homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 11:13 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Aug 22, 2014 9:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 5:29 am
Posts: 29
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Indiana
I am ashamed that nobody has started an LD resolution discussion for this year's resolution! Come on guys, last year it was started in June.

But anyway, what do you all think of the resolution? Ideas for potential values and/or criterion?

_________________
Ryan Matlock~ Region 6


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 26, 2014 2:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 2:49 am
Posts: 44
Home Schooled: Yes
Haha, good point. Congratulations for leading the rest of us!

I like the resolution. The issues are less controversial that last year's issues. A couple ideas for values that pop into my head are Pursuit of Happiness, Justice, Freedom (maybe, but maybe not since it's in the rez), and even Constitutional Rights (essentially Individual Rights, but more definitively the rights which are explained in the Constitution). As for VC's, the only one I can think of would be Balance for NEG. But then, I have to do more research . . . ;)

My question is, Where is the conflict?

_________________
"The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound. Fortunately. . . modern education produces no effect whatsoever." ~ Lady Bracknell The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 25, 2013 5:29 am
Posts: 29
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Indiana
HannahMiele wrote:
My question is, Where is the conflict?

Good question.

I think in most cases, the conflict will be determined by the definitions. If freedom is defined as the freedom we have in America, and equity is defined as socialism, then there will certainly be some conflict in terms of economic policy. Of course, I can't imagine any neg team actually arguing that socialism is better than freedom and winning. I imagine most negatives will move to define equity as fair and just treatment of all. How does that contrast with freedom? Well, depending on Aff's definition of freedom, freedom can actually be a bad thing. If everyone is free to do whatever, than it can harm fair and just treatment.

Again, it's ALL in the definitions.

_________________
Ryan Matlock~ Region 6


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 1:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 4:02 am
Posts: 55
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Florida
Just throwing this idea out there:

Something I've used successfully several times in my LD career has been what I've taken to calling the "Analytical Case." I'm calling it this, primarily because I have no idea what else to call it. Here's a basic explanation.

In language, an analytical statement is defined technically as when the predicate contains no information not already present in the subject. To put it in more simple terms, it's when a statement is true by definition. Some examples are, "The red barn is red." Well...duh. That's true by definition. "There are no married bachelors." The term" bachelor" refers to an unmarried man, and thus asserting "Bachelors are not married men" is a statement that's true by definition–or analytical.

The aff case that got me all the way to Nats finals and went undefeated in outrounds was an analytical case. The same with my neg case Moral Obligation year. So just a thought: if you can manipulate the definitions enough, and make it seem reasonable enough, you can literally assert that the resolution is true, or false, by definition. Just something to think about. If ya'll would like me to post my analytical cases I probably can...

_________________
–Chris

2012-2013: LD, 14th at Regionals
2013-2014: LD, 2nd at Nationals
2014-2015: LD, 1st at Regionals

https://contendacademy.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:03 am 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
mendicant2 wrote:
Just throwing this idea out there:

Something I've used successfully several times in my LD career has been what I've taken to calling the "Analytical Case." I'm calling it this, primarily because I have no idea what else to call it. Here's a basic explanation.

In language, an analytical statement is defined technically as when the predicate contains no information not already present in the subject. To put it in more simple terms, it's when a statement is true by definition. Some examples are, "The red barn is red." Well...duh. That's true by definition. "There are no married bachelors." The term" bachelor" refers to an unmarried man, and thus asserting "Bachelors are not married men" is a statement that's true by definition–or analytical.

The aff case that got me all the way to Nats finals and went undefeated in outrounds was an analytical case. The same with my neg case Moral Obligation year. So just a thought: if you can manipulate the definitions enough, and make it seem reasonable enough, you can literally assert that the resolution is true, or false, by definition. Just something to think about. If ya'll would like me to post my analytical cases I probably can...


"Officially" (whatever that means) it's called a tautology!

