Week 1

•Q. From where did LD debate come?•Q. Where policy debate involves federal policy, what does LD involve? •Q. LD involves which civilization?

•Resolved: Rehabilitation ought to be valued above retribution in the United States criminal justice system.

•Type of source•Author qualification•Date

• Presents an initial argument in support of the resolution• Pre-written, also called affirmative case,

AC, or 1AC• Included:•Definitions•Establishing what it means to be moral (value premise)•Criterion—the standards that must occur to achieve the value premise•Contentions (reasons why the resolution is true)

• Known as CX• The negative debater asks the

affirmative questions• Clarification questions—intended to

understand information• Pointed questions—intended to

reveal flaws

• Presents negative arguments in refute of the resolution and responds to affirmative arguments• First 2-3.5 minutes are pre-written,

also called negative case, NC• Included:•Alternative definitions•Establishing counter value premise•Contentions (reasons why the resolution is false)

• The affirmative debater asks the negative questions• Clarification questions—intended to

understand information• Pointed questions—intended to

reveal flaws• Clash

• Also called 1AR• 1st chance that affirmative gets to

respond to neg’s arguments• Often considered hardest speech due

to time and previous 7 min. speech• Determine core reasons for prefering

aff’s position

• Also called 2NR• Last time neg will present position

and reasons they won the debate• Answer all of aff’s arguments• Give overview of the round and why

you should win• Preempt possible responses the aff

will make in the 2AR

•Also called 2AR• Final speech•Give overview of the round and why you should win•No new arguments can be made

• Claim•Concise summary of your argument (like a topic sentence)—statement of what you believe to be true

• Warrant•Proof of why your claim is true•Analytical warrants: logical reasoning•Empirical warrants: data

• Impact•Explains why the argument matters.

Research Toulminhttps://sites.google.com/site/anintroductiontodebate/lectures/1-the-basics/3-gathering-evidence

Claim: My dad should use a hearing aid.Warrant: Samantha eats bugs. Impact: (Based on the value premise of weirdness being a bad quality) Samantha would harm the reputation of the debate team.

Claim: I deserve the car this Friday night. Warrant: I got a 4.0 on my report card (internal link—hard work should be rewarded)Impact (so what?): Good grades get me into a good college (internal link to warrant—rewards motivate me to work harder)

Rebuttals: Aren’t hard work and sacrifice rewards by themselves?Can’t you be motivated to succeed without reward or praise?