do you look for in a round?" or "Anything we should know before the round starts?" Sound like a human being, not Debate Robot 3000.
5. Be forceful, but not irritable.
Don't sound, or look, like a jerk.
6. Be gracious in defeat--and moreso in victory.
Say "Good round" when it was. On the other hand, don't say "Good round" if you thoroughly trashed your opponent. You will sound insincere and condescending. Thank the judge for judging instead, and don't speak unless your opponent wants to talk with you.
7. Have an organized approach.
Have a roadmap: "First I'll address my opponent's points, then rebuild my own." Line-by-line is safe for starters.
8. Be witty.
Pepper your thoughts with pithy quotes by folks like Mark Twain or Mae West. If you're good at telling jokes, use one as an analogy. (If you're not good at telling jokes, please, don't.)
9. Don't suck up to the judge.
Seriously. Don't compliment them (it'll ring hollow). Don't shake hands (it's awkward for some of us, and it spreads disease). Don't over-apologize for being late (it happens to everyone; it's usually extemp's fault).
10. Videotape yourself, and learn from the experience.
You'll be glad you did.
1-2-3 chill
Debaters, you know the drill: in the van, exhausted, driving back to your school parking lot in the waning hours of the evening, your team celebrates the successes and commiserates over the failures. And there's a whole lotta judge hatin' goin' on.
Which is fine, to a degree. We all have to process. We all have to purge ourselves from time to time, to vent the aggression that we'd stored up for the week previous, trying to get our "edge." As a coach, I've endured my fair share of Ride Home Rants, and I've never condemned anyone for expressing their true feelings.
But I offer you a better way: a way to reduce your anxiety at the outset. A philosophy of relaxation, a balance between competitive fire and reflective calm, in three easy steps. Call it 1-2-3 Chill.
Your goal is to break to octas, semis, or what have you. Realistically, you're going to have to end with a 5-1 record, unless you can squeak in with a 4-2. So aim for 5-1.
1
One of your rounds, almost guaranteed, is going to be a loss. You're going to hit your circuit's third-year champion, the one who ought to be in grad school already, finishing up her degree in deontology, but instead has stuck around to clean up for year number four. Or you're going to get That One Crazy Judge whose paradigm is "distempered." Or you're going to drop the only contention that can sink your incredible Aff case. Whichever way, you're going to lose one round, and lose it badly. No biggie. You've got five to win.
2
Two of your rounds, almost guaranteed, are going to be wins, because you're on fire, and your competition, fresh up from Novice, is a gasoline-soaked rag.
3
Three rounds can go either way. They're going to be close, and if you come out thinking you're winning--or losing--you're probably wrong.
It's your job to do everything in your power to rope in the judge for these three rounds. You control your own destiny. These three rounds will determine your success.
So, as you drive up to the tournament, relax: you can lose one round without losing your dignity. And if you bomb your first round, relax: you can lose one round without losing the tournament. You still have five rounds. Two are yours. Three are gonna be close.
Look around you. Inhale. Exhale.
And chill your way to the elimination round.
Your van ride home will be a much more pleasant experience, even if you fare poorly--because you'll know that it's not your judge's fault, or your opponent's fault: you didn't win your three critical rounds.
But you will next time.
Which is fine, to a degree. We all have to process. We all have to purge ourselves from time to time, to vent the aggression that we'd stored up for the week previous, trying to get our "edge." As a coach, I've endured my fair share of Ride Home Rants, and I've never condemned anyone for expressing their true feelings.
But I offer you a better way: a way to reduce your anxiety at the outset. A philosophy of relaxation, a balance between competitive fire and reflective calm, in three easy steps. Call it 1-2-3 Chill.
Your goal is to break to octas, semis, or what have you. Realistically, you're going to have to end with a 5-1 record, unless you can squeak in with a 4-2. So aim for 5-1.
1
One of your rounds, almost guaranteed, is going to be a loss. You're going to hit your circuit's third-year champion, the one who ought to be in grad school already, finishing up her degree in deontology, but instead has stuck around to clean up for year number four. Or you're going to get That One Crazy Judge whose paradigm is "distempered." Or you're going to drop the only contention that can sink your incredible Aff case. Whichever way, you're going to lose one round, and lose it badly. No biggie. You've got five to win.
2
Two of your rounds, almost guaranteed, are going to be wins, because you're on fire, and your competition, fresh up from Novice, is a gasoline-soaked rag.
3
Three rounds can go either way. They're going to be close, and if you come out thinking you're winning--or losing--you're probably wrong.
