The V/C
The Lincoln-Douglas philosophy corner.
Since I'm writing this largely as a resources for novices, I'll start with some basic definitions.
Value- A value is basically a principle, ethic, moral, etc that your case is upholding. Common examples: Justice, Societal Welfare, Public Health.
Criterion*- A criterion is a philosophy or reasoning that links your value to your contentions and resolution, ie by satisfying the greater good (utilitarianism) with argument x, we achieve the value y. x is your case and y your value. The greater good (util) is you criterion.
Exactly what creates a criterion is rather vague. I feel the best definition is that a criterion is a paradigm or view of the world, e.g. for utilitarianism, we look at the world in such a way that we seek the greatest good for the greatest number. Some have defined it as an action, or incitement to such, but I favor the former.
Affirmative (Aff)- The side that argues FOR the resolution.
Negative (Neg)- The side that argues AGAINST the resolution.
*Confusion with how criteria work is common among novices (and it can continue into post-novice debating). A bad criterion can literally destroy a case. Especially as novices, feel free to check your V/C with advanced debaters or practice writing them. At the least, you should work with advanced debaters.
V/C Setup*
Not all V/C combos are created equal. Firstly, the bad case is the case that can't adapt. You should have multiple values and criteria for each case. You can only use on Value and one Criterion per round, but having multiple operable ones allows you (on the Neg since you speak second) to choose the V/C that counters the Aff's V/C. For example, if the Aff is running Pragmatism, Utilitarianism beats Prag, so being able to switch your Criterion to Util is highly advantageous. As the Aff, you'll have to guess which will work best (especially if you know your opponent's style/case).
DO NOT run something unusual just because you can. There is strength in unpredictability, but if the argument is weak, and you have access to a stronger one, then take the stronger. If you find an abnormal but solid solid argument, you're golden.
The other thing is how you play your V/C, offensively or defensively. A value or criterion isn't inherently aggressive or defensive, it's how you use them. What ultimately works the best is this:
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 gives you offensive potential so that you don't become stuck on the defensive.
- The Neg's entire point is to disprove the Aff, so an offensive value is the best. The defensive criterion gives you a fallback so that you're not to aggressive and lacking in a defensible case.
VALUES
Values can be very broad and are often abstract concepts. Here are some very common examples that can show up on almost any topic:
Morality- Can work, but a good debater can give you a run for your money. You NEED to have a definition for it, and one that doesn't contradict your case.
Justice*- This one is usually solid, though you need a definition for it (such as fairness, doing right, etc). If you do, then it should be left at that (unlike morality). It's very popular for resolutions about the criminal justice system. It's not uncommon to hit someone with the same value in these kinds of resolutions. Note: sometimes there are situations where you can run a value as a criterion, like in the resolution: Justice requires the recognition of human rights. Justice works well as the criterion on the aff.
Social Welfare/Societal Welfare*- Self-explanatory, being we must value the good of society, it is an extremely common value (the most common V/C is Social Welfare and Utilitarianism).
OTHER VALUES:
Stability, Civilization, Public Health, Progression, Equality, Humanity, Life
These values are examples of values that don't work with everything. They work quite well, but are nowhere near as common (though PH is common if health care is involved).
CRITERIA/PHILOSOPHIES
Utilitarianism*
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
- The greatest good for the greatest number of people
- Used in every topic (running this often causes you to hit someone with the same criterion)
- Act vs Rule: Act util judges what the best is on an individual basis. Rule util judges what is best using set rules. Act util is what you should always be using. You don't need to name it in your case, but if you're asked in cross-examination, you should answer act. Also, it's a good cross-x question for your opponent if they're running utilitarianism.
- Negative Util: Just a spin on normal util, you can use this to throw off your opponent. Negative is the least harm to as few people as possible. Instead of optimizing good, you're minimizing bad.
- COSMOPOLITANISM is a similar criterion which is really just a specified (and often unexpected) version of utilitarianism. It's a kind of "citizen of the world" thing and is used as the best good for the world.
- PRAGMATISM/POLITICAL REALISM basically state that we should do what is practical/ realistic.
Teleology/Consequentialism*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology
- The ends justify the means.
- Teleology is one side of the moral philosophy spectrum: the other side is deontology. Util is a teleological philosophy, for example.
- While they function the same in debate, fewer debaters recognize teleology (while the judge probably won't know either) so using teleology can cause your opponent to waste time figuring out what it is (even if you explain it for the judge). Consequentialism is the more common form.
Deontology*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology
- More or less the opposite of teleology, this is used as the ends do NOT justify the means.
- In debate, it would probably be used in a situation where more harm is caused than good is gained (and it's even better when the end isn't good either).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_Imperative
- A core deontological concept proposed by Immanuel Kant.
