this is the debate manuel so far. I gotta ask about the social contract stuff

It comes out in block form with no itilices or anything

The L-D handbook for dummies ;)
Warning: May consume your life.
AKA: How to become a master-debater




























This, is the abby version of the handbook, written by the one the only Abby Beggs. In this handbook, you will find everything you will need to know for debate L-D, only for dummies, hence the title. There will be no big confusing words, or any thing like that with out definition in this book. First, I will take you through the most important things, like case writing and etiquite (etiqiute is a big word for smart people format or stuff.) So let's start.

Case Writing
The structure of the case
Alright, during a round the Affirmitive ( or Aff.) speaks first. During this six minute talking time the aff sets up their case. This case is made of the following:
The introduction: Ussually consists of a qoute and pulling of the heart strings of the judge, somthing like "Property is surely a right of mankind as real as liberty."- John Adams. If the people are robbed of their rights than they will be unhappy with the government and probably rebel. The government should not take what the people have earned for something that might damage the environment or that will lower the surrounding land value and hurt the economy. Which is why I affirm the resolution which states; the use of the state's power of eminent domain to promote private enterprise is unjust. Yeah, that was my latest and not my best, but it worked! You wanna restate the resolution. Oh BTW, the resolution is another big word for the topic you are debating. Make sure your quote is from a good source or else you'll look dumb, like you don't want a quote from Jeff Foxworthy (Comidian aka "You might be a redneck, guy) or Billie Joe Armstrong (Lead singer of Green day). If your opponent asks you where you got it, you'll look like a dummy.
Next you gotta have definitions.Words that are important and/ or in the resolution that 3 year olds wouldn't understand. like if you had a resolution of the use of the state's power of eminent domain to promote private enterprise is unjust. You'd wanna say after your introduction To secure clarity in today’s debate I would like to offer the following definitions. .
eminent domain
The right of a government to appropriate private property for public use, usually with compensation to the owner.
private enterprisen. Business activities unregulated by state ownership or control; privately owned business.
Promote : to cause or contribute to the growth, development, or occurrence unjust adj. Violating the principals of fairness, unfair
Yeah, I know you don't know what the heck any of those words mean or what the resolution means, but that isn't important, the point is you know what to say. The next thing out of your mouth should be your value and value criteria. I'll explain both in the next section. Skip ahead if you want.
Next you got your contentions (main points). These will also be explained later. Go ahead and skip ahead
Then you gotta wrap up the contentions with some added stuff about your value. At the end say: I will now stand aside for cross examination


















The value
I know, I know, you think this may be easy right? That's what I thought boy was I wrong. Everyone through big scary words like value and contention at me. BUT DON'T PANIC!!! Because, since I am a nice person who has no life, I will explain all these words. Don't give up, you can get it.
First let's explain the value. A value is what all your points (or contentions) are made of or have in common. For example, if you had three different points that all have something to do with the economy, then guess you value! The economy! Here are some good examples off the top of my head:
Social contract- I will explain
Economy-Money and stuff
Rights of American citizens- self explanitory
Social welfare- Big word for the well being of society
Progress- again, self explanitory
Justice- well, basically you can figure it out because my definition is:To treat adequately, fairly, or with full appreciation
Fairness- Not that common but it could work for some things
Equality-Again not that common but could work
Yeah, that's all off the top of my head but there are more out there. Any way, this is the value. Now the value criterion, that's the pathway to your value. It could be any of the above and more. If your novice you don't NEED a value, but it would be awesome if you had one. For all of you that live off examples, here are some values with their criterions that should be appropriate BUT REMEMBER, you can mix and match and be switched around that all depends on your case!
Value; Criterion;
Rights of American Citizens Justice
Rights of American citizens equality
Social Welfare the economy
Social Welfare Social Contract
Rights of American Citizens Social Contract
Progress The economy
Remember, your value and criterion have to have something to do with each other, or else it wouldn't make sense because your contentions should be linked to the criterion that way they link to the value. You want to define your value and criterion and know how to attack the other values and stuff.














