|





 

 

—

 
 
tim@extemptopicanalysis.com
http://www.extemptopicanalysis.com/LD%20Debate.asp

What is LD Debate?
PowerPoint

Introduction To LD Debate
Lecture Notes

Trends in LD
Lecture Notes

Lincoln-Douglas Case Writing

Lecture Notes
K 
 


(. Introduction
2. Resolutional Interpretation
3. Standard (Value/Criteria)
4. Contentions
5. Conclusions
]

  


 Cases do not win rounds but provide an excellent foundation in

order to win rounds
 Prove what you must prove in order to win
 Anticipate what the other side may say
 Select the strongest arguments within the realm of the resolution
± don¶t select the weakest!
 Each argument should be an independent reason why the judge
should vote for you
]

  


 They are ever changing documents!

 They should NOT be the same tournament to tournament
 Plan out responses to what people have said to you.
 Go through many drafts!
 Subjects and verbs are your friends ± fragments are not.
 Use rhetoric
 Internal structure makes all judges happy ± words like ³First, Second,
Next, Sub point A, Sub point B etc)
_

 
*  

— 
   
   
   
 





 
   
 
  
      



       
    


  
 
 
   
    




    

 


   


   


    
   


 
  


 
 
_ _

M I affirm/I negate

M State the resolution word for word

ü  ü

w(

According to United States Supreme Court

Justice Byron White,
"[The] basic purpose of [the 4th] Amendment, as
recognized in countless decisions of this Court,
is to safeguard the privacy and security of
individuals against arbitrary invasions by
governmental officials."
Byron White, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Opinion of the Court, New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 ((985) pg. 335.

Because of the critical role of the 4th

Amendment, I must affirm today¶s resolution
Resolved: Drug testing of high school
extracurricular activity participants is justified.
w2

³The only obligation I have a right to assume, is to do at

any time what I think right.´
Thus wrote Henry David Thoreau in his (9th century
essay *




. Thoreau not only
described the role an individual must fulfill as a
conscientious member of society, he also described the
dire consequences lived by those who never attempt to
sway societies conscience.
Thus, I stand resolved: ³An individual¶s obligation to
society ought to outweigh societies obligation to the
individual.´
V 

 

_



*  

Framework/Resolutional Analysis/Observations

Here is the most logical place to put any

information or arguments pertinent to
understanding how you are viewing the
resolution. The easiest way to transition from
here is just to say, "The resolution requires
further clarification" or "My position requires
further clarification."
 
 


Give definitions of the words in the resolution, and no

others. Anything else that needs to be defined should
be when the new word or concept is presented in case.
Also, don't define every word in the resolution, only the
big ones. Lastly, in the case of resolutional phrases (as
opposed to single words) like 'democratic ideals,'
always try to find a definition of the phrase, rather than
combining the definitions of the individual words. If you
can't find that, though, defining the parts is okay.
]

  

 Don¶t be abusive with your definitions (use the
reasonability standard here)
 Define only key words and phrases you don¶t have to
define ALL words in the resolution ± some people
tend to go overboard.
 Must have complete source citations (even if you
don¶t read them)
 Use contextual definitions whenever possible
 Give implications
 You might want to discuss what the word is not.
 
 
_ _

(. Define key terms

2. Source for definitions

Use definitions to strategically set up case

Framework ± observations and analysis

 Used to narrow or specify position and justify it

 Used to decide burdens in the round

    

Resolved: A just society ought not use the death

penalty as a form of punishment.

