LD DEBATE TIMES 6 minutes for affirmative speech 3 minutes for cross-examination 7 minutes for negative speech 3 minutes for cross-examination 4 minutes for first aff. rebuttal 6 minutes for negative rebuttal 3 minutes for the last aff. rebuttal 4 minutes of preparation time JUDGING LD DEBATE THE BASICS OF LD DEBATE Obviously, it is a one-on-one debate. The affirmative tries to give good reasons for the resolution—FOR THE RESOLUTION AS A WHOLE, RARELY A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. Examples are almost always used to show a specific instance of what the debater is discussing—not as a strategic, specific case on the resolution. The negative tries to give good reasons against the affirmative case/the resolution (again, the aff case is almost always the same as the resolution). Typically, the debaters argue that you should decide the round based upon the value (an ideal such as “saving lives”) and criteria (a mechanism for weighing the value such as utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number) that each side presents. Example The resolution is “RESOLVED: Security is more important than Civil Liberties.” The affirmative side will emphasize a value/criteria focused on security/saving lives/protection. The negative side will emphasize a value/criteria focused on freedom/rights/liberties. The two sides should clash with each other’s arguments and demonstrate why their side is more compelling. Detailed Example The resolution is “RESOLVED: When in conflict, public health ought to be prioritized over intellectual property rights. Affirmative Case: Value: Saving Lives is good. Criteria: Utilitarianism, greatest good for the greatest number. Contention I: Public health is key to saving lives and providing the greatest good for the greatest number. Contention II: Intellectual Property Rights leaves lives in danger violating utilitarianism. IPR means drugs don’t get sold inexpensively and so many people die. Negative case: Value: Agree that saving lives is good. Criteria: Profit Incentive is critical to saving lives. Contention I: IPR profit incentive leads to new drugs that save lives. Contention II: IPR profit incentive provides the greatest good. NICHOLAS THOMAS’S DESCRIPTION OF THESE LD CONCEPTS A brief explanation of LD debate: 1. A "value" is an advantage. 2. A criterion can work one of two ways: a. "value criteria" are basically plans - only they are plans with solvency advocates who have been dead for 300 years. For example, a criterion like "Locke's social contract" is a proposal to achieve certain values through use of a liberal (consent-based), legislative government devoted to protecting the property interests of its citizens. b. "voting criteria" are not like plans at all - the best analogy is a critic's judging philosophy. When LD was first invented, the desire to move away from policy debate led its creators to suggest a way that the paradigm adopted by the critic could become a subject for debate. Instead of learning that one's critic was a "policymaker," etc. the debaters would suggest paradigms for adjudicating the debate. In LD, these criteria are "weighing mechanisms" like utilitarianism (use value/greatest good for greatest number of people/calculation of goodness or badness of an action), deontology (the means justify the ends - Kant), teleology (the means justify the ends - commonly associated with utilitarianism), cost/benefit analysis, and futurism (what's best for future generations). When you debate LDers, they will try to confuse you about which type of criteria they are using: I encourage them to attempt to make their "plans" look like "weighing mechanisms" and vice-versa. 3. The most valuable case wins the debate. The criterion is used either to establish that one case can achieve a value (value criteria/plan) or that one value is preferable in weight to another (voting criteria/weighing mechanism). 4. The resolution is not "parametricized" or proven by a single example. Rather, your goal is to show that the resolution should be generally affirmed or negated as a principle. This means that you must extend proof (analysis, empirical examples, statistical data) that would convince someone of the viability of the resolution or its null as an abstract belief. 5. The negative most commonly is thought of as having the same burdens as the affirmative. In nearly all debates, the negative also presents a value and criterion and the negative's burden in disproving the resolution is equal to the affirmative's burden to prove the resolution as a general principle. MAKING DECISIONS IN LD DEBATES List out the arguments for and against the topic. Do the arguments for outweigh the arguments against? Be sure to consider the value and criteria presented in deciding which side's arguments are more important. Does the affirmative case support the topic? USE YOUR NOTES OF THEIR ARGUMENTS. Explain in, at least, a paragraph, which issues convinced you to vote the way that you did. If you need more room, ask the ballot table for an additional ballot. Here is an example decision you might make: "The negative established that promoting democracy winds up just imposing economic hardship on countries. The affirmative tried to focus on freedom as an imperative. The negative, demonstrated, however, that promotion of democracy actually winds up undermining freedom because corporations dominate and undermine individual voices. In the end, I concluded that democracy promotion is unfortunately not a good ideal." Explain your decision. USE COMPLETE, CLEAR SENTENCES. "I voted negative because they showed that democratic ideals . . ." Explain why you did not vote for the arguments of the losing team. Try to point to arguments that the winning team made that convinced you against these arguments. "The affirmative arguments about democracy helping freedom ignored the three negative arguments showing . . . " Explain what the losing team needed to do to win the debate. "The affirmative needed better analysis showing that democracy has empirically helped people."