The contentions
These are your main points. I can't stress this enough, make sure your contentions and values link, and your value links to the resolution. The contentions are the most important thing in your case. Make sure they are filled with big words, that your judge can understand, and flow. Dont jump from point to point and remember to sign post. Sign posting is when you say stuff like "My first contention for today's debate is that" or "My value for today is," and even in attacking your opponents case say things like "My opponent attacked my case by saying..." If you don't your judge and opponent will be lost, and that's bad :( .You're gonna want three contentions for aff, and two or three for neg. Ussually neg gets two, but that is due to time, I will get to that later. An example of a begginer JV contention is: .
My second contention for today’s debate will be Eminent domain helps economy helping people in the longer run. The government using eminent domain for private enterprise will help the people by bringing in more tax revenue and diminishing taxes for the people. The government pays the people for their land anyway, and they make sure it’s a fair amount, not some cheap price they guessed. Besides if the government was putting a mill nearby that would pollute the air and water, and create people to have a medical condition, like cancer. No one would really want to live in an area that would give them cancer so the richer people who are paying more taxes would move and no one would buy the area where they were living causing the town to lose money. The only way the town could get back the money was to spend more money cleaning the area up an sending people out to inspect the mill making ways for it to pollute less. Besides the poor people that couldn't afford to move anyway would have to live in this polluted area and get cancer. But the government could buy these peoples land and have them move out of the area thus helping the economy making it so that the people will be happier, and safer. In conclusion: The people always need social welfare with out it they would not be being protected, which is against the social contract. Eminent domain helps the economy, protects the social welfare of the people, and adds room for growth.
That was neg. Remember, you want your strongest contentions first and last and put your weak one in the middle (Judges remember the first and last things they hear!) That was a pretty weak contention, but it'll do (Especially in novice.) Here's an example of a bad contention:
My third contention is that if current immigration continues, we will become a poor overpopulated nation. Immigration currently adds more than 1 million people per year. This does not include illigal immigration. If we do not limit the number of immigrants that we let in to our nation, we will have to pay for most of them to go on welfare costing the taxpayers even more money and taking the welfare away from the American citizen. This raise in taxes will only lead to a need of more money from the Citizens job. This will only lead to more compitition in the job market and a need for more money. Thus widening the gap between rich and poor even more.
It was short, repeated, and used the same small words over and over again. I didn't tie it into my value, and this is my first ever case, so, you might do that bad your first time, but you'll get better and start winning trophies and be all proud of yourself!





















The structure of the round
Alright, here's how the rounds go. I will say the times and stuff too.
Affirmitive constructive/ Case
6 min.
When the aff presents their case
Neg cross examinantion
3 min.
when the negative asks the affirmitive questions. (You can skip ahead to see the cross ex stuff.)
Neg. Constructive and 1st Rebuttal
7 min
The neg presents their case and attacks the opponents case.
Aff cross ex.
3 min.
same as neg cross ex only the aff asks the neg.
Aff. 1st Rebuttal
4 min.
attacks opponents case AND defends their own case
Neg. 2nd rebutal
6 min.
neg attacks and defends
aff. 2nd rebutal
3 min
NO NEW ARGUMENTS! Go over the key issues and attack and defend.
Then, shake hands with the judge and your opponent then leave. That's about it. Before and after the round, if you or your judge isn't in the room you can chat with your opponent. Make friends, people are nice in L-D and if they lose they won't hold it against you unless their really mean or wierd or hot headed.

Cross examination
If you've seen Law and order, this is basically that. You or your opponent asks questions that are meant to trap the other in their words and make them agree with you. You can't just flat out say it you gotta trick your opponent. This time can also be used for clarification. This means, if you were busy writing something down and missed your opponents value you can ask the to repeat their value. And if you miss their first contention for example, you could say"Could you please repeat the tagline for your second contention?". Remember you and your opponent have to answer all the questions in cross ex. And remember BE CIVILIZED! This means, no yelling, kicking, screaming, attacking your opponent personally, punching, swearing, or anything like that. Yeah that's it pretty much.
Rebuttals
Rebuttals are when you attack your opponents case and defend your own. You need to go over all issues and REMEMBER TO SIGN POST! When you are attacking, oh say, your opponents 2nd contention, say "my opponent basically stated in their second contention..." or something like that. Even if you can't attack or defend part of your case, restate it. If your opponent drops something in your case, like your 3rd contention (not like one little thing in you contention) say in your rebuttal "My opponent dropped my third contention meaning it still stands/ my opponent agreed with it proving the contention." The entire thing is made up from taking notes on something called a flow sheet. There should be one attached to the back.Learn to flow. The only way is to practice by going into mock rounds and asking one of the other debaters to show you (It's something that's gotta be shown to you.) Yeah that's about it for rebuttals.