 A just society: this means that we are not tied down

to proving that the application of the death penalty in
a certain time or place is good, but that a just society
ought or ought not use the death penalty.
 Cannot assume the resolution has some kind of
implicit limit (i.e. ³We should only talk about examples
from America.´) without some kind of textual clue. In
this topic, there is no geographic context.
 What context IS implicit in the resolution: The actor is
almost certainly a government or ³state´ in the just
society.
EXAMPLES
w

V 


 


 





 

For clarity I offer the following definition:

Lisa Anderson defines Sanctuary cities as cities that adopt a don¶t

ask, don¶t tell policy towards the immigration status of people
when it comes to most municipal benefits and services. The
policies generally don¶t extend to those arrested for criminal
offenses or convicted crimes.
Anderson, Lisa, ³'Sanctuary cities' draw fire, no light,´ Chicago Tribune, Tribune national correspondent, December (2, 2007,

The implication of this definition is that crime isn¶t going to be

perpetuated through sanctuary cities. The government still has
the ability to punish illegal immigrants through prison or
deportation if they commit a criminal offense.
w2

V 

 


  



 
 








 

First allow me to define a few terms.

And Provide as to supply with.

Encarta World English Dictionary

There are a variety of ways the state could provide health care to their citizens.

The implication for the round is the affirmative does not necessarily have to defend
socialized medicine. Since the resolution doesn¶t specify the way in which the
government should provide health care, indicts of specific systems do not
actually address the normative question of the resolution. Any system enacted
poorly or ineffectively would give way to these arguments, but these arguments
do not address the normative question in the resolution - should a state provide
health care.


 
Overview

The standard is the value and criteria

relationship the debater presents to prove the
resolution true or false. All arguments should
link to the standard and are ³weighed´ by them.
The value

Goal of the round, something you want to achieve

The value is the first part of the standards debate.

Values are principles we apply to determine if
something is good or bad, right or wrong, worthwhile or
not. Values are not tangible things you can touch or put
on a shelf. Values cannot be proven true or false, and it
is sometimes hard to discuss them because they are
abstract concepts.
The value

Value: The first thing to keep in mind is not to make it too wordy.

Ex: My value in today's round will be...

Ex: The most important value in the round is my value of...

Stick with the simple 'My value is ______, because ________' and
here is where you will justify why yours is the better value. The best
way to do this is in terms of relevance to the topic. By that I mean
that you should explain why your value is what the resolution wants
us to debate. It's usually based on wording in the resolution! Ex: 'I
value democratic ideals, because it is prescribed by the resolution,'
or 'because they are the end specified by the resolution.'
Common Values

· Justice
· Freedom/ Liberty
· Life
· Human Rights
· Democracy
· Equality
· Societal Welfare
· Legitimate Government
· Individualism / Autonomy
· Safety
· Progress
· Privacy
K    

>eep in mind that using a philosopher¶s idea as

a value is generally a very bad idea. Most of the
time that¶s not even a value! ³John Locke's
Social Contract´ is not a value! Something like
³social welfare´ or ³legitimate government´
would be more appropriate.
³-isms´ are not values. Better: V = ³equality´; C
= ³promote Communism´
How to choose an appropriate value:

A. Identify the object of evaluation

For example if the resolution reads: ³Drug testing of

extracurricular activity participants is justified, the focus
of the debate should stem from the values associated
with drug testing of extracurricular participants. Thus
you should determine which values will be best
enhanced by the object of evaluation.
Furthermore if the resolution reads: ³The public¶s right
to know is of greater value than the right to privacy of
candidates for public office´ we find two objects of
evaluation. They are the public¶s right to know and the
candidate¶s right to privacy, and you must determine on
both sides what value best enhances both objects of
evaluation. Thus if the resolution is comparative two
different values may be appropriate.
B. Identify the evaluative term

For example if the resolution reads: ³Affirmative action

programs are justified in American Society,´ the
debaters should use the evaluative term, justified, to set
the parameters in determining the duties of each
debater in affirming or negating the resolution.
The evaluative term gives debaters a guideline in
determining what must be proved. In the above
resolution, justification must be proved. Thus the value
could be justice.
˜


  



A. Provide an adequate and appropriate definition of

your value.

