Values, Criteria, and Lincoln-Douglas

What is a VALUE? A Value is: An ultimate truth or standard of morality An idea about non-tangible concepts Important to belief systems

Value in Lincoln-Douglas Values in LD Debate work the same way An Ultimate truth or standard of morality Debate lies in which Truth or Moral Standard is MOST correct

What are some common Values? Life Equality The condition of being; existence Being treated the same as others within a society Justice Human Dignity Giving each his/her due; what is deserved Every human is moral and can express opinions without discrimination Autonomy Liberty A person is in charge of him/herself The right to be free from governmental constraints

Other Values Use these Values to complete the project Anthropocentrism Equality Minority Rights Autonomy Human Dignity National Security Biocentrism Individual Autonomy National Sovereignty Categorical Imperative Justice Pragmatism Cost-Benefit Analysis Liberty Social Contract Democracy Life Teleology Deontology Majority Rule Utilitarianism Categorical Imperative: (Golden Rule) Due unto other’s as you would want them to do onto you. (Do this so that this will happen; Brush your teeth so that you don’t get cavities) Utilitariansim: the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority. Deontology: Deontological theories hold that some acts are always wrong, even if the act leads to an admirable outcome. Actions in deontology are always judged independently of their outcome. An act can be morally bad but may unintentionally lead to a favorable outcome.

Value Debates Can Be Difficult… For example, lying to an unarmed mugger — saying that you are an expert at karate — and thus convincing him to flee rather than rob you violates honesty, but preserves the values of property, nonviolence, and personal security.

Consider the sentence… PIZZA IS GOOD. If “good” has a definite, permanent, imperishable meaning, then everyone (or virtually everyone) would agree that PIZZA IS GOOD. But what about the people who don’t ike pizza? Some people are allergic to wheat, or cheese, or tomatoes; some people would say that PIZZA IS BAD is a more accurate sentence. But if pizza is both GOOD and BAD, then we are left with chaos and cannot choose who wins this debate…. So, we must have a better criterion. PIZZA IS GOOD = You aren’t really talking about pizza at all. Rather, you are talking about yourself. I ENJOY PIZZA. PIZZA APPEALS TO MY SENSE OF TASTE. I APPROVE OF PIZZA AS NUTRITIOUS ITALIAN FOOD. Each of these sentences, we sense, in some way preserves the meaning of the original sentence — yet they are talking, not about some abstract quality of the pizza, but about personal taste and preference. Much of the informal usage of the word Consider the sentence, PIZZA IS GOOD. This seems to be grammatically simple: noun, verb (a special type of verb, called a copula, which equates two things), and a predicate adjective which describes the noun. In saying this, we seem to be assigning the description GOOD to PIZZA. But are we really? If “good” has a definite, permanent, imperishable meaning, then everyone (or virtually everyone) would agree that PIZZA IS GOOD. But many people dislike pizza; some are allergic to wheat, or cheese, or tomatoes; some people would say that PIZZA IS BAD is a more accurate sentence. But if pizza is both GOOD and BAD, then we are left with 5 chaos. Maybe “good” has no definite, permanent meaning — but to suggest that its meaning is so vague that GOOD can sometimes mean BAD is contrary to our experience. Perhaps, though, the situation is not is simple as it first seemed. Perhaps when you say PIZZA IS GOOD, you are not really talking about pizza at all. Rather, you are talking about yourself. I ENJOY PIZZA. PIZZA APPEALS TO MY SENSE OF TASTE. I APPROVE OF PIZZA AS NUTRITIOUS ITALIAN FOOD. Each of these sentences, we sense, in some way preserves the meaning of the original sentence — yet they are talking, not about some abstract quality of the pizza, but about personal taste and preference. Much of the informal usage of the word

Value and Criterion Values are, essentially, overarching and non-specific ideas We need a way to measure if Value exists Criterion: A way to measure the presence of a Value Like a measuring stick

Value and Criterion The Value criterion is a “weighing standard” for arguments Criterions must be both necessary and sufficient Will it acknowledge and achieve the value? Think Car Parts Value=Car Criterion=Engine?

Criterion Your criterion will often be [verb + object], such as protecting life minimizing suffering rejecting violence encouraging participation Creating equality

Topic Analysis Scary clown Example... What Values are possible? Honesty vs Safety Honesty is being uphold when you are “telling truth” Safety is being uphold when you are “protecting children” Girl Walks in Room Example Honesty is beging upheld when you are “telling the truth” Kindness is being upheld when you are “protecting feelings” Values: Honesty vs Safety Honesty is being uphold when you are “telling truth” Safety is being uphold when you are “protecting children”

Topic Analysis Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to help people in need. Value= How can we measure the value as it relates to THIS topic? Resolved: A government’s obligation to protect the environment ought to take precedence over economic development.

Do this for both the PRO & CON Topic Analysis With your case; your group will introduce your case to the class & present the following informaiton: Identify what value that you would use to argue this side Identify the criterion List 2 reasons (contentions) why this side should be voted for (make sure your reasons align with your value & criterion) Do this for both the PRO & CON

LD in a Nutshell **Note: These times are for our class only Affirmative Case – 5 Minutes Negative CX – 2 minutes Negative Case and Rebuttal – 6 Minutes Affirmative CX – 2 Minutes Affirmative Rebuttal and Voters – 3 Minutes Negative Rebuttal and Voters – 2 minutes

Our LD Topics