Stuff to know and Tips for a good round
Social contract
Alright, this is oober complicated, DON'T BE INTIMIDATED!! Once you get it it's easy. Let's start with what it is. Social contract is an agreement among the members of an organized society or government and the governed defining and limiting the rights and duties of each. Yeah, confusing I know. I never thought i'd get it but I do now and if I can get it a soap dish can. Basically, it's the unwritten or writen rules of the government and the people. It's also people giving up some rights to gain protection from the government. For example, you don't kill other people, the government keeps people from killing you. You pay taxes, the government gives you free public education. If you don't get it, don't worry. Ask someone they can explain it to you and make it easier. There are three main guys on this. They are Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke.
Hobbes- he belived in a nut shell that the people without the government would live in something called a state of nature. In this state of nature, people are all equal for even the strongest man can be killed in his sleep. So everyone lives a life of solitude. They also live in fear, and in dissatifaction. No one would be forcing the people to cooperate and everyone would have a fear of losing their life to one another. Plus no one would setisfy their needs or wants. There is hope. He thought men were reasonable so they would create a government and get out of this state of nature and out of their fear. In short the people and the government are equal. People want to avoid this state of nature, so they need these people in power to force them to abide by their laws, and so that these people in power will protect them. Get it? If not ask someone.
Locke- he belived that the people were more omportant than the government because the rights of the government derive from the people. Yeah I know, confusing, I'll explain. Locke belived in this state of nature also. But, he belived that the state of nature was something that was harmonic and people were equal and lived in peace free to do whatever they wanted. The thing that kept them from killing each other was a sense of morality that was given to us by God. Get it? Basically your consiense. That little voice in the back of your head that tells you what's right and wrong. And that with this conciense, we would know what not to do and would not violate other peoples human rights unless we were sick twisted and felt like stealing or killing someone. But people needed to make sure that those sick twisted murderous people got punished. So they gave up some of their power so the government could be established and the executives could be appointed and punish those people. Get it? So he thought that the government was made for the people by the people and all that good stuff.
Rousseau- Finnally the last one. Okay, he belived since the government protected the people that it was more important. He thought that the state of nature was a scary scary place where people had no civility and sothey had no conciense. He belived that since we are taught from young kids what's right and wrong that we have no conciense and that on the inside we are all evil manipulating creeps. He thought we were power hungry and wanted what was best for us. So the government was created to keep these evils in check. So since the government was all "Were gonna protect everyone" that it was far more important than the people.
Fun Tips and what not to do in a round
Here are a big list of random tips from no where and for the most part explinations. So I'll start off with what not to do in a tipical L-D round.
NO YELLING- You gotta be civil or else you're gonna lose.
NO CUSSING- That's won't look good and your judge may not like it
NO VIOLENCE- this means no hitting,kicking, slaping, scratching, biting, punching, tackling of any kind, wrestleing your opponent and/or judge to the ground, farting on your opponents or judges head, throwing anything, yelling, screetching, screaming, or anything of that sort
NO TALKING- by this I mean no talking when your not in cross ex, your own constructive, or your own rebuttals.And don't talk to people who are watching the round
NO DISTRACTIONS- This means mostly you not getting distracted by say a really hot opponent or judge. And don't come in wearing something stupid like a purple shirt with red pants and a green tie, that's just dumb.
NO EATING- That is never ever a good idea. If you have some medical conditions where you HAVE to eat every fifteen minutes (These medical conditions do not include being overweight) then it is okay
NO SEXUAL INTONAITIONS- this means, don't be a pervert, don't flirt with your judge or opponent in the round etc etc etc.
NO INSULTS- This means no judging your opponent or judge and making fun of them. No rude comments, and if your judge is so incredibly hideous that you can't look them in the eye, look at their forehead. And also, no snide comments based on race ethnicity, gender, sexual preferences religion etc etc etc... If you happen to be racist sexist or anything, just don't say anything against those people.
NO SIGNS- You are not aloud to bring in anything distracting like, signs, posters, white boards or anything like that
NO LEAVING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROUND- unless of course you have to throw up. If you have to go to the bathroom, hold it.
Yup, that's the things you should never ever do. If you do you can get kicked out, so that wouldn't be good.
Some pointers on how to win n' stuff are;
Be Civil
Smile
Shake hands with your judge
Look smart
Be smart
Act smart
Use big words, to a point
Have a good case
Practice your case in the mirror
Know the subject
Be confident
Yeah there are more, but your just gonna have to learn them on your own! HA HA!
A few words in closing
Look at that! Now that wasn't so hard was it? Except you know that whole social contract stuff, but any way, you now know how to be a godd novice debater, and it only took reading and practice. You are now ready to debate, if of course you have a case, so yeah that's it.
THE
END