Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

LD: FAQ / Help Me / Novice Center


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#1 Dr. Fox On Socks

Dr. Fox On Socks

    In Clocks On Lox

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,023 posts
3,927
Excellent
  • Name:Coach Ian
  • School:Real World

Posted 25 January 2009 - 11:02 AM

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, 26 April 2009 - 02:32 PM.

  • 1
The information in this post is confidential. If its contents are disclosed, our lawyers will swoop down from helicopters and smash through the skylight nearest you and drag you away with a black bag over your head to our super secret headquarters where you fight to the death with other people who shared this post.

Also known as: © CC-BY-NC 3.0 + beerware (you may use my work under CC-BY-NC terms provided that you buy me a reasonably-priced beer of my choosing if we ever meet in person).

#2 demodude

demodude

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 33 posts
9
Okay

Posted 07 January 2010 - 06:28 PM

Do you have any tips for people switching into LD, I am also interested in how T and Theory work in LD.

Thanks
  • 0

#3 Poneill

Poneill

    Moderator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 981 posts
480
Excellent

Posted 10 January 2010 - 05:09 PM

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.c...ad.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.
  • 0
"This weird �coincidence of opposites� reached its peak when� Harald Nesvik� proposed George W. Bush and Tony Blair as candidates for the Nobel Peace Prize, citing their decisive role in the �war on terror�. Thus the Orwellian motto �War is Peace� finally becomes reality ... Perhaps the ultimate image of the �local population� as homo sacer is that of the American war plane flying above Afghanistan: one can never be sure whether it will be dropping bombs or food parcels." ~ Slavoj Zizek

#4 L-Dawg

L-Dawg

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts
-3
Slipping...
  • Name:Liana

Posted 14 January 2012 - 03:23 PM

Do case arguments in LD need to be general without examples unless examples are requested?
  • 0

#5 Chaos

Chaos

    Mare Incognitum

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,198 posts
2,518
Excellent

Posted 14 January 2012 - 05:59 PM

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.
  • 0

There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.


#6 flemmons3

flemmons3

    Novice

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
-1
Slipping...

Posted 10 July 2012 - 01:21 PM

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?
  • -1

#7 Chaos

Chaos

    Mare Incognitum

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,198 posts
2,518
Excellent

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:20 PM

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.
  • 0

There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.


#8 rteehas

rteehas

    Champion

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 444 posts
411
Excellent
  • School:Delbarton

Posted 12 July 2012 - 11:46 AM

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.
  • 0

"Two things fill the mind with ever-increasing wonder and awe, the more often and the more intensely the mind of thought is drawn to them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."   - Immanuel Kant 

 

 


#9 Chaos

Chaos

    Mare Incognitum

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,198 posts
2,518
Excellent

Posted 12 July 2012 - 12:32 PM

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.
  • 0

There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.


#10 Woofwoof

Woofwoof

    Champion

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 157 posts
129
Excellent
  • Name:Kevin Ryu
  • School:Magnet

Posted 11 August 2012 - 03:21 PM

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
  • 0

#11 Chaos

Chaos

    Mare Incognitum

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,198 posts
2,518
Excellent

Posted 11 August 2012 - 03:31 PM

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.
  • 0

There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.


#12 Woofwoof

Woofwoof

    Champion

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 157 posts
129
Excellent
  • Name:Kevin Ryu
  • School:Magnet

Posted 11 August 2012 - 03:46 PM

is there anything that would be like useful all year round (I have no idea how LD goes) like Badiou or cap k?
  • 0

#13 Chaos

Chaos

    Mare Incognitum

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,198 posts
2,518
Excellent

Posted 11 August 2012 - 07:02 PM

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.
  • 2

There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.


#14 kempnerod

kempnerod

    Novice

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
0
Neutral
  • Name:Obinna Dennar
  • School:I.H. Kempner High School

Posted 16 October 2012 - 03:43 PM

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?
  • 0

#15 Chaos

Chaos

    Mare Incognitum

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,198 posts
2,518
Excellent

Posted 22 October 2012 - 12:38 AM

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.
  • 1

There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.


#16 Panopticon

Panopticon

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 62 posts
19
Good

Posted 24 October 2012 - 04:56 PM

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.
  • 1

#17 NorikoSatsume

NorikoSatsume

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts
5
Okay
  • Name:Noriko Satsume
  • School:None

Posted 31 May 2013 - 06:41 AM

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.


  • -2

#18 TheCPisLD

TheCPisLD

    Champion

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 102 posts
81
Excellent

Posted 31 May 2013 - 05:38 PM

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

 

No.


  • 2

While I am not certain, I think that cutting cards unethically, like selective word-choice, furthers in-round abuse and diminishes education.


#19 NorikoSatsume

NorikoSatsume

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 48 posts
5
Okay
  • Name:Noriko Satsume
  • School:None

Posted 31 May 2013 - 05:42 PM

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.


  • 1

#20 rteehas

rteehas

    Champion

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 444 posts
411
Excellent
  • School:Delbarton

Posted 01 June 2013 - 03:05 AM

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.  


  • 4

"Two things fill the mind with ever-increasing wonder and awe, the more often and the more intensely the mind of thought is drawn to them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."   - Immanuel Kant 

 

 






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users