Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ZalmayKhalilzad

National Circuit Ld

Recommended Posts

As of right now, my schools competes on the local circuit for LD, but we may do some TFA/TOC tournaments but I don't really know how a case is constructed or how to actually argue.

 

I've watched a few rounds, but some things seem confusing, like the use of Policy terms like "Solvency" and "X Off"

 

Right now case structure is usually just:

 

Intro

 

Value:

 

Definition

 

Reason for Value

 

Criterion :

 

Definition

 

 

Value tie-in

 

Framework:

 

More definitions

 

Burdens

 

Contention 1,2,3.......

 

No card reading, just analytics and references to evidence. (According to X __________, instead of Tag, Author, then Card.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As of right now, my schools competes on the local circuit for LD, but we may do some TFA/TOC tournaments but I don't really know how a case is constructed or how to actually argue.

 

I've watched a few rounds, but some things seem confusing, like the use of Policy terms like "Solvency" and "X Off"

 

Right now case structure is usually just:

 

Intro

 

Value:

 

Definition

 

Reason for Value

 

Criterion :

 

Definition

 

 

Value tie-in

 

Framework:

 

More definitions

 

Burdens

 

Contention 1,2,3.......

 

No card reading, just analytics and references to evidence. (According to X __________, instead of Tag, Author, then Card.)

By intro do you mean a quote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the nat circuit in ld, they generally don't have a quote at the top or an interesting intro, they just say "I affirm." or "I negate." and go off into either the v/vc or the fw debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For reference, here's a copy of my NC from the "assistance" topic earlier this year.

 

It's somewhat short (word count 564), but it was also awesome. I prefer short cases because I like spending a lot of time destroying my opponent's arguments.

 

I negate.

 

Part One is The Resolution

 

1. Princeton University's WordNet defines assist as “the activity of contributing to the fulfillment of a need or furtherance of an effort or purposeâ€. This interpretation is the most predictable because it uses terminology contextual to the resolution, and predictability is a prerequisite to debate.

 

2. Merriam Webster's Dictionary defines need as “a physiological or psychological requirement for the well-being of an organismâ€. This interpretation provides the only stable basis for debate because while people's wants are many and varied and may even contradict, their needs are not.

 

3. Princeton University's WordNet defines moral obligation as “an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrongâ€. Narrower definitions of morality based on specific philosophies are unpredictable and preclude debates between competing schools of thought and thus destroy fairness and education.

 

4. Webster's College Dictionary defines individual as “a single human being, as distinguished from a groupâ€. This interpretation best reflects the term's philosophical history and best fits the general meaning of the word.

 

5. Based on the wording of the resolution, I need only prove that individuals do not have an obligation to assist others, which is a logically distinct position from proving that they have an obligation to not assist others. Thus proving assistance amoral is sufficient to negate.

 

 

Part Two is The Value

 

I value moral value itself. An abstract moral principle isn't moral unless it's believed by the actor.

 

This is an essential constraint of moral evaluation for two reasons.

 

1. Perspectivism – Rejecting one's own moral principles displaces moral value from one's worldview entirely, which is functionally nihilistic and inherently immoral. Thus an adopted moral code should be considered objective when making moral evaluations.

 

2. The Ought-Should Gap – Obligations rooted in abstract external principles could be rationally ignored and the moral system would thus be self negating. Only already-internalized reasons to act can generate normative force.

 

 

Part Three is the Criterion

 

My criterion is moral intent. You should only ever be expected to do the best you can with the moral knowledge and resources available to you. The only true and objective moral obligation for the individual is to attempt to adhere their own moral principles as best as they can.

 

The resolution is about an action, the action of assistance, which necessarily entails an end state of bettering those in need. My argument is that end states are entirely amoral. We should assess the morality of others only through the consistency of their moral beliefs with the actions they attempt.

 

Just as the insane shouldn't be held to moral standards based on reason, neither should those who are unaware of the truth of certain moral arguments. Morality is necessarily makes it relative to the moral arguments that we're aware of. Otherwise it would have no applicable purpose within our lives because we have no way of assessing morality external to our own judgements.

 

Just as paraplegics shouldn't be held to obligations to rescue those in danger, those who fail to assist people in need aren't immoral. Accidents happen, but failure isn't immoral if the intent is to help. Holding an individual to an obligation that they may or may not be capable of fulfilling degrades the individual, but also degrades morality itself because it makes morality useless for real world decision making.

 

You should thus negate.

 

This did well. I only lost with this case when I had idiot judges who had no idea what they were doing and who automatically voted affirmative for fear that I justified relativism.

I'm happy to say that even then I only lost 3 rounds in two months. I love this case. It has two mechanisms which both independently preclude an affirmative win. It's cool.

 

My formatting is somewhat atypical, but it's close enough to standard that everyone would understand what you were doing. The most unique thing about this case is its lack of carded evidence. I purposely avoided using carded evidence because analytical arguments can be made shorter and more obviously relevant than carded evidence. Most circuit people will not do this and if you want to win with circuit judges you should use carded evidence. This case is also atypical because of its use of analogies and examples (which I had to do in order to get n00b judges to understand and internalize the underlying ideas of the case) and because it is oriented around a primarily "defensive" argument. Lastly, I spent a lot of time on definitions, that was mostly setting up for common oncase arguments I would read and against possible responses the affirmative would make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...