The Instigator
Vitreous
Pro (for)
Tied
13 Points
The Contender
Minda
Con (against)
Tied
13 Points

LD Debates Should Be Based on Morals/Philosophy, NOT Statistics

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,027 times Debate No: 13417
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (7)

 

Vitreous

Pro

First off I thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I'd prefer this to be either a casual argument or LD, but nothing else. I will present an argument and a few contentions. I might tie in some values, but may the best person win. I'll provide a few definitions just to clear up this case.
First off:
Core Value-What your case seeks to achieve
Value Criterion-How you will achieve your Core Value
Contentions-Arguments that validate why your case makes sense
LD Debate-Lincoln-Douglas Debate
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pure-in truest form
Core Value: Pure LD Debate
Value Criterion: Basing cases on Morals/Philosophy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contention 1)Statistics do not have a place in LD
Lincoln-Douglas debate was introduced in the 1980's to The National Forensics League and recognized as a Values Debate. It placed a heavy emphasis on Ethics, Morals, Logic, and Philosophy. Yet in today's' LD debates, debaters place a higher importance on Statistics. So let us view why it should be based on Morals an Philosophy. The debate style was named after the arguments of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas. They debated slavery and other topics through ethics, morals, values, logic, and philosophy. So, in its truest form, an LD debate should be based on all this and not statistics. In turn, cases should be logical syllogisms that attempt to prove the resolution true/false. It is then recognized that cases look to achieve Logical Rightness. In other words, cases should prove the morality/immorality of a topic, not the solution through statistics.
Contention 2)Morals/Ethics/Logic/Philosophy do not mix with Statistics
Morals/Ethics/Logic/Philosophy are all based on the examination of rights and wrongs through one's conscience. They are also based on dilemmas presented with an action and if it consciencely correct. So, an LD debate should be based on the dilemma presented with a case explaining why the dilemma is consciencely right or wrong, not why it is statistically backed or argued. Statistics, in no way, tie with the ideologies of one's conscience. It just provides information taken on something. For example, statistics would say, it is valid to possess nuclear arms because it ended war between the US and Japan. Morally, it would present the fact that the possession of nuclear arms is good because it is viewed as a threat, keeping people in check. The obvious difference is presented.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I thank my opponent again for accepting the case an wish luck to them. I eagerly await my opponent's reply.
Minda

Con

I would like to start off by informing my opponent that I accepted this debate solely to gain practice in debating, and that the argument I am about to present does not shadow my exact thoughts regarding this topic.

My opponent makes a valuable point that statistics do not have a place in LD debates. LD was originally defined and created off of morals, ethics, logic, and philosophy. Therefore, any LD debate should only include reasoning based off of those key points.

Also, when my opponent mentions "case" (Value Criterion), I am going to take into consideration that the intended meaning of case could be a legal case, or the general and broad term of case. Until I am given further definition of case, I will create a somewhat broad argument.

However, debates based purely from morals, ethics, logic, and philosophy often present some errors.

In a legal case:
-Arguments constructed upon these points sometimes fail to present logical closings.
-Argument without proof or evidence is often undermined (might I mention that proof and evidence are based upon fact and statistics).

In a broad term for case:
-Statistics and facts are useful and often necessary to support one's moral/ethical/logical/philosophical beliefs.
-Moral and ethical beliefs are extremely controversial. With that said, debating on only morals and ethics would more often than not result in a roundabout never-ending argument. Facts and statistics help back up one's argument by creating a form of boundaries in which help the debate come to a logical and non-cliffhanging end.

I would like to state that I am a little uninformed on the core value and ending purpose of LD debates. In other words, I am slightly confused on what the affirmative and negative speakers are trying to accomplish at the end of their debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Vitreous

Pro

First off i thank my opponent for accepting this debate. I am sorry if i didnt specify case too well, but i was reffering to Lincoln Douglas cases. I am also sorry about your confusion. A core value is what a person seeks to achieve and a value criterion is how you wish to achieve your core value. I am also sorry for the confusion about LD debate, so i will try to be more understandable. I would also like to say that my opponents argument is valid so i won't argue about the format of her case. I guess I will give time for my opponent to change her argument as to apply to Lincoln Douglas cases. In the mean time, i will attempt to attack my opponents arguments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Case-The point of a legal case is to prove wether an action should be deemed correct or incorrect. So its priority should be to derive its case off of morals,logic,ethics, and philosophy.