It's your job to do everything in your power to rope in the judge for these three rounds. You control your own destiny. These three rounds will determine your success.
So, as you drive up to the tournament, relax: you can lose one round without losing your dignity. And if you bomb your first round, relax: you can lose one round without losing the tournament. You still have five rounds. Two are yours. Three are gonna be close.
Look around you. Inhale. Exhale.
And chill your way to the elimination round.
Your van ride home will be a much more pleasant experience, even if you fare poorly--because you'll know that it's not your judge's fault, or your opponent's fault: you didn't win your three critical rounds.
But you will next time.
how to write an LD case
Disclaimers: This is a work in progress. I am only one debate coach out of thousands nationwide. My word is not gospel; if you don't like my methods, suggest your own. Shared knowledge makes for better debate. Floss daily.
There are several parts of the process of writing an effective LD case. Their order may change depending on your experience and your thinking style. However, all of them come into play at some point.
Understanding the Resolution
This is where you always have to begin: by making sense of the resolution. Your experience level, though, dictates whether you can slide over the trip to the dictionary on your way to brainstorming, or whether you want to make a dictinoary vist the beginning of your brainstorming process.
Let's say you don't understand the resolution at all. Grab a dictionary--dictionary.com will do nicely, since it includes all kinds of definitions--and look up every important word. Or phrase, since some words shouldn't really be defined on their own.
I've made up a sample resolution for analysis.
Because...
Brainstorm reasons for and against the resolution. A value / criterion structure will arise out of the reasons. In other words, simply put "because..." at the end of the resolution, and think of every possible way to fill in the rest of the sentence. (At this point, if possible, it's wise to collaborate with a teammate, or check out an online resource for arguments you haven't considered.)
Draw a line down the center of a piece of paper--and on either side, write a "because..." for and against. Don't start with just an affirmative or negative position--instead, use both sides to shape your thinking.
Eventually, you might have 10-12 reasons for, say, the affirmative. What do you do with them? You have to choose either one that stands alone, strong enough to build a case around, or choose 2-3 that are united under a common value and criterion.
You have to ask, What are the big questions here? What are the assumptions underlying the resolution? Your primary questions, given this resolution, might include, What is the overall purpose of sport? Does sport have its own moral obligations, or does it fall under a larger moral system?
Where Values and Criteria Come In
The resolution contains important aims, ends, goals, or aspirations. Every "because..." promotes an implicit value, and points to a way to judge how that value can be achieved (criterion philosophy #1) or how to weigh that value against other values (criterion philosophy #2). (For my extended thoughts on criteria, see here.)
I find it useful to operate, as in other forms of persuasive writing, with a thesis at the center. Let's consider an example. If you have three reasons...
Now you have a value of morality and a criterion of virtuous competition. Since the resolution is framed in negative terms--"immoral" instead of "moral"--each subpoint will be a criterion violation. Hold on to that for now, as we talk about other potential values.
Morality. The word "immoral" gives us a strong hint that "doing the right thing" could very well be the most important aim of the resolution. "Virtue" or "Integrity" might be allied concepts here. (Health is an important aim, but since the resolution focuses on morality, health issues would have to relate to that.)
Human Dignity. Perhaps morality isn't the core value, but rather a means of protecting human dignity (and thus morality is the criterion). If drug use degrades humanity, it is immoral.
Societal Welfare Perhaps morality is a means to ensuring the good of society, and athletic drug use has effects beyond its users. This works well with a criterion of utilitarianism, ensuring the greatest good for the greatest possible number.
On the negative, we might have...
Victory. It could be argued that the goal of sport is to win; call this the "Vince Lombardi" value, after his famous admonition: "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing."
Freedom. Athletes, it could be argued, should be free to ingest whatever substances they wish. (Freedom could also be a criterion to a value of morality--we would judge any given moral system as valid based on its respect, or lack of respect, for human freedom. This is known as libertarianism.)
Potential criteria under a value of morality:
Equality. Drugs might "level the playing field," and overcome natural inequalities such as differences in height or muscle mass. However, if everyone's doing drugs, the Aff might respond, those with natural advantages will still rise to to the top.
Entertainment. Perhaps the true role of sport is to entertain; this is either a negation of some grand moral purpose for sport, or in fact its major moral purpose: to provide joy to spectators and participants. Either way, perhaps drugs, by allowing athletes to perform at higher levels, increase the entertainment value of sport.
