Philosophy Debate A Student and Teacher Guide to Success in LincolnDouglas Debate eBook Ben Griffith
Download As PDF : Philosophy Debate A Student and Teacher Guide to Success in LincolnDouglas Debate eBook Ben Griffith 
Philosophy Debate is a short, readable, understandable guide for both students and teachers in Lincoln-Douglas debate. While there are several textbook style debate books that serve as well as a fourth leg to an old couch as learning to debate, and there are quality debate camps that can cost upwards of $500–this is the first concise and affordable explanation of the most important aspects of LD debate.
But, this is also meant to be more than just an introduction. Learning to be a good LD debater is about learning to be a good thinker. Griffith pushes readers to not only be able to win rounds, but to learn how to engage in fruitful and productive dialogue. The skill of weighing ideas humbly and respectfully with those whom you disagree is the most enduring lesson that high school debate can teach, and Griffith argues for such an approach to LD debate.
Philosophy Debate A Student and Teacher Guide to Success in LincolnDouglas Debate eBook Ben Griffith
As a former middle school and high school LD debater, and now a volunteer coach for my daughter's middle school speech and debate team, I bought this book to refresh myself on the basics of LD, and as a resource for the debaters on the team. For a middle schooler or freshman in high school who has never debated or been to one or two tournaments, it provides a pretty good, easily accessible introduction; beyond that the debater will quickly outgrow it by the end of his/her first year of debating.It's not without its flaws though:
1. It recommends you make a philosopher's theory your criterion. For his example, he says "I would argue that my criterion (Mill's Utilitarianism) guarantees the value (equality) and renders the resolution (that free trade ought to be valued above protectionism) true." When I was a high school debater, I finally achieved success when I realized most debaters don't actually understand what criteria is supposed to be, and I see this is still true of most debaters, if the author of this book is any indication. Simply stating a philosopher's theory is not actually creating a criterion. A philosopher's theory can augment your criteria, but by itself it's nontopical, and worse, you're guilty of the Logical Fallacy of Appeal To Authority, ie, "we should use Utilitarianism because Mill says so." With an aff and a neg each throwing out a different philosopher's theory as the criterion for judging the debate, it becomes a "my philosopher is better than yours" pissing match. The author repeats this mistaken advice throughout the book in sections on how to reiterate your case in the various speeches of a debate round.
The proper way to construct a criterion for an LD case is to grammatically dissect the resolution, and find strong definitions for each word in the definition, including words like "ought" and "valued"; within the definitions of key terms in the resolution, you will find concepts you can adopt as your value, and then you will be able to show that your value is stronger than your opponent's because it is inherent to the resolution. And your criterion is crafted by using the definitions of the words of, and the grammatical structure of, the resolution to narrow its scope to fit the case you then craft.
Unfortunately too many high school LDers develop a favorite philosopher, and a favorite value that is supported by that philosopher, and try to shoehorn it into every resolution they debate, and it seems this is what the author recommends here.
The author also fails to stress that when you introduce your criterion, you need to explicitly argue why it should be accepted, you shouldn't assume it's obvious or try to argue it in your contentions like he does.
2. The author argues against the common practice of a case with 2-4 contentions, he recommends a case have only one contention, and then having subpoints on that contention. But when you look at his "contention", it's basically just a restatement of his criterion, and his "subpoints" are actually exactly the same as traditional contentions. He's arguing semantics, a distinction without a difference. Also, his "contention", " According to Mill's Utilitarianism, free trade ought to be valued above protectionism", in addition to being just a restatement of his criterion, is, again, committing the Logical Fallacy of "Appeal to Authority." Oh, so Mill says so (which he really doesn't), it must be true.
3. He says "never look at your opponent during cross examination" and "just keep your eyes forward looking at the judge when you are asking or answering questions." This advice is extreme and will make you look unnatural. I've judged rounds where a competitor does this, and it's offputting. It's natural and socially appropriate to look at someone when you are asking them a question or when they are asking you a question. And if you do it in a friendly but professional way, you look like you're being collegial with your opponent, and look like you're actually enjoying the round, which judges prefer to see over being stiff and aloof to your opponent.
4. He says "when you enter a room to debate ALWAYS ask the judge for a paradigm." He claims seeing whether they know what you are talking about will help you see if they are an experienced judge or not, so you know if you have to simplify things or not. This is unnecessary, as you can tell if a judge is an experienced judge by watching whether he flows the round or not, and watching his face and body language and note taking will let you know whether you're getting your point across. Even if the judge gives you a paradigm, you've already got the case you've got, you're not going to rewrite it to fit his "paradigm", or even necessarily be able to alter how you debate your opponent based on that paradigm, especially at the skill level this book is targeting. So asking for a "paradigm" just makes a debater look like he's showing off and sucking up to the judge.