Most values are abstract, and can have

different interpretations by both debaters.
Thus when you give a value a specific
definition needs to be given.
For example look at the value such as legitimate
government. Interpretations can be varied on what a
legitimate government is. Some could interpret
legitimate government as a government that
protects individual rights, as others could interpret a
legitimate government as a government that provides
security for its citizens. Thus a definition must be given
to give your opponent and your judge an understanding
of what a legitimate government actually is.
B. Show the value¶s resolutional implications

Resolutional implications simply show why your

value is intrinsic to the resolution. As a debater
you must link how the value is related to the
resolution. What words in the resolution brought
you to your value? Indicate those words when
you are writing. For example, since the resolution
questions what a just punishment is the value could be
justice.
C. Show the value¶s implications

Implications give an understanding of the

importance of the value. It also gives your judge
an idea of why your value is needed and is
important. In other words, justify your selection
as the best, most important, supreme or
only one for the debate.
For example if your value is morality, you could say«

Cambridge Professor Mark Cooray establishes the

importance of morality,
³Without morality all kinds of injustices and oppressions
against individual persons are sanctioned. No society
can function efficiently or humanely and no civilization
can endure without this value.´
The criterion

 ³A standard by which something can be measured

or judged...´ (UIL Guide Page (0)

 ³«.a way to measure or judge whether or not

upholding the resolution achieves or enhances the
value.´(UIL Guide Page (3)
The criterion

Your criterion is comparable to a filter (will it ³do

something´).
For example, there may be many ways to achieve
justice, but this is one way to achieve it (through an
action of the resolution). Your criterion serves as a
concrete way to achieve an abstract value, such as
justice.
For example, you can use "maximizing individual rights"
as a criterion for the value social welfare. It doesn't
need to be a physical action, but must be concrete
enough so that you know how to achieve it, and there
is little ambiguity about this.
Think of your value criterion as a way to achieve your
value.
The criterion

The "criterion" or "value criterion" is the conceptual

mechanism the debater proposes to achieve and weigh
the value. Oftentimes, the debater will simply talk about
the criterion, so it is sometimes referred to as the
standard, in and of itself. First and foremost, the
criterion is how the debater achieves the value.
The criterion

A criterion will usually be stated as a gerund (upholding

a system of checks and balances).
The criterion

Values and criteria can be debated over which

provides for a fairer debate, which one
is more relevant, if the burden is fulfillable,
sufficient, begs, etc.
The criterion

So overall the criterion is something you use to achieve

your value. Furthermore the criterion is the most critical
part of the debate, because it¶s the criterion everything
should impact back to. The criterion is what you use to
weigh the round and all arguments should stem from
the criterion debate.
How to choose and establish an
appropriate criterion:

(. Establish how your criterion achieves your value.

You must prove how your criterion achieves your value,

or else you are not affirming or negating. This is true
because if you are saying you value something, you
must prove how you achieve this value in the context of
the round. If your value is justice you can¶t just say why
justice is important, you must also prove why your
criterion achieves justice.
2. Provide justifications.

Give warrants under your criterion, why your criterion is

so important. The more justifications you give, the
more offense as to why your standard is more important
and why you should affirm or negate.
 
 
_ _

I. State value
A. Define value
B. Link to resolution
C. Importance of the value

II. State criterion

A. Define criterion (this requires a bright line statement ± how do
you intend to meet it ± how does your opponent violate it?) Spikes
out 
B. Explain how is achieves the value, Spikes out  



 
 
 ´ (i.e. it is impossible to achieve the value
without achieving the criterion).
C. Justifications
Best ways to justify criterion:
It¶s the fundamental part of the value.
Prerequisite for other ends
It encompasses other ways to achieve
ü  ü

w(

I value democratic ideals, because they are specified as

the end goal of the resolution. What makes democracy
unique from all other forms of government is that the
power exists at the level of the people, instead of at the
level of a ruling body. Since the people rule themselves,
the only job of the government is to act as a rights
protector and enforcer of laws, as the individual is
incapable of protecting herself against the rest of
society. With that in mind, the criterion most inherent to
democratic ideals in the context of the resolution is the
maximization of rights protection.
w2

