September 2012
39 posts
8 tags
August 2012
34 posts
7 tags
14 tags
I should note as an addition to the last post that it really shouldn’t be long before I release something new.
Once I overcome an odd sense of malaise and get some good sketching practice during the endless syllabus reviews in school, Provenance shall resume.
((Tablet wasn’t working earlier, and school starts tomorrow… so I’m not going to bother to get something out tonight, if just to ease my mind. I’ll get as much of it done as I can, but I don’t expect a release myself. Sorry folks.))
15 tags
5 tags
andrew013 asked: Hi! Could you give a specific example of a defensive/offensive V/VC? Perhaps linking a specific past topic? Thanks!
6 tags
3 tags
6 tags
7 tags
6 tags
5 tags
5 tags
End
This list is by no means inclusive, and just about any philosophy can be used as a criterion or value if the right resolution crops up. Reading any standard work of philosophy can produce a viable criterion, or give you an idea for a counter argument. Anything like the Great Gatsby, 1984, or any classic, while they don’t provide specific philosophies, are brilliant to familiarize yourself with...
4 tags
The Criteria List pt. 5
Other Possible Criteria: These are philosophies that I have never heard of anyone running, though I have run some myself as my criterion. They all are significant philosophies, and each has their own sphere of applicability.
The Invisible Hand
The core of conservative economics, the Invisible Hand is an idea put forth by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations. The Invisible Hand is a force of the...
5 tags
The Criteria List pt. 4
Harm Principle: It is the core ideal of Libertarianism, as set forth by John Stuart Mill. It states that the only way a government can justly limit a man’s action is if they are hurting someone else. It’s the whole argument in the drug legalization debate that it’s not hurting anyone else.
I have immense issues with this philosophy, enough that I’m breaking the format of this piece, and I...
5 tags
Criteria List pt. 3
Good to Know Criteria: Though less common, you should be at least familiar with these, as these are popular with shock cases (someone who is trying to catch you by surprise and novelty) and are really strong with some resolutions.
Autonomy
The capacity to choose for yourself. It’s just basic self-determination, nothing fancy.
Social Contracts
A social contract explains why civilization exists and...
6 tags
The Criteria List pt. 2
Utilitarianism
A key teleological idea, this states that you must pursue the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Do NOT forget the implication that you can harm the minority for the sake of the majority, which makes this a teleological idea. People use this on deontology cases, and it is a woeful instance of ignorance and contradiction. Utilitarianism is also the single most common...
12 tags
Anonymous asked: wow, the advice you give on LD is SO unique and your perspective must be derived from all your national circuit success.
6 tags
Criteria List pt.1
Now, on to what the majority of people will read this for: the Criteria List
Note that not all criteria are created equal, and I actively hate some of them. There are a few I highly advise against, if for no more than personal antipathy. They are attitudes I feel are destructive, and they are often contradictory or poor for LD debate. I won’t write much for them. There is a bit of editorializing,...
6 tags
The V/C pt. 2
Here is an old analysis I borrowed from a friend who went to Nationals on setting up Values and Criteria.
AFF: Defensive Value, Offensive Criterion
The defensive value, as it is the core of your case, makes up for the lack of adaptability on the Aff and since you only need to maintain that the resolution is right, playing defensively is logical. The aggressive criterion maintains an offensive...
6 tags
The V/C pt. 1
The Value-Criterion, or V/C, is the core of an LD case. I’d say the Value and Criterion, separately, equal about one and a half contentions. You should only have one criterion and one value. It is critical that your Value and Criterion sync, as they are meant to build each other. The same is true of your contentions; the best cases have each contention link back to their value through the...
7 tags
Lincoln Douglas Debate Structure pt. 2
A Value is any ideal, virtue, etc that your case hopes to achieve. Really, it is anything that you would value (no surprise), some sort of abstract idea usually. In case, you state what you will be valuing for this round, so LD often centers around whether or not you achieve your value. There is no set list of values, as it is anything that your case considers good and achieves. Popular ones are...
7 tags
Lincoln Douglas Debate Structure pt. 1
Now, I wish to deal with Lincoln Douglas debate, since the majority of you who find this page will be here for this. We must first get basic structure out of the way. The topic is called a resolution, and changes every two months. You build cases to debate the resolution. Like all debates, there is an Affirmative and a Negative, someone who argues for the resolution, and someone who opposes it....
7 tags
Philosophies of Debate pt. 2
Debate is not inherently a creature of antagonism. It is altogether possible to approach it instead as a discussion, a synthesis and advancement of ideas. In this manner, you can acknowledge that your opponent is valid, that a variety of beliefs exists. Subsequently, you still assert your ideas to be the better, as it is still a debate, but it massively increases the flexibility of your ideas. You...
7 tags
Philosophies of Debate pt. 1
This section is primarily devoted to the refutation of some common pervasive ideas within debate and some explanation of better alternatives.
Let us begin with a truth, or an ideal at the very least. The purpose of debate is not to win. Victory in debate is the arbitrary determination of the judge, whose validity of choice is never verified. Debate is ultimately meant to serve truth. Debate, at...
8 tags
Introduction to Debate pt. 2
Now that I have over dramatized the difficulties of debate, it is essential to realize that any novice to debate will likely not possess all three. Even if they are present, they still need improvement. Do not expect to perfectly fulfill the demands of charisma, writing, or logic ever in your earthly experience, and as such, there will be a perpetual need to improve. So, in the face of whatever...
8 tags
An Introduction to Debate pt. 1
Debate is an art. It is the craft of ideas and words, to form a coherent, plausible, and appealing argument. It combines the function of the actor, writer, and theorist into one. It is these 3 qualities that create the skilled debater: charisma, the capacity to sway hearts simply with the inflections of voice, poetry, the skill of aligning words for their greatest linguistic beauty, and...
5 tags
6 tags