I'd be a bit careful of them though, because, in my opinion, it's cheap to interpret the res at tautological.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 2:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 4:02 am
Posts: 55
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Florida
Drew wrote:
"Officially" (whatever that means) it's called a tautology!


Well, sort of. A tautology and an analytical statement I believe to be slightly different. I know the Logical Positivists defined them as slightly differently, which is the only reason I'm not using that word specifically.

_________________
–Chris

2012-2013: LD, 14th at Regionals
2013-2014: LD, 2nd at Nationals
2014-2015: LD, 1st at Regionals

https://contendacademy.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 3:18 am 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
mendicant2 wrote:
Drew wrote:
"Officially" (whatever that means) it's called a tautology!


Well, sort of. A tautology and an analytical statement I believe to be slightly different. I know the Logical Positivists defined them as slightly differently, which is the only reason I'm not using that word specifically.


Interesting! It seemed like a tautology, but I'm sure I'm missing something. What is the difference exactly?

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 16, 2014 1:37 pm 
Offline
Mr. Grumpy
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:37 pm
Posts: 209
Home Schooled: Yes
Even if it's not technically a tautology, it would seem to create the same logical invalidities and thus not be the best interp for debating. Unless you're running like a Gov Rez K.

Given that the rez is created for two sides (as all are), I tend to think we should eschew interps that leave one side in the dust and favor f the most obviously fair one, that allows for debate to happen on the content level instead of solely the interp level (not that T is bad. I just like content a tad bit more.)

_________________
Graham Stacy:
NCFCA & Stoa Alumnus
Author: COG Debate
Coach: ResolvedFL - Sigma Society
USF - Class of '19 - Applied Mathematics


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 8:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 2:49 am
Posts: 44
Home Schooled: Yes
mendicant2 wrote:
Drew wrote:
"Officially" (whatever that means) it's called a tautology!


Well, sort of. A tautology and an analytical statement I believe to be slightly different. I know the Logical Positivists defined them as slightly differently, which is the only reason I'm not using that word specifically.


I'm still trying to develop my debate strategy/philosophy, so I am curious about how to argue analytical statements. How would you explain that it's not tautology if your opponent were to call it that in a round?

What do you all think is the best presentation of equity for the negative? Should we try to bring in social justice? Or simply restrict the term to "fair" competition in the market?
How should the affirmative define equity? Should we just present a simple definition or try to explain it in more detail?

_________________
"The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound. Fortunately. . . modern education produces no effect whatsoever." ~ Lady Bracknell The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:19 am 
Offline
Forerunner
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:45 am
Posts: 1090
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Locations are too mainstream
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Even if it's not technically a tautology, it would seem to create the same logical invalidities and thus not be the best interp for debating. Unless you're running like a Gov Rez K.

Given that the rez is created for two sides (as all are), I tend to think we should eschew interps that leave one side in the dust and favor f the most obviously fair one, that allows for debate to happen on the content level instead of solely the interp level (not that T is bad. I just like content a tad bit more.)


Agreed. Regardless of how well you argue it, I feel it takes away from what the debate could be and is essentially, still a cheap interp. Similar to TP where sometimes its better not to run a squirrel case in order to have a better debate.

_________________
NCFCA debate and speech alumni
Former homeschooler
Joel Thomas
Liberty University


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 05, 2014 11:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 2:49 am
Posts: 44
Home Schooled: Yes
I have a more general question about how to view the relationship between the resolution and your value.

My view of LD was that the resolution was a position that you accepted (or rejected) because it supported a particular idea (your value). We take our position to support a higher idea, like Justice, Equality, or Prosperity. In essence, your side of the resolution should lead to your value. Whichever side proves that their position upholds the more important idea should win.

Lately, I've come across the idea (from several people) that it's the other way around: your value should lead to the values in the resolution. For example, you value Limited Government to get to Freedom. The problem I see with this understanding is that even though it shows how freedom is achieved, it doesn't demonstrate why freedom should be achieved (i.e. why freedom is important, or more important than equity). However, since I'm meeting more people that view LD this way, I'm wondering if my original impression of LD is wrong.