The implicit value is justice. There are several different conceptions

of what makes an action just. However all agree that violations of
human worth are unjust. According to liberal theories justice is
rooted in the individual. Therefore any action that violates the moral
worth of a human being would be unjust. Begs
More teological theories view justice as being rooted in the
communities or society as a whole. However these theories would
still condemn violations of human worth amongst a body of
individuals. Furthermore, because justice establishes rules for
individual interaction, justice inherently entails respect for human
worth asserting individuals are worthy of a particular treatment.
Thus human worth is a precondition to any system of justice,
because we wouldn¶t attempt to establish rules for a common good
if we could treat individuals however we wanted. Sufficient
Thus, the criterion in today¶s round is maximizing respect for
human worth.
w3

The value implicit in the resolution is that of morality.

This is true because:
(. The resolution questions the proper implementation
of standards of morality, without citing any specific
ends this implementation is supposed to reach.
2. Ought is a normative statement, which according to
the American Heritage Dictionary is used to indicate
obligation. The existence of any obligations, external
to obligations to oneself, is dependent on the
existence of a sense of morality. This is true
because, in the absence of morality, there would be
no motivation, or societal burden on a person to carry
out an action. Therefore, any action necessary to, or
resulting in the increase of, morality ought to be
undertaken.
Necessary to the concept of morality is a respect for human worth
(flag as ³criterion´).
The notion of morality presupposes that there are morally
acceptable and unacceptable ways to treat human beings. This is
true because systems of morality center on questions of the moral
acceptability of actions or concepts with reference to their human
consequences. For instance, the harming of an inanimate object for
reasons specifically constrained to the worth of that object,
independent of any outside effects that harming that object could
have, would never be considered immoral. Conversely, the
arbitrary harming of a human being is considered unjust inside the
parameters that it harms a human being, and does not require
analysis of outside effects to determine its justice. Therefore, the
protection of human worth is a prerequisite to the existence of the
conceptions morality is premised on, making it a prerequisite to
justice itself.
`

 
Overview

A contention is debate jargon for points. These

points explain how the debater achieves the
criterion. In LD there are normally 2-3 main
arguments, which have warrants (reasons that
they are true) and impacts (why they matter).
Thesis statement

It should sum up your case position, in that it should

give the big reason you are for or against the resolution.
For that reason, it involves the criterion.

Object of Evaluation + Criterion Statement = Thesis

The affirmative¶s thesis and sole contention is: The

government has a reciprocal obligation to immigrants,
since they have tacitly consented.
My thesis and sole contention: is that the death penalty
respects human life.
 ü  

 
     
  
    

*
  

—  

 
  
 

 
  
 

`

 
 

 


  





First, the evidence concerning the deterrent

effect of the death penalty is overwhelming.

§ 


 


capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect
(8 fewer murders

Second, protecting guards, other inmates,

and innocent killed by murderers paroled

 

 





within-prison homicides of guards and fellow inmates.
paroled into the general population, some of them will kill again.
the permanent incapacitation of murderers through execution save lives on net.

Third, life imprisonment is not sufficient

 

 




a refusal to impose capital punishment will condemn

numerous innocent people to death.
On moral grounds, a choice that effectively condemns
large numbers of people to death is objectionable
failure to impose capital punishment is a serious moral wrong.
The contention structure

Claim: The thing you are arguing.

Warrant: The reason your argument is true. This can be
your own analysis, but it is almost always more
strategic to include a card.
Impact:
(a)The implications of your argument being true on your
criterion (why this argument means you win your
criterion, or why your opponent can't win it).
(b) There can also be impacts external to your criterion,
or at least slightly more removed from it. Don't forget,
you can also use evidence to support the fact that
your impact will happen. Doing so often makes the
impact more believable.
— —

 

 

Common warrants in LD:

(. Analytical
³It is about to rain because it is cloudy´

2. Evidentiary
³According to the Washington Post«´

3. Empirically
³This happened in Maryland«´

v









http://students.ou.edu/S/Charles.R.Swadley-(/argumentation.htm
 
Fallacies - an error in reasoning.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