Consequentialism (and one form, Utilitarianism) vs. Deontology. For how these theories play out, see here.
The basic structure of an LD case
So you have some definitions of key terms, and good reasons allied under a value and criterion structure, as expressed in a thesis based on the resolution. What then? It's time to organize your ideas into a case. The following structure is strongly encouraged.
1. Introduction. Some sort of snappy quote.
2. The resolution. Cited exactly as worded.
3. Any necessary definitions. Be sure to provide sources if your definitions are controversial or counterintuitive.
4. Any resolutional analysis. Only if you need to clarify some important aspect of the resolution that helps explain the format or framework of your case.
5. Your thesis.
6. Your value.
7. Your criterion.
8. Your contentions, in order. Any applicable evidence must be properly sourced and cited.
9. Your conclusion. It works well to call back to the introduction.
Each part of the case will be numbered below in the sample.
Michel de Montaigne once said, "There are some defeats more triumphant than victories." I agree, and [1] affirm the resolution, Resolved: It is immoral to use performance-enhancing drugs in an attempt to gain athletic advantage. [2]
For clarity in the round, I offer the following definitions: "Immoral" is defined as violating principles of right conduct. "Performance-enhancing drugs" are chemicals or substances ingested to boost speed, metabolism, muscle mass, or some other biological feature relevant to "athletic advantage," which is defined as benefit or gain in the context of a sport. An example of athletic advantage might be the ability to throw a discus ten feet further, or to run a mile thirty seconds faster. [3]
Also, I offer an important resolutional analysis: the resolution, since it includes the word "attempt," does not require the affirmative to show that the drugs in question provide an actual, measurable advantage. Instead, the affirmative must show that the act of taking the drug in hopes of gaining advantage is itself immoral. [4]
My thesis: It is immoral to use performance-enhancing drugs in an attempt to gain athletic advantage, because it defeats the virtuous aims of competition. [5] Sport has many forms of worth, but its greatest benefit to its participants is the development of their character. Thus, my value is morality,[6] and my criterion is the virtuous competition. [7] Sport without a moral framework is just exercise.
Contention One: Drug use destroys fair play. [8]
One of the fundamental aspects of competition is fairness, the idea of a "level playing field." Inherent to virtuous competition is playing within the rules and abiding by referees' decisions, ensuring that both sides have, at least in theory, an equal chance of success. Although natural gifts--height, muscle mass, endurance--are inequitably distributed, there are virtuous ways to overcome the odds--and this is key--that are inherent in the competitive activity. Practice, determination, effort, on the field and in the gym. Drug use turns sport into a competition among chemists, and, mostly, a battle of bank accounts.
Contention Two: Drug use puts winning before character.
The old saw, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game," is a central axiom of virtuous competition. Drug users, by relying on chemical cocktails to improve their performance, in essence are fixing their eyes on winning above all. This has multiple effects: it makes them more likely to cheat in other instances--tripping an opponent when the ref isn't watching, knowing that the win matters above all. It could lead to boorish or selfish or even self-absorbed, limelight-hogging play. Instead of playing for the spiritual, emotional, or even physical benefits, winning becomes the only motive, and all else is sacrificed.
Contention Three: Drug use is a lazy, cheap route to success.
The most important virtue of competition comes from the challenge. By reducing the natural barrier to success, the drug abuser has to work less to achieve the same results. This not only negatively affects the individual, but harms teammates, who will be more likely to take the lazy route, and even harms society, as youth, who look up to role models, decide to imitate their indolence.
As we have seen, the aim of sport is not exercise, or fun, or even eternal glory, but the development of moral character.[9] Performance enhancing drugs, by corrupting fair play, by promoting winning above character, and by shorting the challenge, destroy the virtuous aims of competition, and thus their use is immoral. For these reasons you must vote affirmative. I now stand open for cross-examination.
(Should this or something like it ever become an actual LD topic, you might consider reading this debunking of steroids stats. Also potentially of interest: a libertarian debates in favor of PEDs.)
There are several parts of the process of writing an effective LD case. Their order may change depending on your experience and your thinking style. However, all of them come into play at some point.
Understanding the Resolution
This is where you always have to begin: by making sense of the resolution. Your experience level, though, dictates whether you can slide over the trip to the dictionary on your way to brainstorming, or whether you want to make a dictinoary vist the beginning of your brainstorming process.
Let's say you don't understand the resolution at all. Grab a dictionary--dictionary.com will do nicely, since it includes all kinds of definitions--and look up every important word. Or phrase, since some words shouldn't really be defined on their own.