Broad Term-This applies to any case in general, like policy. Since some cases are based off of statistics, i will attempt to cut it down to just LD. As my opponent stated, Morals and Ethics are extremely controversial. That is what allows LD Debates to be so open. So extending on that fact, the point of LD is to judge which case makes more logical sense, not to see which statistics provide better evidence. So affirm and await my opponent's refutation.
Minda

Con

I thank my opponent for clearing up some of the confusion. On another note, I searched a little more and am now fully informed on the purpose and outcome of LD cases. I would like my opponent to disregard my statements about legal cases and the broad term of cases, as I can fully present and opposing argument now.

As my opponent already knows, LD cases are guided to debate whether or not people should value something. I now see how my opponent believes that LD cases should be based upon morals/philosophy.

However, I still stand by my previous statement on how statistics and fact support one's moral and philosophical beliefs.

LD cases are said to be less evidence-extensive than other debates, such as policy debate. That does not say that LD debate does not include evidence at all. To appropriately present and LD case, one would need sources (which include factual and statistical evidence) to thoroughly back up one's argument.

Like I mentioned previously, many cases are undermined without the use of some vital source of where one's argument came from.

I now turn the argument to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
Vitreous

Pro

I thank my opponent for her argument and will abide by her wishes to drop her previous statements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point of LD is to judge which case makes more logical sense, not to see which statistics provide better evidence. Going back to round 1,LD debates were made to resolve moral/ethical issues that we face. So, the proper response would be a Moral/Ethical response, not a statistical one. Further more, arguments based on morals/ethics/logic/philosophy are left open for opponents to build on them. The deciding vote goes to the person who presented a better case and affirmed their case with morals/ethics better. The purpose of an LD argument is not to say that a moral/ethical/logical/philosophical beleif is correct because statistics prove it to be. It is to say that one's moral/ethical/logical/philosophical beleifs are more sensible than the other's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moving to my opponents case, the statement that to appropriately deliver an LD case, one needs statistics to thoroughly back up one's argument is false on the premise that this leaves LD cases to become to factual rather than moral. It also gives the impression that Morals and ethics can not be properly upheld without statistics. Leading back to the recap of my case above, LD arguments should not have to be based on statistics. They should present which logic seems to be more sensible. By adding statistics, one would have a never ending argument by trying to further uphold their statistics with more statistics, causing the case to become more statistical.

To sum my argument up, one should not rely on statistics to back up moral and ethics. Moral, Logical, Ethical, and Philosophal beleifs should be able to be supported by other Moral, Logical, Ethical, and Philosophical beleifs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To conclude i affirm the topic and presented reasons as to why i affirm. I wish the best for my opponent as this debate comes to a close and await her final argument.
Minda

Con

My opponent appears to neglect the fact that I never stated that LD arguments were used to see which statistics provided better evidence or the fact that I never mentioned that one should rely on statistics. I ask my opponent to re-read my statement, "LD cases are said to be less evidence-extensive than other debates, such as policy debate."

The key words in said statement are "less evidence-extensive than others".

If my opponent would like to post a comment as to show where in my last argument I said that one should rely on statistics to see which provided better evidence, I will gladly stand corrected.

I agree with my opponent's idea that LD cases should be based upon Moral, Logical, Ethical, and Philosophical beliefs. In a presented LD case, though, one should use very minimal to almost no statistics. Modern society and government rely mostly on statistics and evidence, so it would be fairly hypocritical and unrealistic to say that statistics and fact should not be used in a certain case.

On a side note, one or 2 statistics used within 10-30 beliefs does not suggest that the LD case is "based on statistics".

I have fully presented my argument and wish the best of luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WrathofGod 6 years ago
WrathofGod
Minda- I don't know. It says "Minda is not accepting messages at this time". Maybe its something in your privacy settings.
Posted by Minda 6 years ago
Minda
How do I not accept messages? I've been messaging someone on here just fine, so I'm a little confused.
Posted by Ragaxus 6 years ago
Ragaxus
My ballot goes to the Pro, 3-0, because of his completely unscathed first contention (historical relevance). You were both very nice, respectful for the most part of grammar, and completely bereft of evidence, so no points to be given there.

Comments:

Con: Minda, you're going to have to tell me *how* purely logical arguments are undermined if you want me to believe that they are, and you'll also have to prove that they're undermined simply because of their lack of evidence. Also, don't retract points you make in your constructive later simply because they look irrelevant: it's a nice thing to do, but you'd do better just to tie them to the argument. "Yes, we're talking about LD, but debate really should take pages from social science since they're such similar systems in the first place."

Pro: I didn't like the slippery slope argument you made in your rebuttal (letting any evidence-based argument in creates total reliance), mainly because you never actually proved that the slope is slippery. Also, you didn't refer to the point that your opponent dropped--do that. Finally, why did you give two definitions for Core Value and Value Criterion? The former in each case were closer to what I'd say are the commonly accepted descriptions for those concepts, but I was a bit confused as to why you included both.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Is it true that ethics and morality have no relationship to the real world whatsoever? Claiming it to be so denies "natural law" as a basis for moral absolutes. That's the basis for the "we hold these truths to be self evident ..." "Self evident" depends upon observations of the world, which include statistics.

The debate was a bit superficial, but I think Con made the argument adequately.

I think that the LD national debate topics clearly demand use of statistics. If one has the value "economic growth" or "better health" on relevant topics then what establishes the merit of the argument includes data of how well the proposition has worked in the past. Debates that exclude reference to facts of the world are pure baloney; useful only to awyers and politicians.
Posted by WrathofGod 6 years ago
WrathofGod
Fair enough. No harm no foul. Btw Minda, it's ok to use wikipedia, we all do. Just to cite quick facts. The only time that doesn't fly is if the fact itself can be reasonably disputed. But wikipedia s generally fair.

I tried to message you and give you some tips, I know what it's like to be new, bug you don't accept msgs.
Posted by Vitreous 6 years ago
Vitreous
Wrathofgod i thank you for your vote, but i should have been a bit clearer and i did have more language errors. Also, Minda, you presented a good case for someone who knew nothing of the topic.
Posted by Minda 6 years ago
Minda
1) Although he defined LD, he didn't mention valuable information, such as the outcome of an LD argument (what I was confused on). However, I blame myself partially for the fact that I hadn't investigated that before posting my first argument.

2) Like I had said in R1, I accepted this debate in order to get practice. i.e. I wanted to practice debating on a topic I knew nothing about and that I would have to prove the given side, whether or not I was actually con or not. I would also like to point out that I didn't get ANY of my information from Wikipedia. I actually know that the information on that site is not a reliable source, and that anyone who uses it as a source is looked slightly down upon.

3) You obviously didn't may much attention to grammar etc. I definitely noticed misspelled words, capitalization errors, and organization errors. No, I'm not saying that he had awful grammar usage, I'm just making a point that he had more obvious flaws.
Posted by WrathofGod 6 years ago
WrathofGod
I'm giving Vitreous max points becaue:

1- He defined LD in R1, missing that was Minda's fault, it was a penalizing oversight.

2-While Con admirably tried to compensate in R2, she missed the point of the resolution, and was poorly equipped to take the debate. I won't overlook her lack of first hand LD experience, she should have read the R1 and realized what she was getting into. She got her info from wikipedia real quick and missed Pro's major premise- "statistics" are irrelevant in a values debate. She made it about evidence. Pro wins.

3- I didn't notice a difference in grammar etc. I used my points to compensate for Con voting for herself, and for Pro losing when Con literally didn't know what the Res. was talking about to begin with.
Posted by Minda 6 years ago
Minda
I see your point. And it's okay, it was only a misunderstanding.
Posted by Vitreous 6 years ago
Vitreous
i'm sorry i didn't mean to come off rude bad moments and stuff...and its not wrong to vote for yourself, i just find it unfair...again im sorry
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Ragaxus 6 years ago
Ragaxus
VitreousMindaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
VitreousMindaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by WrathofGod 6 years ago
WrathofGod
VitreousMindaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by KodyHarris 6 years ago
KodyHarris
VitreousMindaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Vitreous 6 years ago
Vitreous
VitreousMindaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Minda 6 years ago
Minda
VitreousMindaTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
VitreousMindaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31