1. Week 1

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

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

4. Type of source Author qualification Date

5. Case Framework Card Flow Bye Round Double Flight Spreading Judge Paradigm Value premise Criterion Contention Dropping Road map

7. 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)

8. Known as CX The negative debater asks the affirmative questions Clarification questions—intended to understand information Pointed questions—intended to reveal flaws

9. 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)

10. The affirmative debater asks the negative questions Clarification questions—intended to understand information Pointed questions—intended to reveal flaws Clash

11. Also called 1AR 1 st 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

12. 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

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

14. 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.

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

16. 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.

17. 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?