UIL Topic

[TexasDebater]

Resolved: Nation-building is a desirable U.S. foreign policy objective

DISCUSS

[Brittany]

Personally, I think this topic's wording makes it quite difficult. It is very broad, but very obviously refers to Iraq. I think we'll hear a lot of people limiting it to just Iraq.

Also, especially on affirmative, there are a lot of assumptions that must be made to effectively argue it (especially in the standard debate). Any ideas on how to bypass this dilemma?

[cali418]

I'm new to LD but since alot of it is proving your opinion(?) with examples, wouldn't you want to find other examples of this.

Britney-where in Texas are you from? I'm in the "Heart of Texas" I think that's the region name.

[TexasDebater]

Your not necessarily proving you opinion. Well you are but you aren't.

You see, this resolution is a proposition of fact. This means that on the affirmative, you must defend a preset opinion (that nation-building is a desirable foreign policy). Besides, while some use of examples may prove inevitable, it need not be the bulk of your case. I tell the novices on my team that your case should be no more than 20% examples. You must rely heavily on concepts, logical analysis, and philosophy.

[Brittany]

Cali418 - The reason you don't want to rely (more than 20%, as TexasDebater said) on examples is because at this point, you commit the logical fallacy of inductive reasoning, which is a hasty generalization. You are taking specific examples and making a general conclusion. When you commit this fatal flaw, you leave a lot of room for "exceptions to the rule", which can cause you to lose many a round. The better form of logic is deductive reasoning, when you prove the general conclusion and use examples simply for support and to bring the topic down to real terms. Does that make better sense?

I am from Lindale, which is in the Northeast Texas Debate Association. We debate UIL-style only. It's a great organization.

Good luck with this topic, Cali! I'd love to hear some of your ideas!
Brittany

[Lor]

Cali418 - The reason you don't want to rely (more than 20%, as TexasDebater said) on examples is because at this point, you commit the logical fallacy of inductive reasoning, which is a hasty generalization. You are taking specific examples and making a general conclusion. When you commit this fatal flaw, you leave a lot of room for "exceptions to the rule", which can cause you to lose many a round. The better form of logic is deductive reasoning, when you prove the general conclusion and use examples simply for support and to bring the topic down to real terms. Does that make better sense?

Just because you offer examples doesn't mean you are making a hasty generalization or committing a logical fallacy of any kind. The examples are for support, but you shouldn't put a huge limit on how many you have. I've won rounds w/ multiple cards on every subpoint and no cards whatsoever on others.
Keep in mind that examples can come in the form of philosophical evidence, cards from universitites, empirical evidence, or historical examples(among plentiful others).
Examples shouldn't be overused, but they help to give a firm foundation to your case.

[Brittany]

Lor -

I completely agree with you; examples are useful and do offer multitudes of support! I simply meant that your case should not rely fully on examples. 20% is simply a rule of thumb that TexasDebater cited, not a rule set in stone. I hope I wasn't unclear.

Also, I think our definitions of "examples" differ. For clarification, haha, let me give you the example of this topic: in this case, an example would be Kosovo or Japan. All I meant was that people are going to be worrying too much about specific incidents and not enough about the actual concepts, in my opinion. It's good to draw from history, but when you induce conclusions, that's really not the best way to use your logic. There are better ways. I think it is almost always better (with a few exceptions) to use examples simply for support, and not for the meat of your argumentation.

I hope I wasn't unclear in what I said. :) Thank you for your response!

[Lor]

Lor -

I completely agree with you; examples are useful and do offer multitudes of support! I simply meant that your case should not rely fully on examples. 20% is simply a rule of thumb that TexasDebater cited, not a rule set in stone. I hope I wasn't unclear.


Awesome. I think we're on the same path here.



Also, I think our definitions of "examples" differ. For clarification, haha, let me give you the example of this topic: in this case, an example would be Kosovo or Japan. All I meant was that people are going to be worrying too much about specific incidents and not enough about the actual concepts, in my opinion. It's good to draw from history, but when you induce conclusions, that's really not the best way to use your logic. There are better ways. I think it is almost always better (with a few exceptions) to use examples simply for support, and not for the meat of your argumentation.

I get what you're saying on our definitions of examples, but I left mine a tad bit broader to prove my point. I think it's good to bring up historical examples(i.e. kosovo, japan) because it points out the concept of nation-building at hand. I can get up and read a case about how nation-building is inherently bad, but I need to prove why that's true. The best way to do that is to give an example. And I know this is UIL...so there are lay judges. The easiest way to win a lay judge over is to give a 1-2-3 analysis w/ little examples under each point. They may not be flowing but if you say something like "my opponent ignored the 3 examples i gave you here...under my 3 prong analysis...(or whatever)" the judge might be swayed to your side.


I hope I wasn't unclear in what I said. Thank you for your response!
Not at all. Glad to be here.

[Brittany]

And I know this is UIL...so there are lay judges. The easiest way to win a lay judge over is to give a 1-2-3 analysis w/ little examples under each point.

Yeah, I know what you mean. There are a lot of lay judges in UIL. However, it has been my experience that on the district, regional and state levels (the ones that matter), you usually have pretty decently qualified judges. So, I try to shape my cases toward those guys, and adapt with my speaking style and rebuttals to the lay judges when I have them. :)

Do you debate much UIL where you are? Or are you mostly NFL?

[Lor]

My cases stay the same. They fly better with flow judges, but I adjust my speaking style for lays.

In my area I only do UIL district, regionals, etc. We compete mostly in TFA/NFL.