List 42 common fallacies

Ad Hominem
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque
Appeal to Authority
Appeal to Belief
Appeal to Common Practice
Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
Appeal to Emotion
Appeal to Fear
Fallacy: Slippery Slope
Also >nown as: The Camel's Nose.
› 




 



The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must
inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the
event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations
between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why
the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument"
has the following form:
Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one
event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a
claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number
of steps or gradations between one event and another.
ü




 



"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging
$40,000 a semester!"
"The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government
sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."
—


A word should also be said about taglines. You should

use the resolutional phrases and your criterion almost
every time. The proper way to construct them is as
follows:

Restrictions on the rights of non-citizens are consistent

with democratic ideals because they maximize the
rights of all citizens.
Other thoughts

 Aim for a few independent reasons in each

contention
 Check for contradictions
 Case examples and Illustrations-use them!
 Make them relevant to the topic!
 Words provide pictures and give us a vision about
what we are voting for and against!
 Find current day examples if at all possible
How to win the contentions:

(. Always link the contentions/ or impact back to the

criterion. Don¶t go off on tangents within the
contention if it has no relation to the criterion. This is
true because it¶s the standards that allow the judge
to weigh the round. How can a judge weigh the
contention if that isn¶t what you are asking the judge
to weigh?
2. Impacts, Impacts, Impacts, Impacts. Impacts allow
the judge to weigh in case specific arguments. There is
no way the judge can weigh arguments against each
other, if the judge doesn¶t know the impacts of the
arguments. (Magnitude, longevity, timeframe, potential
vs. guaranteed)
3. Provide plenty of cards/evidence. While rhetoric is
also needed, evidence is essential to any contention.
Evidence provides the warrants/impacts that are often
overlooked. Furthermore in extending evidence it
makes it a lot easier to extend evidence compared with
rhetoric. This is true because evidence usually has
more structure compared with your own rhetoric.
AT A MINIMUM

Thesis/Tag line/Contention(s)
Claim
Warrant
Impact
EXAMPLE

My thesis and sole 

 : is that the  

 


   







 

Defensive

Respect for life demands a heavy moral presumption against deliberate killing. This places a
moral burden of proof squarely on the negative.

Professor Stephen Nathanson explains,

First, they remind us of moral gravity of acts of killing. Second, they show thatthe initial burden of proof is always on
those who favor some form of killing. If deliberate killing is generally wrong, then an act of killing will be wrong unless one
can show it to be a justifiable exception to the general prohibition. Furthermore, anyone seriously committed to
respecting life will want to insure that the list of justifications for killing will be as short as
possible. We show our respect for life by demanding that the taking of life be permitted only when the most powerful reasons have been
offered. Casually adding to the list of justifiable exceptions to this principle is inconsistent with the reverence for life which is expressed by
opponents and supporters of the death penalty alike.
It follows from these points that in the debate about the morality of the death penalty, the
moral burden of proof rests on the death penalty supporters. Politically, of course, the burden will shirt,
depending on the current state of the law and public opinion. The political burden of proof falls on those who are dissatisfied with the status
quo, and opponents of the death penalty now bear that burden because there are many states which permit executions and because approval
of this policy is widespread. Nonetheless, from a moral point of view, the initial burden falls on death
penalty supporters. It is they who must beat the burden of showing that the use of death as
a punishment for murder is morally permissible, that it is not on a par with murder, that is merits
inclusion on the list of justifiable exceptions to the general prohibition of killing.
Stephen Nathanson, Professor of Philosophy at Norteasteastern University, 200(
(An Eye for and Eye? Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD. 2nd Ed. P. 9)
The death penalty undermines life in four ways.
Offensive

First, the death penalty undermines the life of the offender.

The death penalty is not justified because the convicted has already been rendered impotent
And incapable of harming others. The only instance of justified killing would be in self defense,
which excludes the death penalty by definition as it kills in cold blood with no imminent danger to
any one.