- States that their is an absolute right or obligation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
- The relationship between individuals and the government
- A citizen will give up things in the form of duties, taxes, etc in exchange for benefits from the government.
- Thomas Hobbes
- Ideal government was a monarchy
- Because the common man couldn't be trusted, a government would be created for the protection of rights
- John Locke
- Government formed to protect natural rights
- Rule by consent of the people
- Rousseau
- Direct rule by the people
- Man is forced to be free, if a man refuses to be part of the proper society, they will be forced back into alignment via laws
- Law doesn't limit freedom, but is its expression as the people define it
Autonomy
- The ability to choose for oneself. Freedom of choice, liberty, etc.
John Rawls
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls#Philosophical_thought
- Theory of Justice
- 1st Principle, The Liberty Principle- inalienable liberties; liberties of conscience, association, expression, personal property, democratic rights
- 2nd Principle, The Equality Principle-
- Fair Equality of Opportunity- Offices and positions ought to be available to any individual regardless of gender, race, background, etc.
- Difference Principle- Inequalities should benefit the worst-off, compensating for their natural inequalities
- Veil of Ignorance/Original Position- When rendering judgment, it should be from behind the veil of ignorance, which means that people don't know what their personal characteristics are, such as race, position, etc.
- The Laws of Peoples- How decent or liberal societies/people should deal with other societies/people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_of_Peoples
Egalitarianism**
- Equality is the center of justice.
Invisible Hand**
- Proposed by Adam Smith, it's the fundamental argument for deregulated trade
ultimately less effective as the hand does that on its own, as the markets are self-regulating.
Harm Principle
- "that no one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he chooses provided his acts are not invasive of the free acts of others"
- John Stuart Mill
- Libertarian fundamental Offense Principle- "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end"
- Legal Paternalism-"'self-regarding actions' when necessary to prevent individuals from inflicting physical or severe emotional harm on themselves. As Gerald Dworkin describes it, a paternalist interference is an “interference with a person’s liberty of action justified by reasons referring exclusively to the welfare, good, happiness, needs, interests or values of the person being coerced"
- http://www.iep.utm.edu/law-phil/#H3
Legal Moralism**
- "Legal moralism is the view that the law can legitimately be used to prohibit behaviors that conflict with society’s collective moral judgments even when those behaviors do not result in physical or psychological harm to others. According to this view, a person’s freedom can legitimately be restricted simply because it conflicts with society’s collective morality; thus, legal moralism implies that it is permissible for the state to use its coercive power to enforce society’s collective morality."
Value Ethics**
- The idea that a person must be good of oneself, ie the individual must be of quality. The aim is not to satisfy any arbitrary law of morality but to create good people.
Principle of X**
- http://www.iep.utm.edu/ethics/ (a. Normative Principles in Applied Ethics)
- Benevolence, paternalism, harm, honesty, lawfulness, autonomy, justice
- The Principle of X basically states to prioritize/pursue whatever X is.
- Some may claim it is a value, but the difference is you are achieving your value through the pursuit of X.
*Any LD debater should at least know these
**I've never actually seen these in debate, or I'm the only one to have used them. These are philosophies I've found in my own reading and thought would be good criteria.
RESOLUTIONS
Here are some old resolutions that I felt were fairly neutral (and personally rather fun). Especially if you're a novice debater, feel free to come up with a V/C to these resolutions, for both affirmation and negation. It may take a significant amount of time to come up with V/Cs for any topic- you may need to write your case first.
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.
Resolved: Economic Sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives.
And a rather difficult one (and of the style that has become quite popular, ie fundamental philosophy):
Resolved: It is morally permissible for victims to use deadly force as a deliberate response to repeated domestic violence.
Other Sources
http://www.iep.utm.edu/ - Rather complex, but a thoroughly good source.
http://www.wikipedia.org/ - It works. Plus, it covers most philosophies.
The Prince- Machiavelli- A short book with interesting propositions and the fundamentals of realpolitik. It is a bit archaic and brutal at times, but it covers other topics in less brutal ways, such as mercenaries and miserliness vs liberalism and such.
Man's Search for Meaning- Victor Frankl- A hybrid of philosophy and psychology. It's short and covers the Holocaust.
Mere Christianity- C.S. Lewis- Another short one, it contains many valid points. It would be less interesting to non-Christians, but I will endorse it nonetheless.
Wealth of Nations- Adam Smith - A lengthy discourse on economics. There are 5 books, my favorite being #4-5, they contain the most pertinent political philosophy.
Anything discussing philosophy (from fantasy, to fact, to video, to lecture, from Carl Sagan to Ayn Rand)
Come on Gibs! Lets see some more Values, I've really enjoyed these.
ReplyDelete