5. In his instructions for the 2nd affirmative rebuttal speech, he says in the second minute to begin your summary with "the resolution is confirmed according to [criterion]. The criterion is valuable and should be accepted because it guarantees [value]."You shouldn't overemphasize the criterion here (especially when it's just a philosopher's idea), it sounds robotic and like you're saying "just trust John Stuart Mill."
6. The author's advice on how to flow a round is not very good. He recommends using a single sheet of white printer paper, with the affirmative case on one side, and the negative case on the back. This is really awkward, having to flip a single sheet of paper back and forth through the round, and when you're writing really small and dense writing on both sides of a single sheet of paper, the impression and ink penetration makes it hard to read. It's better to have two legal (8.5 by 14 inch) pads, one for aff and one for neg, and keep the flows attached to the pads until after the round is over.
There were also a few small typos in the book: The first sentence of the second paragraph on page 56 should be "won" not "one".The last sentence on page 63 should be "hear", not "here".
I spent a good deal of time laying out what I see as wrong with the book; I'm a former debater and it's a book on debate, so "debating" the contents of the book seems like a natural thing. But despite the flaws, I still would like to reiterate that overall, I do recommend this book as a good starting point for a novice middle schooler or high school freshman going into their first tournament, or with one or two tournaments under their belt and wanting to now have a clear understanding of the fundamentals.
Product details
|
Tags : Buy Philosophy Debate: A Student and Teacher's Guide to Success in Lincoln-Douglas Debate: Read 7 Kindle Store Reviews - Amazon.com,ebook,Ben Griffith,Philosophy Debate: A Student and Teacher's Guide to Success in Lincoln-Douglas Debate,EDUCATION Curricula,PHILOSOPHY General
People also read other books :
- Naughty Noel Leather and Pleasure (Audible Audio Edition) Jennifer Labelle Kellie Kamryn Romance Divine LLC Books
- To Whisper Her Name (Audible Audio Edition) Tamera Alexander Tavia Gilbert Zondervan Books
- Splatoon The Unofficial Guidebook edition by Luke Neely Children eBooks
- Chasing Ghosts A Supernatural Thriller Judah Black Novels Book 3 edition by EA Copen Mystery Thriller Suspense eBooks
- Becoming Jen An Unexpected Transformation Gender Bender Erotica edition by Kat DeVonne Literature Fiction eBooks
Philosophy Debate A Student and Teacher Guide to Success in LincolnDouglas Debate eBook Ben Griffith Reviews
As a first time debater, this book was a huge help! It allowed me to understand the philosophical concept of ld and was a great guide when writing my own case. It is fairly short, easy to read, and filled with useful information and tips that you can apply immediately. Definitely the best book for ld hat I have found!
This book is much needed, not only because there is no other book like it, or because of it's ability to guide beginners to more LD victories, but because it will help young, high school students to ask better questions and to be more humble and sympathetic listeners and debaters. Great book, by a great author, at great price!
As a novice Lincoln-Douglass debate coach I found this book to be an extremely helpful starting point.
Brief and to the point! Good as a supplemental text.
It is something that kids can understand easily. It is a fast read. For some reason, when I put the free copy on my kindle, it locked it up. My advice is not to download the e-edition. Wait for the paper copy!
This book is useful, but about at least ten pages are just an introduction on philosophy and what we should do in LD debate besides winning. It's k to keep that portion in, but some of the terms could be expanded on for example, the value and criterion. Since this book is about 70 pages, ten of them are wasted on common sense, which makes you wonder if you wasted your money.
Pros
It teaches the basics
It teaches the value and criterion structure
It tells you how to initiate a LD round
It explains the common mistakes of novices during the value clash
Cons
It doesn't tell you the best way to write a case,and doesn't give you multiple options if your looking for another way, it states you should create a single contention case, but single contention cases can be flawed in certain circumstances
It could elaborate more on rebuttal work, and how to create a satisfactory rebutal
It could state extra strategies
It could explain how plans, or counterplans work
It could actually explain how to clash values instead of state mistakes made by novices
So the final verdict is.... Get it only when your starting so you can actually use it. If you have some experience, then don't get it. It states it's better then camp, but from the actual material, that is by far pretty debatable. Buy at own risk.
As a former middle school and high school LD debater, and now a volunteer coach for my daughter's middle school speech and debate team, I bought this book to refresh myself on the basics of LD, and as a resource for the debaters on the team. For a middle schooler or freshman in high school who has never debated or been to one or two tournaments, it provides a pretty good, easily accessible introduction; beyond that the debater will quickly outgrow it by the end of his/her first year of debating.
