Introduction to Debate:
Finding your way through
Debate…
A guide to successful argumentation…
TYPES OF DEBATE
1. Value Debates (about the priority of different values)
2. Policy Debates (whether or not to take a particular action)
3. Fact Debates (proving a fact such as that UFOs exist)
4. Parliamentary Debates (based on a political premise with
persuasive speeches)
5. Panel Debates (moderator asks questions of several political
figures)
6. Public Forum Debates (teams debate controversial topics
from newspaper headlines)
Lincoln-Douglas Debate
History of the LincolnDouglas Debate
• In 1859, Senator Stephen A. Douglas was up for reelection to his Illinois Senate seat.
• His opponent was Abraham Lincoln.
• During the campaign, the two men faced off in seven
debates in different Congressional Districts (ones that
Douglas had not yet visited).
Format of the original
Lincoln-Douglas Debates
• Opening statement (1 hour) [This alternated with
each debate.]
• Rebuttal statement (1 ½ hours)
• First speaker rebuttal of second speaker (30 min.)
Modern format of LincolnDouglas Debates
• Affirmative position debater presents constructive
debate points (6 minutes)
• Negative position debater cross-examination
affirmative points (3 minutes)
• Negative position presents constructive debate points
(7 minutes)
• Affirmative position cross-examines negative points
(3 minutes)
• Affirmative position offers first rebuttal (4 minutes)
• Negative position offers first rebuttal (6 minutes)
• Affirmative position offers second rebuttal (3 minutes)
Constructing an argument
RESOLVED: Student parking
privileges should be
contingent on academic
performance.
Your job:
• Write down one
argument for each side
of the issue.
• You MUST supply a
reason (evidence) WHY
you think these
arguments are true.
Group Task:
• Together, determine what
your three main arguments
are and WHY you believe
these arguments are true.
• Everyone records your
group’s arguments on the
handout.
• Choose a moderator to
present your group’s
arguments.
Final Questions:
• Why is each argument
important?
• How does each argument
explicitly support your
side?
• How does it affect
people?
Structure of an argument:
1. Claim: a statement of possible truth
2. Warrant: gives support for the argument as to
why it is true
a. Analytical warrant: logical reasons for the truth
b. Empirical warrant: statistics and examples from the real
world
c. Psychological warrants: explains how people act in
certain situations backed up with psychological studies
3. Impact: importance of the argument in terms of
how it proves claim true or how the argument
affects people
What is a value?
• A principle, standard,
or quality considered
worthwhile or
desirable
What are some
principles that most
people value?
What is a statement of
value?
• It is more about what ought to be true
than what is actually true.
• They tend to be more subjective as
different people/cultures value different
things.
• They tend to reference larger
metaphysical concepts such as “justice”
and “morality.”
What is the difference between a
statement of value and one of fact?
• To affirm a statement of fact, you would
have to make an absolute statement
about the truth of the statement, with
NO exceptions.
• To affirm a statement of value, you
show that the statement is true “as a
matter of principal”, with small
exceptions that do not invalidate the
overall claim.
Resolved: In a Democratic society,
felons ought to retain the right to
vote.
First, analyze the text:
1. Understand the definitions of words in
the resolution.
2. Understand the type of resolution at
hand.
3. Understand the context, if any,
provided by the resolution.
4. Understand the actor and action of the
resolution.
5. Recognize the evaluative term of the
resolution.
1. Define key words:
• Resolved: In a Democratic society, felons
ought to retain the right to vote.
2. Identify the type of
resolution:
Type 1:
COMPARATIVE (“x” is more desirable than “y”)
Requires you to examine both sides and
show why one ought to preference one
thing as opposed to another thing.
2. Identify the type of
resolution:
Type 2:
ABSOLUTE (“x” action is just)
Requires you to prove that the action or
idea being put forward is correct.
2. Identify the type of
resolution:
Type 3:
SUPERLATIVE (“x” is the best form of
government)
Requires you to defend one notion as
being preferable to all other options. You
must focus on that advantages of the
notion and why the possible harms are not
that important.
2. Type of Resolution
• Resolved: In a Democratic society,
felons ought to retain the right to
vote.
3. What is the context?
Look for clauses that show the context of
the value statement. Ask these questions:
1. Does the resolution provide a specific
context?
2. How do these contexts clarify the
conflict of the resolution?
3. How do these contexts suggest
burdens for what the affirmative or
negative debater has to prove?
3. Contexts
• Resolved: In a Democratic society,
felons ought to retain the right to
vote.
4. Who is the actor? What
is the action?
The actor is the agent/person/entity that will
presumably carry out the action in the
affirmative world. (i.e.: a governement, the
individual, society, the international community,
etc.)
The action is what the actor of the resolution
will do in the affirmative world.
4. Actor/Action
• Resolved: In a Democratic society,
felons ought to retain the right to
vote.
5. What is the evaluative
term or phrase?
• Evaluative terms pose the moral, legal, or
ethical question of the resolution. For example:
– It is morally permissible to kill one innocent
person to save the lives of more innocent people.
– In the United States, jury nullification is a
legitimate check on government.
– International leaders ought to cancel the debt of
highly indebted poor countries.
– Capitalism is the most just form of economic
system.
5. Evaluative Term
• Resolved: In a Democratic society,
felons ought to retain the right to
vote.
Final Question
• Resolved: In a Democratic society,
felons ought to retain the right to
vote.
Resolution Evaluation
• These are the resolutions for our first team debate:
– Public high school students in the United States
ought not be required to pass standardized exit
exams to graduate.
– A just society ought not to use the death penalty for
a form of punishment.
– Juveniles charged with violent crimes should be
tried and punished as adults.
– In matters of collecting military intelligence, the
ends justify the means.
– Military conscription is unjust in the United States.
Resolution Evaluation
• Structure of the first debate:
• Affirmative definition of terms and first argument
• Negative definition of terms and first argument
• Affirmative rebuttal and second argument
• Negative rebuttal and second argument
• Affirmative rebuttal and third argument
• Negative rebuttal and third argument
• Affirmative summary and closing statement
• Negative summary and closing statement
3 minutes max for each stage of the debate.