Professor Llyod Steffen elaborates,

Because we in moral community recognize and affirm life itself as a good²even a
preeminent good²of life, we understand and accept a moral obligation to pursue, protect,
and promote this good. Conversely, we understand that killing deprives persons of this basic
good. The moral community thus regards killing as a transgression or moral violation of the
most serious kind and does not sanction or justify killing except for specific and morally
compelling reasons, such as self-defense.
Capital punishment is a killing. It has been subject to intense moral scrutiny because it
inflicts a directly willed and intended killing, the very kind of killing that is most suspect from
a moral point of view. It is a form of killing that springs not from the heat of irrational passion, but from reason and an invocation of
justice, yet, ironically, for all its appeal to rationality, it makes no obvious appeal to the most ration reason for
justifying a killing on could offer²self-defense. And the lack of grounds for appeal to a
rational self-defense argument is practical as well as theoretical, since the person facing
execution, by virtue of being confined and   





   




 
 


 

 
Lloyd Steffen, Pro. Of Religious Studies & Chaplain, Lehigh University, (998
(Executing Justice, Cleveland: The Pilgrim Press, p. 9()
Second, the death penalty inherently ends the life of the ¢ 


 


When the state executes the innocent, it acts contradictory to the protection of life- it terminates
life.

According to Amnesty International:

The likelihood that  

 

will be condemned to death and executed is   

in all
jurisdictions which resort to capital punishment. Few mistakes made by government officials can
equal the horror of executing an innocent person. But 






are 


; even
the extensive legal safeguard within the criminal justice system of the United States of America
(USA) have manifestly failed to prevent wrongful death sentences in many cases. Furthermore,
many of these basic safeguards have been seriously undermined in recent years, increasing the
risk of lethal and irreversible error.
Amnesty International, (2 November (998,
http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGAMR5(069(998
Third, the death penalty diverts resources that could be utilized more effectively to protect life.

Carol S. Steiker develops,

«there are always alternative means to prevent such future harms, including policing initiatives
and other direct community interventions in the short term, and funding for social programs such
as 
 ,  


 , 


 


   , and 

 

in the medium and
long term. « the threshold deontologist can easily respond that there will always remain the choice
between further alternative preventive strategies and capital punishment. We are never likely to
achieve a world in which we have reached optimal spending on nonlethal preventive strategies
and have nothing left to do but adopt capital punishment. Nor is it likely, in the event that we ever
did achieve such a utopian world, that capital punishment could generate, even remotely, the
same marginal deterrent effect, in light of the fact that the murders and murderers in such a
world would be of a far different genesis than those in the world in which we currently live.
On a grander moral scale, preventing murders is only one way in which the state protects the
lives of its citizens. It does so also through public health policies, environmental protection,
workplace safety regulation, and the like. If the dollars spent on an execution that would prevent
eighteen murders could be spent to prevent an equal number of people from dying in workplace
accidents or from AIDS without violating any categorical moral prohibition, why should a
threshold deontologist agree that any catastrophic threshold permitting violation of such a moral
prohibition has been met? Given the costliness of the administration of capital punishment, it
seems unlikely that a deontologist would ever properly conclude that the marginal deterrence
afforded by executions so far outweighed other possible savings of lives with the same dollars so
as to cross some catastrophic threshold.
«there are many plausible alternative strategies to reducing homicide rates that could feasibly
be adopted, the best proof being that some of them have been adopted in some states.
Moreover, even if these policies are less politically popular than capital punishment, it is hard to
see how that affects the moral duties of those who believe that capital punishment is
categorically wrong. Surely, their 



 is to work toward feasible alternatives.
Carol S. Steiker; Stanford Law Review, Vol. 58, 2005. ³No, Capital Punishment Is Not Morally Required: Deterrence, Deontology, and the Death Penalty´
Fourth, the death penalty acts as a signal to society that it permissible to kill.