Thoughts?

_________________
"The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound. Fortunately. . . modern education produces no effect whatsoever." ~ Lady Bracknell The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 12, 2014 8:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2010 3:59 am
Posts: 40
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Earth
HannahMiele wrote:
Lately, I've come across the idea (from several people) that it's the other way around: your value should lead to the values in the resolution. For example, you value Limited Government to get to Freedom. The problem I see with this understanding is that even though it shows how freedom is achieved, it doesn't demonstrate why freedom should be achieved (i.e. why freedom is important, or more important than equity). However, since I'm meeting more people that view LD this way, I'm wondering if my original impression of LD is wrong.

Thoughts?


You are right. Lincoln-Douglas Debate was designed to have a resolution that would prompt the presenters to discuss their values. The resolution acts as a medium to bring out the greater issue of whether Justice is greater than Freedom.
This other interpretation takes the view that the objective is to determine whether the resolution is true or false, but if this were the purpose then it would make more sense for the entire format to be opened up to more TP-like elements rather than isolating the debate to values and ideas.

_________________
'What breaks but never falls, what falls but never breaks? You have 30 minutes Kevin.'
-Slater, TED DEKkER's Thr3e


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2014 12:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 4:02 am
Posts: 55
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Florida
HannahMiele wrote:
I have a more general question about how to view the relationship between the resolution and your value.

My view of LD was that the resolution was a position that you accepted (or rejected) because it supported a particular idea (your value). We take our position to support a higher idea, like Justice, Equality, or Prosperity. In essence, your side of the resolution should lead to your value. Whichever side proves that their position upholds the more important idea should win.

Lately, I've come across the idea (from several people) that it's the other way around: your value should lead to the values in the resolution. For example, you value Limited Government to get to Freedom. The problem I see with this understanding is that even though it shows how freedom is achieved, it doesn't demonstrate why freedom should be achieved (i.e. why freedom is important, or more important than equity). However, since I'm meeting more people that view LD this way, I'm wondering if my original impression of LD is wrong.

Thoughts?


I'm of the opinion that there are no real rules in LD. I've seen run, and have run, in some instances, all sorts of crazy cases. I've seen people treat LD like TP, and propose several plans that follow from an affirmation of the resolution. I've seen people run Kritiks and argue that the resolutions doesn't make sense. I've seen people run both of the options you've mentioned above, and I think they're both perfectly valid.

To me, I find it difficult to accept hard and fast rules in terms of what the content of a debate is supposed to be. In other words, I see no reason why a discussion of policy is bad in LD, and a discussion of philosophy and values is bad in TP. This is the view often taken in the NFL (now the NSDA). In the NFL, there is no "policy vs. value" distinction, at least not much. The primary distinction between LD and TP is merely the format difference.

So long answer short, I think both are fine. Personally, I find the second option to be a harder battle to win, but not impossible. I see no reason why it's not valid to say, for example, "limited government is so great that we need to uphold anything that follows from it. And look, the Resolution is a proposition that logically follows from valuing limited government, thus let's uphold the Res." That seems, unless I'm just completely missing something, a perfectly logical train of thought. Sure, it's not "traditional" LD, and so some people might complain that you're "not following the purpose of the format," or something along those lines. I would simply ask who the ultimate determiner of this purpose is, and why it is that we should hold out against the vast majority of the debate community (like the NFL) with this opinion.

I hope that somehow helps.

_________________
–Chris

2012-2013: LD, 14th at Regionals
2013-2014: LD, 2nd at Nationals
2014-2015: LD, 1st at Regionals

https://contendacademy.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2014 12:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 4:02 am
Posts: 55
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Florida
impromptu_LDer wrote:
You are right. Lincoln-Douglas Debate was designed to have a resolution that would prompt the presenters to discuss their values. The resolution acts as a medium to bring out the greater issue of whether Justice is greater than Freedom.
This other interpretation takes the view that the objective is to determine whether the resolution is true or false, but if this were the purpose then it would make more sense for the entire format to be opened up to more TP-like elements rather than isolating the debate to values and ideas.