I've made up a sample resolution for analysis.
Resolved: It is immoral to use performance-enhancing drugs in an attempt to gain athletic advantage."Immoral," "performance-enhancing drugs," and "athletic advantage" are crucial here. "Attempt" is included to maintain a reasonable burden of proof, so the Aff doesn't have to show that the drugs in question are successful.
Because...
Brainstorm reasons for and against the resolution. A value / criterion structure will arise out of the reasons. In other words, simply put "because..." at the end of the resolution, and think of every possible way to fill in the rest of the sentence. (At this point, if possible, it's wise to collaborate with a teammate, or check out an online resource for arguments you haven't considered.)
Draw a line down the center of a piece of paper--and on either side, write a "because..." for and against. Don't start with just an affirmative or negative position--instead, use both sides to shape your thinking.
Eventually, you might have 10-12 reasons for, say, the affirmative. What do you do with them? You have to choose either one that stands alone, strong enough to build a case around, or choose 2-3 that are united under a common value and criterion.
You have to ask, What are the big questions here? What are the assumptions underlying the resolution? Your primary questions, given this resolution, might include, What is the overall purpose of sport? Does sport have its own moral obligations, or does it fall under a larger moral system?
Where Values and Criteria Come In
The resolution contains important aims, ends, goals, or aspirations. Every "because..." promotes an implicit value, and points to a way to judge how that value can be achieved (criterion philosophy #1) or how to weigh that value against other values (criterion philosophy #2). (For my extended thoughts on criteria, see here.)
I find it useful to operate, as in other forms of persuasive writing, with a thesis at the center. Let's consider an example. If you have three reasons...
1. Drug use destroys fair play.All of these could be subpoints under an overarching thesis, "It is immoral to use performance-enhancing drugs in an attempt to gain athletic advantage, because it defeats the virtuous aims of competition."
2. Drug use puts winning before character.
3. Drug use is a lazy, cheap route to success.
Now you have a value of morality and a criterion of virtuous competition. Since the resolution is framed in negative terms--"immoral" instead of "moral"--each subpoint will be a criterion violation. Hold on to that for now, as we talk about other potential values.
Morality. The word "immoral" gives us a strong hint that "doing the right thing" could very well be the most important aim of the resolution. "Virtue" or "Integrity" might be allied concepts here. (Health is an important aim, but since the resolution focuses on morality, health issues would have to relate to that.)
Human Dignity. Perhaps morality isn't the core value, but rather a means of protecting human dignity (and thus morality is the criterion). If drug use degrades humanity, it is immoral.
Societal Welfare Perhaps morality is a means to ensuring the good of society, and athletic drug use has effects beyond its users. This works well with a criterion of utilitarianism, ensuring the greatest good for the greatest possible number.
On the negative, we might have...
Victory. It could be argued that the goal of sport is to win; call this the "Vince Lombardi" value, after his famous admonition: "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing."
Freedom. Athletes, it could be argued, should be free to ingest whatever substances they wish. (Freedom could also be a criterion to a value of morality--we would judge any given moral system as valid based on its respect, or lack of respect, for human freedom. This is known as libertarianism.)
Potential criteria under a value of morality:
Equality. Drugs might "level the playing field," and overcome natural inequalities such as differences in height or muscle mass. However, if everyone's doing drugs, the Aff might respond, those with natural advantages will still rise to to the top.
Entertainment. Perhaps the true role of sport is to entertain; this is either a negation of some grand moral purpose for sport, or in fact its major moral purpose: to provide joy to spectators and participants. Either way, perhaps drugs, by allowing athletes to perform at higher levels, increase the entertainment value of sport.
Consequentialism (and one form, Utilitarianism) vs. Deontology. For how these theories play out, see here.
The basic structure of an LD case
So you have some definitions of key terms, and good reasons allied under a value and criterion structure, as expressed in a thesis based on the resolution. What then? It's time to organize your ideas into a case. The following structure is strongly encouraged.
1. Introduction. Some sort of snappy quote.
2. The resolution. Cited exactly as worded.
3. Any necessary definitions. Be sure to provide sources if your definitions are controversial or counterintuitive.
4. Any resolutional analysis. Only if you need to clarify some important aspect of the resolution that helps explain the format or framework of your case.
5. Your thesis.
6. Your value.
7. Your criterion.
8. Your contentions, in order. Any applicable evidence must be properly sourced and cited.
9. Your conclusion. It works well to call back to the introduction.
Each part of the case will be numbered below in the sample.