A just society has a moral obligation to refrain from capital punishment because the death
penalty symbolically justifies killing and the state will use the power of the death penalty in unjust
ways to kill in the name of justice.
Lloyd Steffen elaborates,
A just society has a moral obligation to refrain from capital punishment, because the death
penalty symbolically justifies killing. Plus and the state will use power of the death penalty in
unjust ways to kill in the name of justice.
The question we must ask, beyond the moral analysis considered up to this point, is what the death penalty actually means as a symbol. Is it an
effective symbol for justice, or does it draw its power as a symbol from another symbolic locus another center of meaning and value?
The symbolic appeal that capital punishment makes in claim to be just is simple enough to understand, for if justice means returning the offenders
their deserts, then the death penalty is the returns desert of an extreme punishment for an extreme crime. The statement ³a life for a
The death penalty is an instrument of state policy and action, and its
life´ makes a problem arise.
symbol power gets deeper than association with retributive justice; in fact since I can be used as
an instrument of state repression, its deeper symbolic value must be said to lie in the values
beyond any requirements of justice. The heart of the matter at the level of symbol is that the
death penalty represents a rare instance of legitimated killing²like just war, tyrannicide, and
self-defense The death penalty as a symbol transforms moral meaning and authorizes such
killing, and does so in the in the face of our ordinary moral propitiations against such killing;
Ordinarily moral prohibited killings of members of the moral community become permitted acts.
The authorization may be sought after in the name of justice, but justice may be effected by
other means; and the power to execute, once claimed, can be²and has been²used to effect
ends that have nothing to do with serving justice.
Lloyd Steffen, Prof. Of religious & chaplain, Lehigh University. (998, page (43-4
(Executing justice, Cleveland: the pilgrim press, p(43-4)
` 

Conclusion

This is usually unnecessary, but if you feel you can sum

up your case is a rhetorically compelling way, go for it.
Otherwise, don't worry about having a conclusion. You
usually won't have time for one anyway.

Brief (5-20 seconds

Last line should be remembered (memorize if at all

possible)
 —
üü 
I affirm/I negate

State the resolution word for word

Define key terms

'* 


  
 
 
 

State value

State criterion

Thesis/Tag line/Contention(s)
Claim
Warrant
Impact

Conclusion
* —

Pre-standard arguments

Arguments that are evaluated before the standard

Resolved: The use of the state¶s power of Eminent Domain to promote private enterprise is
unjust.
Before the negative case I am going to offer two reasons to reject the
resolution: the resolution is a normative claim that declares a specific state
policy as unjust. Implied within any normative claim is a judgment as to
how an agent ought to act. Therefore, any normative assessment of an
action presupposes agency on the part of the actor. You would never
declare the act of hurricane as unjust, because the hurricane can't make a
decision to change its action. The only way in which the state could be
considered an autonomous agent, is if the agency of it citizens is
translated into policy making. Yet, the bureaucratic process of
conglomerating mass opinion into a single government policy, ensures that
the agency of a state's citizens is not reflected at the policy level. As such,
the state cannot be considered an agent, and therefore state action can't
be labeled unjust.
Second, it is impossible for the state's use of their power of eminent
domain to promote private enterprise. Private enterprise specifically refers
to economic activity which is ³private,´ or independent of the government.
When the government subsidizes an industry by giving it money, it is
universally understood as a step away from private enterprise and step
towards a nationalized economy. The use of eminent domain to give
property to corporations is in no way different; the government is using its
powers to intervene in the economy and therefore is not promoting private
enterprise. As such, the resolution cannot be affirmed because one can't
declare an action unjust, if that action can logically never happen.
The two overviews demonstrate unique assumptions of the resolution and
proves them false.
Burdens

Something that must be done to win

V  


How to Construct a Lincoln Douglas Debate Case,

http://www.wikihow.com/Construct-a-Lincoln-Douglas-Debate-Case

Introduction to LD Debate [PDF],

Cherian >oshy and Dr. Seth Halvorson,
http://www.nflonline.org/uploads/CoachingResources/IntroductiontoLDDebateOnlineText.pdf

Linc UIl