2010 Spring UIL

[DFleming]

This is my first year to do LD and I was wondering if there are any ideas for aff values and criterion. Please help!

[ForensicAnalysis]

My suggestion would be to do research. There are going to be alot of values and criterions we have never heard of. Im sure you wil hear the ususual, Humanity, Morality, and utilitarianism and such, but i think to make a strong case you are going to want something a little more unique. Good luck!

[Orchid]

Yeah i started last year too but after my first novice round i got the hang of it. What usually happens I've noticed is that your opponents are trying so hard to get a different unique value and then they don't even have a clue what they are talking about. For the Fall UIL topic i kept with Freedom of Expression, pretty basic. But i won because my opponent couldn't tell me what the value meant and how it related to the resolution. Stick to what you know and can defend without looking stupid, you know? Like Life, thats a pretty important value.

[power7762]

I went to my second tournament this past weekend here in Texas, and it was my first time to EVER do LD. I hadn't done LD in class, so I thought I would be screwed. BUT, I went 2 for 1, and would have gone to quarterfinals, but it broke straight to semifinals. Anyways, my aff value is life, and my criterion is the potential to treat all life equally. You really gotta drill the point that any other value, specifically morality, would be anthropocentric. Life directly applies to both biocentrism and anthropocentrism, so its the only good value for the round. If you give me your email I'll be happy to give you my case. But, the round where I was aff was the only one I lost. I won both rounds I was neg. And btw, I was debating both novice and varsity. They were mixed at this tournament. But, I'll be happy to give you my aff case, and my neg case too. If you want them, just give me your email, and I'll get them to you as soon as possible.

[jhuseman]

Power7762-

Send me your case, and I'll critique it for you if you like. I'm concerned about your v/c.
jhuseman@ncpa.org

[power7762]

Alright, that would be great. Thanks for the help.

[LCM..LD..GOD]

but when your running this on affirmative your opening yourself up to millions of arguments that say the anthropocentrism dosent protect all life equally...thus the neg will win the impact debate on the aff standard (criteria) by better proving how biocentrism does....

[power7762]

Yeah, I'm still trying to come up with arguments against that. Any ideas? There's a reason the only round I lost was when I was Aff lol. So what exactly do you think I could say about how anthropocentrism is treating all life equally?

[kayla33]

i need help!
im a new debater this year
our teacher knows nothing about LD and i know next to nothing about debate.
and any help with resources, philosphers, and how to actually make a case would rock!

[Lehman]

"Potential to treat all life equally" First, this seems like a better NEG Cr. Even so, were it a NEG cr, I feel it would be abusive, because it skews toward Biocentrism, which, by definition already views all life as of equal value.

V: Life
I get tired of hearing how this value and/or Cr is "the only proper/good/acceptable" V/Cr for the round. In actuality, you can debate over which V, Cr is more desirable, provided the two can be discussed on either side of the rez.

Finally, Morality isn't automatically anthropocentric. True, it is a human creation, but then, ALL our V/Cr's are. You can certainly weigh the rez on the basis of morality. To say that something created by humans is automatically anthropocentric makes it to where you can't run ANY V/Cr. Hell, we can't even debate, if those are the conditions.

[whscorbin]

For this particular resolution I would suggest that all of you read the books Ishmael and story of B by daniel quinn. There is a lot of things within it that are very useful.

[JMessmer]

Power7762 I get the feeling you dont have the full understanding of LD, or this resolution. The value "Life" is something absurd to run with. Methodologically, the only criteria that will provide the most "Life" is Death, being that one must kill to gain food, therefore life is not upheld. Next, the equal treatment of all life doesnt achieve life, it destroys it. When you eat beef, chicken, or produce items, are you telling me you value your life the same as the organisms you are about to eat? their Death, not life, that you condone in order to provide better for your own well being but lesser for their wellbeing? Life cannot be upheld without anthropocentrism.

Anthropocentrism does NOT say that humans are the highest animal, or than we are superior, and you dont have to prove a single important factor about the human race to win on the affirmative. I have written a case based around this and won every round with it and taken first, second, and third at every invitational tournament i attended. The thesis of the case is not than man is superior, but that man HAS to be anthropocentric. The definition of "Anthropocentrism" is "Interprating or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences"...No inclination of superiority is mentioned. Most helpful in writing this case was a host of assistance my former coach gave me, to which partial credibility goes to for the case. The evidence states that just as man prioritizes itself first, cats do the same, bears do the same, dogs are the same, and plants are the same. Find me one organism that does not, at the end of the day, dedicate all of its works toward survival. not LIFE, but survival. Self-Centredness.

