The Begginnig Of Life Can Be Explained Other Than Inteligent Design

Opening sentence of my opponent's argument: "Ok first of all all I have to do as the negative is prove him wrong on every situation he presents." Good thing I came along when I did before my opponent gets any more stupid ideas. Great care is taken to make debates fair. Each participant has an equal burden of proof. Another startling thing is that the Challenger gets to take a stand, and it does not have to be complete opposition to the Instigator's position. Here are the rules: And noting that these rules are assuming Pro goes first but if Con proposes the debate it is not fair to just sit and wait for something to shoot down. Opening argument should be posted with the opening round or you have just forfeited the round. It doesn't matter anyway since the real advantage to being a challenger is going last. Rules During Lincoln-Douglas Debate 1. Each debate involves two debaters, one of whom argues the affirmative side, the other the negative. The affirmative speaker must present a position agreeing with the resolution. The negative debater must disagree with the resolution's statement. (1) In circumstances where a resolution presents two alternatives, (e.g., "the sanctity of life should be valued above the quality of life') a negative side most commonly should argue the alternative to which the affirmative side has given second priority (i.e., 'the quality of life should be should be valued above the sanctity of life'). (2) A negative may choose a third option and argue both alternatives provided by the resolution. (3) A negative debater can also argue a "critique" against a resolution in its entirety. Because productive conflict, or 'clash,' is key to a Lincoln-Douglas debate, each debater should be able to make a positive case for their position and values, as opposed to a purely negative attack on those of their opponent. 2. Lincoln-Douglas is a fundamentally value-oriented (as opposed to policy-focused) debate. Judges must remember that debaters are not required to propose 'plans' for dealing with given situations. The role of debaters is to argue a moral position, and to use logic and ethical reasoning to do so. Additionally there are rules, taking the form of definitions, as to how a debate may be presented. The concept of "value" is critical. From http://www.farragut.cps.k12.il.us... : Value: The value is usually given in the wording of the resolution. Its purpose is to establish context (what the resolution is about, the topic of debate), and to establish ground (what part of the resolution each side must defend). The value should not be confused with something that most might think of as a value, i.e., something that is necessarily intrinsically good (such as freedom or liberty). Rather, a value should be thought of as a position or a stance of belief within the presence of other positions or stances— it is relational. In this sense, a resolution may have a value of "increased environmental regulation" or "civil disobedience." In short, the value (sometimes referred to as a value premise) is the position that the resolution is asking you to defend. Thus, in the resolution "violence is a justified response to political oppression," the affirmative value is violence and the negative value is political oppression. The debate should then focus on the contexts in which the choice between the two value positions must be made. There is a good description of value and criteria in http://www.nflonline.org... And that is what is lacking in my opponent's argument.