AI Debate Assistant
LD file examples Case (speech) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hE1En5cYHfns5L3rJyKJq-wVgy9RE99RzRt_XYMxF_4/edit Case files (RAG) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XuRrxw_t7m4a2CV1w934W5YEsrazLlc1oZYjXwMPJD8/edit
How to do refutation file https://www.uiltexas.org/files/academics/LD_23_24_Interactive.pdf (Page 65-66)
TODO
- [] Match the length of the user input
- [] Prevent any general GPT comment on "yes I can do this" in the beginning.
- [] Few shot examples with some response speech examples
- [] Add how to give a response. Argument, evidence, counter-argument.
There is a threshold of experience level that debaters cross at some point in their careers. There are a host of fac- tors that indicate the experience level for competitors, and one such factor is to note the way in which debaters use their allotted speaking time. Beginning debaters struggle to use the time they have for speeches and, more often than not, are unable to present enough arguments to use their entire time. The threshold is crossed when debaters move from the position of not having enough to say to fill the time to the opposite, never seeming to have sufficient time for the arguments they want to present. One of the best ways to cross that threshold of experience is to master the art of refutation and improve skills used in responding to opponents arguments. The following refutation and rebuttal strategies are a few ways in which you can improve your skills in this area. LINE BY LINE RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS ON THE FLOW SHEET One the best ways to refute your opponent’s arguments is to present a line-by-line response to points you have recorded on your flow sheet. As your experience level increases you will likely get to the point at which you will not be able to respond to every single argument on the flow and, when that happens you will need to adjust your style. When possible, however, it is always desirable to simply respond to as many arguments on the flow as possible while, at the same time, identifying arguments you made to which there was no response by your opponent. IDENTIFY FLAWS IN THE VALUE / CRITERION RELATIONSHIP Review the relationship of your opponent’s value and criterion carefully. Here are some questions that can be asked regarding this facet of your opponent’s case. This list is by no means comprehensive, but does cover the more essential issues. ◊ Are the value and criterion clearly defined? ◊ Are the value and criterion clearly supported by evidence? ◊ Does the criterion support the value? ◊ Does the value logically support / oppose the resolution (depending on the side)? ◊ Do case arguments complete the connection between the value, criterion and resolution? ◊ Is the evidence presented in the case from reliable sources? Each of these ideas represents issues that can be raised against opponent’s cases. This is an excellent strategy for the simple reason that the essence of a case is the value and criterion. If serious questions are raised about either of them, the case will be difficult to defend. If your opponent does not provide support for their value or criterion, then it should be requested. If there is a question regarding the qualifications of sources, this is also ground for an argument. CHALLENGE THE LOGIC OF YOUR OPPONENT There are countless forms of logical fallacies that have been identified by experts on rhetoric and persuasion. You can gain substantial credibility by referring to them by common names. Here are but a few common logical fallacies: ad hominem fallacy involves a nonessential attack on the person or individual being cited without question- ing the actual information begging the question is a statement of a normally circular nature, for example “courts uphold morality be- cause laws are moral and courts uphold laws” straw man argument occurs when an opponent’s position is exaggerated or interpreted incorrectly so that it can be more easily defeated post hoc fallacy is committed when an event is said to cause another event just because it preceded it in time red herring results from an attempt to divert attention away from the primary argument at hand by focusing attention on a minute or insignificant detail CHALLENGE EVIDENCE One of the factors that separates debate from informal argumentation is that debaters are obligated to present evidence in support of their claims. This reality opens the door for several levels of potential objections that can be raised. If the evidence is being used to support a pragmatic or contemporary empirical issue then it can be challenged if it is not current. The qualification of the source of the evidence is also subject to question, particularly if the individual being quoted is one that is unfamiliar. Finally, listen carefully to the evidence to make certain that the evidence actually supports the claims your opponent attributes to it. IDENTIFY VOTING ISSUES One of the things you might have observed regarding the sample flow sheet was the manner in which the last affirmative speech addressed little more than voting issues. When reflecting on the time frame for Lincoln Douglas debate, it is essential to keep in mind the time difference between affirmative and negative after the affirmative constructive speech is completed. The first affirmative rebuttal is a 4 minute speech that must respond to a 7 minute speech. The second affirmative rebuttal is a 3 minute speech that must respond to a 6 minute speech. The simple reason for identifying this reality is so that affirmative debaters can be adequately prepared for this situation Lincoln Douglas debaters will often, especially when on the affirmative side, identify and cite several issues identified as “voting issues” or “voters” for short. These are key points in the debate that are believed by the debater presenting them to be adequate ground for receiving a favorable decision on the ballot. Caution is urged regarding use of voters, however, because some judges find the use of them objectionable. They merely want a line-by-line analysis so they as the judge can determine voting issues. This is not typically the case, but if you have had a judge who does not favor them, you should not use them with the same judge in subsequent rounds.