Civil Rights vs National Security

Civil Rights vs National Security

Regular price
$30.00
Sale price
$30.00
Shipping calculated at checkout.

The following consists of the complete season releases from for the Lincoln-Douglas value topic listed below. Upon purchase, you will have access to a ZIP file containing the material listed. Take note of the release dates, as the timing may conflict with arguments of the current year.

Resolved: That the restriction of civil rights for the sake of national security is justified.

Chapter 1: The Value Resolution
  • Setting Your Compass: Resolutional Analysis
  • Picture a Destination, Plan a Route: Choosing a Value
    • Human Life
    • Justice
    • Common Good
    • Civil Government
    • Law & Order
    • Human Rights
    • Democracy
  • Scouting the Route: Research
  • Photos & Testimonials: Evidence in Value Debate
  • Discussion & Training
Chapter 2: Mapping your Quest
  • Creating the Affirmative Case
    • Introduction
    • Body – Definitive Issues
    • Body – Application Issues
    • Conclusion
  • Alternative Case Models
    • Value-Driven Cases
    • Basic or Core Value
    • Value-Plus
    • Value Systems
    • Value Standards
    • Resolution-Driven Cases
    • Philosophical Criteria
    • Unified Analysis
  • Discussion & Training
Chapter 3: The Diverging Road: Creating the Negative Case
  • Negative Philosophy
  • Negative Strategies
    • Negating by Refutation
    • Negating by Counter-Value
    • Negating on Value Balance
    • Policy-Model Negative (Flex-Neg)
  • Discussion & Training
Chapter 4: Challenge! The Art of Cross-Examination
  • Preparing Your Challenge
  • During the Debate
  • Informal Logical Fallacies
    • Slippery slope
    • Fallacy of Composition
    • Fallacy of Division
    • Circular reasoning (Begging the question or petitio principii)
    • Equivocation/Amphibology
    • Appeal ad populum (to the crowd)
    • Appeal ad misericordiam (to pity)
    • Appeal ad hominem (to the man)
    • Appeal to authority
    • Tu quoque (you're another)
    • Non sequitur (accident)
    • Straw man
    • False dilemma
    • Appeal ad baculum (to force)
    • Complex question
  • Receiving Cross-Examination
  • Discussion & Training
Chapter 5: Champion! Rebuttals
  • Crystallize conflicts
  • Accentuate advantages
  • Rivet the resolution 
  • Christian Etiquette
    • In the World…
    • …But Not of It
  • Discussion & Training
Chapter 6: Checkpoints for Destination Victory
  • Flowing a Value Debate
    • Traditional Flowing
  • Value Round Responsibilities
  • Burden of Proof & Presumption in Value Debate
  • Discussion & Training
Chapter 7: Judging & Coaching
  • Coaching Value Debate
    • Weeks 1-3 Topic Research
    • Week 4 Topic Research
    • Weeks 5-6 Topic Research
    • Week 7 Draft Affirmative Constructives
    • Week 8 Draft Negative Constructives
    • Week 9 Cross-ex Intensive
    • Weeks 10-12 Round Robin Debates
    • Week 13 Host a Round Robin with another club
  • Remember, Value is Different From Policy
  • Encourage Christ-like Behavior
  • Judging Value Debate
    • Affirmative & Negative Responsibilities
    • Burden of Proof & Burden of Rebuttal
    • Prima Facie
    • Structure of the Round
    • Timing
Bibliography
  • General Political Philosophy
  • Civil Rights
  • National Security
  • Quick Quotes and Definitions
Appendix I: Value-Driven Cases
  • Basic or Core Value (Negative Case)
    • Coach's Commentary
    • Evidence blocks for "Game Over" negative case.
  • Core Value (Negative Case)
    • Coach's Commentary
  • Value-Plus (Affirmative case)
    • Coach's Commentary
  • Value System (Negative case)
    • Coach's Commentary
  • Value Standard (Affirmative case)
    • Coach's Commentary
Appendix II: Resolution-Driven Cases
  • Philosophical Criteria (Affirmative case)
    • Coach's commentary
    • Evidence Blocks for "All Locke-d Up" affirmative case
  • Unified Analysis (Affirmative case)
    • Coach's Commentary
  • Exercise: Crank Case Take-down & Solution Key

 History of This Resolution

The 2004-2005 resolution was the NCFCA's fourth value debate resolution. Kim Anderson headed up a group of writers to formulate argumentation, many of them ending up national contenders in that national tournament. In fact, one of the writers, Rachel Blum, won the 2004 national tournament and another writer, Courtney Edmonds, won the 2005 national tournament. Both Rachel and Courtney were Mrs. Anderson's students. The 2005 National Tournament took place in San Diego at Point Loma Nazarene University.
The writers of this Red Book included Kim Anderson, Austin Webb, Natalie Webb, Lauren Dueck, Rachel Blum, Adam O'Connor, Michael Benevidez, Petra Anderson and Chloe Anderson.