Jump to content
Dr. Fox On Socks

LD: FAQ / Help Me / Novice Center

Recommended Posts

This is the Lincoln-Douglas Debate Help Me and Novice Center rolled into one thread. If you have a simple question that you think can be answered with one or two posts, then ask it here, otherwise make a new thread for it (such as "LD: How do I make something a Voting Issue?") and if the question can help other people, it will be linked in this thread.

 

Don't worry about asking questions that you think may be simple or silly; this is the internet, we don't know who you are unless you tell us and the whole reason this forum exists is to help debaters learn from people who are willing to help. We were all novices once...

 

Advice for Judging LD

 

Commonly cited sources:

Immanuel Kant (Philosopher)

Edited by Fox On Socks
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you have any tips for people switching into LD, I am also interested in how T and Theory work in LD.

 

Thanks

 

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=994673

 

Start there. I'll answer your question about T/Theory later, but for now just understand that you need to flesh out arguments more in the first speech you read the shell since there's only 1 more speech and because the norms are not as developed in LD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Examples are completely optional. You can do them if you want to, but you can also choose to use none.

 

If your average judge fails to understand complex arguments, examples are a useful way of illustrating these arguments. Otherwise you're wasting your time.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're doing it wrong.

 

Don't pick your value criterion combo by choosing your favorite value and then mix and matching it with your favorite criterion. You need to think about it as though it's a coherent whole. Orient the entire case around the value, don't try to force the case around the confines of two independent things that you thought of earlier. The criterion is the logical extension of the value that serves as the weighing mechanism between it and the resolution. It is not a completely different part of the debate. You shouldn't find your criterion by thinking about it as itself, find it by thinking about different implications of what the value might mean.

 

Those two things could probably have a connection, but it would be very tenuous and it would be clear that they didn't really match to pretty much anyone. Don't use both.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, can anyone give me a couple of links between the Value of Human Dignity and the Criterion of Quality of life, just to help me get started?

 

In addition to what Chaos said, it is more common to have a value of morality. Otherwise, you are probably just going to get into a stupid debate on the values level, wen you should really be focusing on the criterion/contentions.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Worst example of value level debate I ever heard: varsity finals at a SD tournament:

"Well being outweighs morality because it includes morality and also things like health and quality of life".

 

I'm pretty sure that this argument actually won the debate. I love everything.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

 

I have originally done policy but I have to switch to LD. Is there any policy k related stuff that I should save

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't throw anything away, if that's what you mean. I didn't do circuit and haven't looked at next year's topics, so I've got no clue what will be most useful. But even if you don't think something will be useful, just keep it in a tub at school somewhere.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you should read a generic argument all year round, if that's what you're planning. Each topic has a different strategic landscape and it's unlikely the same K would exploit the best niches of multiple environments. I would start with the topic and then work backwards. This doesn't mean that you would focus only on the topic research first while disregarding potential connections to already known K authors, because that would be too time consuming, but it does mean that you don't try to force a certain argument onto the topic before examining the advantages that others would have.

 

Generic Ks work well in policy because you get really good at articulating a certain argument and explaining its interaction with the topic and the common assumptions that almost all affirmative cases share. But that's far more difficult to do when the ontological and epistemological assumptions of cases vary widely from team to team, and those cases change every two months. The root literature has utility on all the topics, but if the reason that you're asking about this is that your goal is to stick with a certain set of arguments all year long, I would advise against it.

 

It's even worth considering developing multiple negative strategies to use against different types of affirmatives, honestly.

 

That's partly why it's difficult for me to discuss what will be useful for you, as well - all of the topics are very different. I don't think any one set of arguments would work well on all of them, so you'll just have to deal with many different kinds. That said, I think naturalism can be made to work on many different cases, and so can Nietzsche type arguments. But I still doubt that either would work well for all of the topics you'll have to deal with.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In LD, is the kritik responsive to the AC since it critizes it or should I read the K, but go down the case as well. Another question is, is it a good idea to read the K and a NC in the 1NR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Diverse strategies are almost always better, especially on the negative where you can spread the 4 minute 1AR beyond their capabilities.

 

Covering the case should be higher priority than reading both a K and an NC. You want to specifically answer anything tricky they come up with.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definitely agree with what Chaos said. In LD, the K is often perceived more seriously or as more legitimate when run as a 1 off strategy. Also, it makes it easier when running pre-fiat arguments to get out of theory. For example if you run a pre-fiat K plus an NC, it makes it seem like your pre-fiat argument isn't as genuine. Also, you're more susceptible to theory arguments as you're not only going for your pre-fiat arguments, but also an NC.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to what Chaos said, it is more common to have a value of morality. Otherwise, you are probably just going to get into a stupid debate on the values level, wen you should really be focusing on the criterion/contentions.