Michel de Montaigne once said, "There are some defeats more triumphant than victories." I agree, and [1] affirm the resolution, Resolved: It is immoral to use performance-enhancing drugs in an attempt to gain athletic advantage. [2]
For clarity in the round, I offer the following definitions: "Immoral" is defined as violating principles of right conduct. "Performance-enhancing drugs" are chemicals or substances ingested to boost speed, metabolism, muscle mass, or some other biological feature relevant to "athletic advantage," which is defined as benefit or gain in the context of a sport. An example of athletic advantage might be the ability to throw a discus ten feet further, or to run a mile thirty seconds faster. [3]
Also, I offer an important resolutional analysis: the resolution, since it includes the word "attempt," does not require the affirmative to show that the drugs in question provide an actual, measurable advantage. Instead, the affirmative must show that the act of taking the drug in hopes of gaining advantage is itself immoral. [4]
My thesis: It is immoral to use performance-enhancing drugs in an attempt to gain athletic advantage, because it defeats the virtuous aims of competition. [5] Sport has many forms of worth, but its greatest benefit to its participants is the development of their character. Thus, my value is morality,[6] and my criterion is the virtuous competition. [7] Sport without a moral framework is just exercise.
Contention One: Drug use destroys fair play. [8]
One of the fundamental aspects of competition is fairness, the idea of a "level playing field." Inherent to virtuous competition is playing within the rules and abiding by referees' decisions, ensuring that both sides have, at least in theory, an equal chance of success. Although natural gifts--height, muscle mass, endurance--are inequitably distributed, there are virtuous ways to overcome the odds--and this is key--that are inherent in the competitive activity. Practice, determination, effort, on the field and in the gym. Drug use turns sport into a competition among chemists, and, mostly, a battle of bank accounts.
Contention Two: Drug use puts winning before character.
The old saw, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game," is a central axiom of virtuous competition. Drug users, by relying on chemical cocktails to improve their performance, in essence are fixing their eyes on winning above all. This has multiple effects: it makes them more likely to cheat in other instances--tripping an opponent when the ref isn't watching, knowing that the win matters above all. It could lead to boorish or selfish or even self-absorbed, limelight-hogging play. Instead of playing for the spiritual, emotional, or even physical benefits, winning becomes the only motive, and all else is sacrificed.
Contention Three: Drug use is a lazy, cheap route to success.
The most important virtue of competition comes from the challenge. By reducing the natural barrier to success, the drug abuser has to work less to achieve the same results. This not only negatively affects the individual, but harms teammates, who will be more likely to take the lazy route, and even harms society, as youth, who look up to role models, decide to imitate their indolence.
As we have seen, the aim of sport is not exercise, or fun, or even eternal glory, but the development of moral character.[9] Performance enhancing drugs, by corrupting fair play, by promoting winning above character, and by shorting the challenge, destroy the virtuous aims of competition, and thus their use is immoral. For these reasons you must vote affirmative. I now stand open for cross-examination.
(Should this or something like it ever become an actual LD topic, you might consider reading this debunking of steroids stats. Also potentially of interest: a libertarian debates in favor of PEDs.)
Monday, October 17, 2011
electoral college quotes
"Popular Myths about Popular Vote-Electoral College Splits," by Brian J. Gaines, found in PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Mar., 2001), p.75
As long as the electoral college system remains in place, the popular vote winner is essentially a curiosity. Majoritarian impulses run deep in Americans, but it should be clear that if the presidency were won by national popular vote, campaign strategies for all of the candidates would be very different. To borrow an analogy, arguing that a candidate "deserves" the presidency because he won a popular vote plurality is akin to arguing that a team "really won" a football game in which it out-gained its opponents in total yards but somehow failed to score.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
links for the Electoral College resolution
Basic info on electoral college system
Nitty-Gritty details about how the strange rules of the Electoral College could influence the 2004 Bush election
Good info on if Gore would have won election if electoral college didn’t exist
“In Defense of the Electoral College”
Vote-swapping as a consequence of the Electoral College system
What if the EC produces a tie?
Pros and Cons of The Electoral College
Nitty-Gritty details about how the strange rules of the Electoral College could influence the 2004 Bush election
Good info on if Gore would have won election if electoral college didn’t exist
“In Defense of the Electoral College”
Vote-swapping as a consequence of the Electoral College system
What if the EC produces a tie?
Pros and Cons of The Electoral College
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)