Wait. If the point isn't to determine whether the Resolution is true or false, why do we say we "affirm" or "deny" the resolution? In other words, if we aren't affirming or denying the truth of the resolution, what are we affirming (or denying)?

Shouldn't we just say, if you're right about the purpose of LD, "now that we know the basic arena of the discussion, let's talk about my value" and never return to the Resolution again?

_________________
–Chris

2012-2013: LD, 14th at Regionals
2013-2014: LD, 2nd at Nationals
2014-2015: LD, 1st at Regionals

https://contendacademy.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2014 4:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 2:49 am
Posts: 44
Home Schooled: Yes
mendicant2 wrote:
To me, I find it difficult to accept hard and fast rules in terms of what the content of a debate is supposed to be. In other words, I see no reason why a discussion of policy is bad in LD, and a discussion of philosophy and values is bad in TP. This is the view often taken in the NFL (now the NSDA). In the NFL, there is no "policy vs. value" distinction, at least not much. The primary distinction between LD and TP is merely the format difference.


I would have to disagree on this point; I think the format difference is not the only significant difference between LD and TP. Team Policy, by its very name, implies a discussion (if not a proposal) of policy. Such discussion of policy requires thorough background knowledge and presentation of evidence. Thus, teams have 2 members to allow breadth of knowledge, and the round is longer to 1) allow each speaker to speak and 2) allow evidence to be read.
On the other hand, Lincoln-Douglas implies a discussion of important ideas. Those ideas are best presented concisely, requiring the effort of only one person. Thus, LD has shorter rounds.
I'm not saying that details can't cross - TPers can have values (ahem, I mean standards) that their plans achieve, and LDers should present realistic examples. However, the formating is meant to serve the core purpose of each style of debate.


mendicant2 wrote:
I see no reason why it's not valid to say, for example, "limited government is so great that we need to uphold anything that follows from it. And look, the Resolution is a proposition that logically follows from valuing limited government, thus let's uphold the Res." That seems, unless I'm just completely missing something, a perfectly logical train of thought.


I can see perhaps the validity of the argument, but (like you said) it would be very hard to win. The only time we should support anything coming from an idea is if the idea is perfect. If it's not perfect, then there are some propositions we should not support, and how do we know the Resolution isn't one of them? Another line of argument would be, "how exactly does the Resolution come from valuing limited government?" Either you (meaning AFF) are just valuing freedom because a limited government would (not a strong position, in my opinion), or there are really other reasons you value freedom.

mendicant2 wrote:
impromptu_LDer wrote:
This other interpretation takes the view that the objective is to determine whether the resolution is true or false, but if this were the purpose then it would make more sense for the entire format to be opened up to more TP-like elements rather than isolating the debate to values and ideas.


Wait. If the point isn't to determine whether the Resolution is true or false, why do we say we "affirm" or "deny" the resolution? In other words, if we aren't affirming or denying the truth of the resolution, what are we affirming (or denying)?

Shouldn't we just say, if you're right about the purpose of LD, "now that we know the basic arena of the discussion, let's talk about my value" and never return to the Resolution again?


I do agree with you here: in LD, we are trying to determine whether the resolution is true or false. I think the idea meant by impromptu_LDer is that the debate should not center on whether the resolution is. Sometimes, people argue as if the resolution says, "Resolved: in the realm of economics, freedom is valued above equity." All you have to do is show that people value freedom above equity, and you've won. However, the question is not what is currently valued, but what should be.

_________________
"The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound. Fortunately. . . modern education produces no effect whatsoever." ~ Lady Bracknell The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 15 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited