Homework assignment

Homework:
• READ through the judging Paradigm for the NCFCA. http://www.ncfca.org/downloads/pdf/RU1_F072505122830_LD_Paradigm11-03.pdf

• Use the flow sheets that you took notes on in class on Dec. 10th and complete the judge ballots for both debates that you observed. I will be collecting these ballots and the flow sheets on Nov. 17th.

• Post your affirmative case on line by Nov. 19th. Use the case structure format on page 151 to outline your points.

• Once these affirmative cases are posted, please ask appropriate cross x questions and/ or comment on these affirmative cases. (yes this means you need to read the cases that are posted by your classmates!) You don't have to comment on all the cases but I would recommend that you attempt to respond to at least 3 affirmative cases.

• Please plan on posting your negative case which includes a rebuttal to any one of the posted affirmative cases, by Dec. 1st (doing this will help you learn how to more effectively organize a rebuttal and systematically attack your opponents arguments)

Is this a legit resource?



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

Meridith, you asked

Quote :

Is this a legit resource?

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

I read this article through briefly and I don't find much wrong with it, except to say that this source has the potential to change each time you read it through. This site allows anyone to edit it. (the same way that Wikepedia allows people to add their own definition/ explanations on a given topic.) In respect of this I wouldn't take it as the ultimate authority. As the article mentions, this source is basing their experience on the National Forensic League and this group does have a different approach to training students how to win debate.

Our text book, and the various NCFCA source books that I have mentioned in other posts, do the best job of helping you understand Lincoln Douglas using the judging paradigm of our homeschool league.

Don't hesitate to contact me if you have questions/ concerns in this regard.

Is it okay to use a quote from the New York Times in my introduction? Or do i need a person whos name i know... help!

-------------
ali

Ali you can quote anyone you would like to however it is important that this person be a noted authority on the topic. You basically need to set up your quote with this individual's credentials:
for example:

Joseph Noitall, a political analyst with the NY times, says...." yada yada yada....."

If Joseph Noitall is not a familiar name and you neglect to give his credentials up front then you should expect to be questioned about this on cross X .

Okay. Since i don't know who made the quote, i will probably just go with a different one...

Page 153 is Frequently asked questions. Did you mean 163? But then that's Affirmative Brief, not case.

I'm so confused

Also could we open it differently? I mean you want us to follow the structure from the book, but could we also do the quote (or whatever else) then the 'good afternoon my name is ______ and I will be the Aff. speaker for the following debate round.' and go on from there?
Or would you rather me not?

I'm now having trouble with finding Individual Rights definition

Do we have to have 3 contentions?

Bethany wrote:

Page 153 is Frequently asked questions. Did you mean 163? But then that's Affirmative Brief, not case.

It's page 151

Bethany I am so sorry for the typo! I corrected it.
Mrs. Gray

That's fine

What do you do if someone posted a fallacy in their case

point it out

Yeah I think you point it out because that's what you would do in a real debate.

Do you want us to have the same structure, Mrs. Gray? For our neg. case?

Bethany,
For a traditional Negative case you will follow a similar case structure however you do not need to offer new definitions unless you take issue with one or all of the definitions that were offered on the affirmative.
Since time is of the essence, I recommend that you don't offer definitions for all the words again. Choose to redefine only the words that really matter for your case and be prepared to say why your definition is superior to your opponent's definition.
After you have presented the constructive part of your case (the argument that you are building to support your point of view)
Then you will move onto developing a rebuttal against your opponent's case.
This part of the Negative Constructive is usually reserved for the final 3-4 minutes of a 7 minute speech.
During the rebuttal you will systematically attack your opponent's case by moving through the flow or by addressing the key stock issues that the judge needs to filter their decision through.
I recommend using a phrase or two to prepare and educate your judge about your plan of attack. Some examples of this might include:

Now I would like to move on to addressing what I believe are the key problem areas in my opponents case. I will start with: (choose from the areas that you wish to address. These could include any or all of the following: Definitions, Values, Criterion, Contention 1,2, 3 and or historical examples.)

You could also develop a rebuttal that systematically attacks your opponent's case through the lens of stock issues:
You would preface this rebuttal by saying... "I would like to point out some key "voting" issues/or "Stock" issues that need to be addressed in this debate round today....

If you focus your rebuttal around stock issues you need to educate your judge on what they are...
For example if you concentrate on definitions you would need to tell your judge why definitions are important to consider in a debate round. "how we define the key words in this debate is what establishes the fair boundaries for our arguments....My definition of "....." is a more accurate definition because......"

I have an issue with how my opponent is proposing to achieve his/ her value... I do not believe my opponent's case will successfully achieve his value of..... or I believe my case does a better job of achieving my value of ......

All of your rebuttal is prepared in response to your opponent's actual case.

Chapters 6 and 7 help to make this all clear. I will gladly answer your specific question on Wednesday too.

OK, thanks! So are you saying I do not have to define any terms for this case?

Are we allowed to have the opponent's case during the round? And can we print them out from this forum?

Mrs. Gray, I was wondering, do we have to stay the whole day at the p.t, or is it okay to leave once we've done our debates? I am sorry, but i can't really remember from last year, and since this is debate, the circumstances may be different from the way they'd be if it was only a duo like last year...