LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE
Overview Lincoln-Douglas Debate involves the philosophical analysis and debate of a resolution that has no definite answer. Two debaters face each other in a round, with one representing the affirmative side and the other representing the negative side. The affirmative must prove the resolution true in the most literal form that the wording implies; the negative must simply prevent the affirmative from achieving this goal, through showing that standard for the round cannot be achieved in a world abiding by the resolution. The standard for the round (value) is a broad conceptual goal that each case hopes to achieve. Format 1st Affirmative Constructive (AC) 6 minutes Negative Cross Examination (NCX) 3 minutes 1st Negative Constructive (NC) 7 minutes Affirmative Cross Examination (ACX)3 minutes 1st Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) 4 minutes Negative Rebuttal (NR) 6 minutes nd 2 Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) 3 minutes Affirmative argues for the resolution Negative directly questions Affirmative Negative argues against the resolution Affirmative directly questions Negative Affirmative refutes Negative arguments Negative refutes Affirmative arguments Affirmative summarizes case and makes a final plea to the judge
Each side is also given 3 minutes of preparation time to use when and how they please. Simply ask the judge to give you this time or just use it. Constructive Speeches 1. Introduction – Tell a story or give a concrete analogy that illustrates the reality of the argument that you are about to make. This will often be a historical example or simple story that is easy for the judge to understand and identify with. 2. Definitions – These are key terms of the resolution. Many debaters strategically pick definitions that both support their arguments and limit the number of responses the opponent can make. There are many resources available for good LD definitions including "Black's Law Dictionary" and contextual definitions from authors who are experts in the subject you are debating. 3. Value – This is a concept presented that the debater asserts his arguments will strive to attain. Most debaters pick a value that represents the common good in society, such as democracy or civil liberty. In many debates on any given resolution, the values that debaters pick are similar, If this is the case then the round will now come down to which case best upholds this agreed upon supreme value. A value should generally not be biased to your side of the resolution. 4. Criterion – This is the mechanism the debater proposes to achieve the value. A criterion will usually be stated as a gerund (e.g. upholding a system of checks and balances), or will be the name of a particular philosophy or term (e.g. democratic peace theory). However, the only purpose of a criterion is to provide a basic link from one’s case to their core value. It serves as a concise summary of what one will argue. 5. Contentions – These advance the actual arguments of the case and are used to support anything the debater wishes to convey, within the limits of topicality. Contentions will usually contain both empirical evidence and deductive reasoning to prove their points. Some debaters use subpoints within the contention in order to break arguments down into their specifics. This, howeve r, can also potentially break up the flow of a case. a. Claim – This is the statement of what you are arguing. b. Warrant – This is the reason why your claim is true. Warrants can include examples, expert opinion, or logic. c. Impact – This is the reason why your argument is important. It must show how your intention links to your criterion and thus how your contention achieves your value, and then ultimately why winning that argument means you win the debate.
* Affirmative should use all 6 minutes of his constructive to present his case. Negative should use about half of his 7 minute constructive to present his case and the other half to critique his opponent’s case. Cross Examination Following each debater's constructive speech, the opponent is given a 3 minute period to ask questions regarding the constructive that was just given. Any questions may be asked. Debaters are encouraged to clarify any confusing points made by their opponent or to obtain information that was missed during the constructive. However, the time is often used by each side to try to weaken the other debater's standing. The questioner often will go to specific points in the constructive where there may be a factual inaccuracy or other weakness, and ask detailed questions that will force an opponent to admit the weakness. Meanwhile, the questioned debater will try to dodge trick questions while supplying long answers that will serve to (a) waste the questioner's allotted time and (b) expand upon the original constructive. Skilled debaters must use a balance of courtesy and strategy to use the period effectively. It is a common practice for judges to refuse to take into account anything said in this period if it is not brought up in future speeches. One of the most fun and dificult skills to master is leading someone down a path. This is done through a series of questions designed to have your opponent agree to a series of small statements that eventually lead to one conclusion where your opponent is trapped and must respond to a bigger arguement based on the small statements they agreed to earlier. It is best to remain unpredictable, so as you are leading someone down the garden path, throw in some unrelated questions so your opponent doesn't predict where you are going and find a way to squirm out of your trap. Rebuttals In this portion, most debaters focus on attacking their opponents' arguments and defending their own in a way that will cement a victory in the round. Toward the end of the NR or 2AR, debaters will reduce their arguments to a few core voting issues. A voting issue is an argument a debater has made that he believes to have proven his case and thus excuses the judge from considering other arguments and factors. Remember that the goal of the debater throughout the round is to convince the judge of his case. That means 1) make frequent eye contact with the judge 2) use proper forensic form in addressing the judge 3) make clear concise arguments that the judge can understand and believe 4) maintain a modest and impersonal demeanor that will not alienate the judge Tournaments In a Peninsula Debate League tournament each debater usually participate in 3-4 rounds. You will be informed whether you will argue Affirmative or Negative about 5-10 minutes before the next round. An effort is made to ensure that each debater argues Affirmative and Negative two times each. After the round is over the judge will complete a ballot on which he will select a winner and award speaker points. Speaker points simply indicate the overall logical and forensic quality of each debater’s performance. If the two debaters’ speaker points were close this usually indicates that this was a tough decision for the judge. The judge then submits the ballot to the tournament organizers who compile win-loss records and establish the pairings for the next round. The PDL often uses “power-matching”, in which an effort is made in each succeeding round to match debaters of similar caliber against one another. District Tournament – The top 3 debaters from our team will be selected to compete in the Bay Rivers District Tournament in early March. I will make this selection based on 1) performance at regular tournaments, 2) attendance and performances at practices, and 3) quality of Aff and Neg cases. Regional Tournament – The top 4 debaters from the District will automatically advance to compete in the Region I tournament in mid March. States – The top 4 debaters in the Region will automatically advance to the state tournament at Liberty University in mid-April.