It's not without its flaws though
1. It recommends you make a philosopher's theory your criterion. For his example, he says "I would argue that my criterion (Mill's Utilitarianism) guarantees the value (equality) and renders the resolution (that free trade ought to be valued above protectionism) true." When I was a high school debater, I finally achieved success when I realized most debaters don't actually understand what criteria is supposed to be, and I see this is still true of most debaters, if the author of this book is any indication. Simply stating a philosopher's theory is not actually creating a criterion. A philosopher's theory can augment your criteria, but by itself it's nontopical, and worse, you're guilty of the Logical Fallacy of Appeal To Authority, ie, "we should use Utilitarianism because Mill says so." With an aff and a neg each throwing out a different philosopher's theory as the criterion for judging the debate, it becomes a "my philosopher is better than yours" pissing match. The author repeats this mistaken advice throughout the book in sections on how to reiterate your case in the various speeches of a debate round.
The proper way to construct a criterion for an LD case is to grammatically dissect the resolution, and find strong definitions for each word in the definition, including words like "ought" and "valued"; within the definitions of key terms in the resolution, you will find concepts you can adopt as your value, and then you will be able to show that your value is stronger than your opponent's because it is inherent to the resolution. And your criterion is crafted by using the definitions of the words of, and the grammatical structure of, the resolution to narrow its scope to fit the case you then craft.
Unfortunately too many high school LDers develop a favorite philosopher, and a favorite value that is supported by that philosopher, and try to shoehorn it into every resolution they debate, and it seems this is what the author recommends here.
The author also fails to stress that when you introduce your criterion, you need to explicitly argue why it should be accepted, you shouldn't assume it's obvious or try to argue it in your contentions like he does.
2. The author argues against the common practice of a case with 2-4 contentions, he recommends a case have only one contention, and then having subpoints on that contention. But when you look at his "contention", it's basically just a restatement of his criterion, and his "subpoints" are actually exactly the same as traditional contentions. He's arguing semantics, a distinction without a difference. Also, his "contention", " According to Mill's Utilitarianism, free trade ought to be valued above protectionism", in addition to being just a restatement of his criterion, is, again, committing the Logical Fallacy of "Appeal to Authority." Oh, so Mill says so (which he really doesn't), it must be true.
3. He says "never look at your opponent during cross examination" and "just keep your eyes forward looking at the judge when you are asking or answering questions." This advice is extreme and will make you look unnatural. I've judged rounds where a competitor does this, and it's offputting. It's natural and socially appropriate to look at someone when you are asking them a question or when they are asking you a question. And if you do it in a friendly but professional way, you look like you're being collegial with your opponent, and look like you're actually enjoying the round, which judges prefer to see over being stiff and aloof to your opponent.
4. He says "when you enter a room to debate ALWAYS ask the judge for a paradigm." He claims seeing whether they know what you are talking about will help you see if they are an experienced judge or not, so you know if you have to simplify things or not. This is unnecessary, as you can tell if a judge is an experienced judge by watching whether he flows the round or not, and watching his face and body language and note taking will let you know whether you're getting your point across. Even if the judge gives you a paradigm, you've already got the case you've got, you're not going to rewrite it to fit his "paradigm", or even necessarily be able to alter how you debate your opponent based on that paradigm, especially at the skill level this book is targeting. So asking for a "paradigm" just makes a debater look like he's showing off and sucking up to the judge.
5. In his instructions for the 2nd affirmative rebuttal speech, he says in the second minute to begin your summary with "the resolution is confirmed according to [criterion]. The criterion is valuable and should be accepted because it guarantees [value]."You shouldn't overemphasize the criterion here (especially when it's just a philosopher's idea), it sounds robotic and like you're saying "just trust John Stuart Mill."
6. The author's advice on how to flow a round is not very good. He recommends using a single sheet of white printer paper, with the affirmative case on one side, and the negative case on the back. This is really awkward, having to flip a single sheet of paper back and forth through the round, and when you're writing really small and dense writing on both sides of a single sheet of paper, the impression and ink penetration makes it hard to read. It's better to have two legal (8.5 by 14 inch) pads, one for aff and one for neg, and keep the flows attached to the pads until after the round is over.
There were also a few small typos in the book The first sentence of the second paragraph on page 56 should be "won" not "one".The last sentence on page 63 should be "hear", not "here".
I spent a good deal of time laying out what I see as wrong with the book; I'm a former debater and it's a book on debate, so "debating" the contents of the book seems like a natural thing. But despite the flaws, I still would like to reiterate that overall, I do recommend this book as a good starting point for a novice middle schooler or high school freshman going into their first tournament, or with one or two tournaments under their belt and wanting to now have a clear understanding of the fundamentals.
0 Response to "[FO5]∎ [PDF] Philosophy Debate A Student and Teacher Guide to Success in LincolnDouglas Debate eBook Ben Griffith"
Post a Comment