I disagree. The debate should be all about the value.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

Riveting Response. Allow me to elaborate:

 

The value debate is the core of the entire argument. Your contentions prove your criterion, and your criterion achieves your value. If you defeat your opponent's value, their contentions are moot points because they're proofs of an incorrect value. Secondly, the most philosophy rests in the value while the most statistical analysis rests in contentions (if your contentions happen to be matters of evidence). If the debate is all about the value-clash (i.e: util v. categorical imperative), then you get a really good, heavily philosophy-oriented debate going. If all you do is talk about "hard evidence", you get a boring debate over numbers and impact calculus going. If you simply copout on the value debate and choose "morality" or "justice", then you're simply choosing catch-all values to avoid saying anything controversial so you can retreat back to concrete analysis of evidence rather than abstract thought, intelligent discussion, or creativity.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Riveting Response. Allow me to elaborate:

 

The value debate is the core of the entire argument. Your contentions prove your criterion, and your criterion achieves your value. If you defeat your opponent's value, their contentions are moot points because they're proofs of an incorrect value. Secondly, the most philosophy rests in the value while the most statistical analysis rests in contentions (if your contentions happen to be matters of evidence). If the debate is all about the value-clash (i.e: util v. categorical imperative), then you get a really good, heavily philosophy-oriented debate going. If all you do is talk about "hard evidence", you get a boring debate over numbers and impact calculus going. If you simply copout on the value debate and choose "morality" or "justice", then you're simply choosing catch-all values to avoid saying anything controversial so you can retreat back to concrete analysis of evidence rather than abstract thought, intelligent discussion, or creativity.

The way I see it, the really engaging values debate occurs on the criterion level, and not on the "value" level.  Even the examples you give, util v. deont, are examples of criterions, not values.  I love philosophy debate, which is why I think the value should, in general, be morality.  Otherwise you have stupid definitional debates between justice and morality as well as even stupider debates between morality and other values, which morality most likely contains.  You concretize your value on the criterion level, for example util is a specific moral theory.  Oftentimes, using other values is a cop out to avoid actually engaging the criterion flow and philosophical debate.  

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I see it, the really engaging values debate occurs on the criterion level, and not on the "value" level. Even the examples you give, util v. deont, are examples of criterions, not values. I love philosophy debate, which is why I think the value should, in general, be morality. Otherwise you have stupid definitional debates between justice and morality as well as even stupider debates between morality and other values, which morality most likely contains. You concretize your value on the criterion level, for example util is a specific moral theory. Oftentimes, using other values is a cop out to avoid actually engaging the criterion flow and philosophical debate.

My problem with thatvis valuing morality makes no sense. All that means is "morality is good". Yeah, no fuckin shit, morality is literally the distinction between right and wrong. Of course we're trying to achieve some degree of morality in our debate, but the value is there to tell us what the definition of morality is. Valuing morality is just redundant. It defeats the entire point of having a value

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It defeats the entire point of having a value.

 

Agreed, that's why I'm for the abolition of values and in their place focusing clash on the value criterion/standard/burden. Let's be honest, does anybody really want a morality vs. justice (or governmental legitimacy) file dumping contest every round?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My problem with thatvis valuing morality makes no sense. All that means is "morality is good". Yeah, no fuckin shit, morality is literally the distinction between right and wrong. Of course we're trying to achieve some degree of morality in our debate, but the value is there to tell us what the definition of morality is. Valuing morality is just redundant. It defeats the entire point of having a value

Actually, this proves that valuing morality is the only thing that makes sense.  What ought you value?  That which is good, of course.  The value just describes what we are aiming at, which would be being moral.  The criterion is a way of achieving that, so it makes sense that the contextualization is done on that level.  Otherwise, you have an assumed but never stated starting point that underlies all of your debating, but is never supported or explicitly linked.  There's a reason why values debate has become almost synonymous with criterion debate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My position is in-between both of yours. I'm okay with having morality as a value, but I think doing so is tautological. However, so long as someone follows that tautological statement with metaethical arguments about what morality truly is, I think that doing so makes a lot of sense. I think that sometimes valuing morality directly is done stupidly in order to avoid clash with an opponent's claims, but I also think that valuing morality directly makes the connection from the resolution to the arguments of the debate much more clear, and prevents obfuscation and also prevents people from getting locked too far into specific claims about what is good and what is bad.

I have problems with the value-criterion format overall, since it forces people to have a certain predefined number of steps to their argument, and also for other reasons. Because I see the V/C format as the underlying problem, that probably partially explains why I'm so tolerant of having morality as a value even though I don't believe that doing so is incredibly helpful. I think that the legitimacy of using morality as a value depends mostly on factors contextual to the round and that, just like almost any other argument choice, morality can be used as a value in both ways which are productive and in ways which are counterproductive.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×