So again, equal treatment of animals is not going to achieve life, in fact, in distorts it. Life and survival are not one in the same. Life comes from survival, but life is also lost in the same process. in order to survive, be it a herbivore, carnivore, or omnivore, some form of life must be taken in order for anothers to be affirmed. i.e. bear eats fox to live. life is affirmed, NOT achieved. consequently, life is also taken.

For the topic, i would recommend running both sides with the criteria of "The quality of life" or "the sanctity of life" as the value. Life itself is absurd to run with.

One thing that has upset me is the ignorant belief that one can write a case stating that the other side will lead to world destruction of life and that ones own side prevents it, and that aff/neg i.e. biocentrism/anthropocentrism is the determinant between life and death of all organisms.

secondly i am upset with the cases that talk about the human brain size, how humanity can think and reason, and the stupid moral agent cases. None of these properly answer the resolution and i have crushed them all for the most part and continue to wonder why they are even let through lips and teeth of potentially excellent debaters who use the bandwagon theories as a crutch.

i recommend that you spend alot of time REALLY studying the underlying logic of the terms and find an innovative V/C and run something someone else isnt. While running those bandwagon theories at invitational tournaments may get you 2-1 and break at quarters, thats about as far youll go without extreme luck or unless you hit someone who is about as mediocrely prepared for the debate as you are. not trying to mount an attack, but i am disappointed with the number of people pretending to be "debaters" who dont really "debate". part of debate is taking time to understand the topic. this doesnt mean define the words and find some synonyms, and then write a case and toss in some cards and be prepared for pre-written CX questions.

I actually pride myself on this year, because i have only lost 2 preliminary rounds for the Spring UIL topic and broke into the top 3 at every tournament, and nearly the same for the previous topic. If you are new to LD, spend time reading baylor briefs. like seriously, read the baylor briefs. then, read other briefs, every time you have a chance, go and print off a 30 page document and just read it. dont take 5 hours a day and hide in a corner, but dont be the guy who writes his cases ON THE WAY to the debate, or the guy who writes his case a week or two before districts. I have 4 cases, the two i ran all season which i was constantly adjusting, and my district cases, yet to be run that i have slowly been compiling since christmas break.

This is the best way to do it IMO. I also have prepared cards and responses for arguements and cards, but im different from most people who do this. most people who do this compile an index and just skid thru when they hear a certain key word that they have tabood in their brain and ears, but rather i have the responses tucked away in my head, and i have the cards in a folder. granted i do keep an index, but i have memorized most of them anyways, and dont really need them. The difference is that i know what im talking about, whereas the other people who do this dont, the just read from the paper and pretend to be smart.

so not trying to wave my own flag, but understanding the topic is the best way to understand LD. and 9 times out of 10, if you walk into a round with only your case, flowpaper, and a notepad, your going to lose. hands down, your either going to lose, your opponent stink, in which case it wasnt a good debate anyways, or your REALLY effing smart. I always have a backpack with a mountain of evidence and analysis and philosophical dictionaries and thesauruses because the worst thing in a round, to me, is to lose not because i didnt debate well, but that I COULDNT debate because i didnt understand what my opponent was talking about, and i wasnt smart enough to study it prior to the debate, or that i was lazy or ignorant and just didnt know. There is alot more to debate than what goes on in the round. there is also what goes on in the mind, and outside of the room.

[Olivia]

Anthropocentrism does NOT say that humans are the highest animal, or than we are superior, and you dont have to prove a single important factor about the human race to win on the affirmative. I have written a case based around this and won every round with it and taken first, second, and third at every invitational tournament i attended. The thesis of the case is not than man is superior, but that man HAS to be anthropocentric. The definition of "Anthropocentrism" is "Interprating or regarding the world in terms of human values and experiences"...No inclination of superiority is mentioned. Most helpful in writing this case was a host of assistance my former coach gave me, to which partial credibility goes to for the case. The evidence states that just as man prioritizes itself first, cats do the same, bears do the same, dogs are the same, and plants are the same. Find me one organism that does not, at the end of the day, dedicate all of its works toward survival. not LIFE, but survival. Self-Centredness.

I was definitely considering running the obligation to ourselves aff like this, but then i realized that i would be able to very easily run a simple theory or framework argument kind of rip it to shreds. plus i just prefer to run really unusual arguments that i know nobody will have answer two. buttt, in order to win this debate (against me at least haha) you'd have to:

1) win the framework which says that there IS an agent of the resolution, and that the agent is indeed humans
2) prove why this would be a more advantageous view of the world, b/c in my negative cases i lay the framework that the winner is whichever side has a comparatively more moral/better world. why would it be better if we're strictly self absorbed and didn't view ourselves as bonded to nature?
3) have answers to a perm
4)have answers to the argument which says that your definition of anthropocentrism is NOT of real-world context which is harmful to debate. today, we live in an anthropocentric world where animals and plants are viewed to have solely instrumental value and this causes all sorts of harms. you'd have to entirely escape the "real world" debate, because anthro doesn't mean what you say it means in real life.

and plus you'd have to win any other type of theory argument accusing you of like... not being fair. or whatever.

but, it's a very clever argument and would (obviously, as you've said) win a lot of debates.

and, i'm pretty sure you debate in my district. weird.
would you happen to do PF along with ld?

[JMessmer]

I do indeed do PF, Ive only done it at two tournaments tho, the second of which we took second place qualifying for nationals

1st answer-- i do not have to prove humans are the agent of the resolution because even if anthropocentrism were to be changed to felinecentrism i would still argue the same point-- beings ought to prioritize their own interests to survive, determining whether or not the resolution mandates a moral agent is irrelevant, for morality exists in cats when they promote felinecentrism. to them it may be interpreted differently, and may call it something in their own minds, but whether or not they think on our same level, the same inclinations we use to justify action by which we call morality is still available to other organisms, no matter what name we call it or how concientiously we commit the act.

2nd answer-- This is a more advantagous view of the world because all organisms are biologically engineered to succeed by taking full advantage of their environment for survival. I have evidence to prove this, and i also provide case evidence that says in no way does "taking full advantage" have to lead to exhaustion or misuse of resources. even if it were, it is still manifestly the only proper view for humans to take into account. Human precedence supercedes all other natural law FOR HUMANS, Anthropocentrism states humans are to valued most highly in nature BY HUMANS, Felinecentrism says cats are to be valued highest BY CATS. There is nothing that statea other species must recognize the height or amount of the value contained with other organisms, or to even point out WHY each organism is valuable, merely that no moral harm is done when an organism chooses to survive.

3rd answer -- lmao i have no clue what a perm is, never heard the term used, im not sure its real LD, if its a TFA/NFL LD term then i refuse it, im traditional old school LD

4th answer-- you presumptiously assume the world is anthropocentric. through the human eye, this is true. its also a Kaninecentric, Felinecentric, and Arachnocentric and many others...in fact, every other. Birdcentric, or w/e you would say. Again, by no means is humanity to be RECOGNIZED as superior or valuable by other organisms. Humanity could be the LOWEST animal, and anthropocentrism would manifestly be the only proper view to hold accountable when making decisions base on well-being interests.

next on the definition debate, i dont have to conform my definition to others provided in other cases, first of all my definition is the only one found in every Anthropocentric Dictionary, second you have to dig incredinly deep, and then misinterprate and distort evidence to absurdity to find a definition of anthropocentrism that would make you win, which would additionally require you to step back from the clash and prove why your rare definition that is uncommon and unbelievable the best definition in the debate. Defi debates are terrible, but i have an observation and a few blocks on other definitions that i can run, because someone tried to do this to me, except the idiot said my definition was wrong, pulled out the SAME definition, and ran it, then said his was better cuz he got it from some biological dictionary, and mine was from webster. then he said his source was more credible, and i stated "at the point both sources provide the same evidence, how do we know which is more credible?

5th answer-- not being fair?? how is it not fair that i prioritize my own life? i actually have cards that talk about how this view is compatible with environmentalism, so in a real debate you would have to prove that is false before you could extend any arguementation about unfairness or the biasedness of anthropocentrism and its detriments to the ecosystem.

But yea, this case has been incredibly useful, because most of the neg blocks that ppl prewrite get them nowhere, and then it just comes down to who the better debate is, which is what it should always be imo..

So anyways, yea i do PF and LD, what school are you from?

[JMessmer]

Ok guys i keep seeing morality come up and i really really really hate morality because its a shot in the foot. if you run morality as a value, that means you have to have a criterion which promotes morality in of itself, which means you have it already thus you exercise it, therefore the V/C is circular and has to connection. If you do NOT advocate a moral means, then your criteria is immoral and is contradictory to morality, and again it cannot be achieved.

further, morality is a guide to an action, it better serves as a warrant, and a very strong warrant it makes, but not a V or C.

here are some things i personally have stowed away against morality.


1. Morality is not a value, but a guide to an action. You can make one of two conclusions off this value:
• Either my opponents criteria is not moral, meaning two things. A.) It is not circular to this value and B.) Its immorality contradicts the moral parameter they set. This is implicated through the utilitarian advocacy they present.
• The second conclusion is that the criteria IS moral, and thus circular with the value or “Morality” as they present a Moral Mechanism to achieve Morality.
Either way you must reject this value because of either its circularity, or its self-contradiction.

2. Morality has no static standard that can be definitely weighed.

3. Morality is too subjective. Moral Standards vary from country to country, culture to culture, and person to person. Hitler and the Nazi’s found it moral to exterminate 8 Million Jews, Mao Tse Tung found it moral to exterminate 20 Million Chinese. At what point do we decide what is and is not moral? And who decides?