Lincoln Douglas Debate

Lincoln Douglas Debate

Unlocking the Doors to Persuasion

Part One: An Overview

• The Resolution is based in a VALUE conflict (ex. Whether the Individual is more valuable than the Society, or whether something is Just)

• The Resolution is determined by the National Forensic League (NFL)

• The Resolution will change every 2 months

Part One: An Overview

• There are 2 debaters in the round:

• AFFIRMATIVE upholds the Resolution the way it is stated

• NEGATIVE argues against the Resolution

Part One: An Overview• Definitions• The central theme of LD Debate. • Pay close attention to the definitions you use- it is

best to use the first one out of the dictionary, since this is the most common, and the one your judge will be most familiar with (and will agree with)

• Look at the Abe & Steve debate: the whole point of that debate was whether slaves were DEFINED as human beings or not.

Part One: An Overview

• The September/October Topic is:

• RESOLVED: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

• What are the key words that need to be defined in this Resolution?

Part One: An Overview

• The September/October Topic is:

• RESOLVED: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

• What is the ET (evaluative term) in this Resolution?

• What is the OE (object of evaluation)?

Part One: An Overview

• VALUES

• Can be anything, as long as they are supported (Criteria)

• Be able to explain why it is important off the top of your head without quoting from your case

• BELIEVE in your Value

Part One: An Overview• Sample VALUES

• Individualism• Utilitarianism

• Life• Quality of Life

• Freedom• Civilization

• Progress• Global Security

• Safety• Justice

• Human Dignity

Part One: An Overview

• CRITERIA

• Philosophies and/or contracts that will uphold the Value you choose

• A theory to help you prove your Value is more persuasive

Part One: An Overview

• Sample CRITERIAS• Locke’s Social Contract

• Rousseau’s Social Contract• Hobb’s Social Contract

• Rawls’ Distributive Justice• Bentham’s Principle of Utilitarianism

• Mill’s Utilitarianism• Kant’s Categorical Imperitive

• Maslow’s Theory of Self-Actualization

Part One: An Overview

• Three main ways to win an LD round• Prove that your value is supported by your

case, not supported by your opponent's case, and superior to your opponent’s value

• Prove that your case better supports your value than your opponent’s case supports theirs

• Prove that your case better supports BOTH values than your opponent’s case supports either one

Part One: An Overview

• Round Structure• 1 AC (affirmative constructive) = 6 min.• Neg. cx (cross examine) of Aff = 3 min.• 1 NC (negative constructive+NR) = 7 min.• Aff. cx of Neg = 3 min.• 1 AR (affirmative rebuttal) = 4• 1 NR (negative rebuttal) = 6• 2 AR (affirmative rebuttal) = 3 min.• (Each side also has 4 total minutes of Prep Time)

Part Two: Case-writing

• Introduction• Opening quotation(s)• Justification for your side• State the Resolution• State your Value• State your Criteria• Define all Terms• Preview your Contentions (main claims)

Part Two: Case-writing• Body

• “Contentions” are your main points. Your main claim is called your “Tag Line” (statement of your opinion)

• Contention I • Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis

• Support of your VALUE

• Contention II• Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis

• Support of your CRITERIA

• Contention III • Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis

• Further support of your side of the RESOLUTION

Part Two: Case-writing• Body

• Contention I (claim- ex. “Taking the life of even one individual undermines the basic right to life.”)

• SUBPOINT ONE: Taking a life is immoral.• Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis• SUBPOINT TWO: It is immoral to assume any life is more

valuable than another.• Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis• Support of your VALUE

• Contention II (claim- ex. “Killing even one person will not result in the greatest good.”)

• Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis (Subpoints 1, 2)• Support of your CRITERIA

• Contention III (claim- ex. “Violating life also violates other basic rights.”)

• Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis (Subpoints 1, 2)• Further support of your side of the RESOLUTION

Part Two: Case-writing

• Conclusion• Affirmative:

• Summarize main ideas

• Re-stated Value/Criteria

• Ending quotation(s)

• Negative:• Summarize main ideas

• Re-stated Value/Criteria

• Ending quotation(s)

• ATTACK AFFIRMATIVE

Part Two: Case-writing

• Attacking• Their Value & Criteria

• Point out flaws in how these uphold the Resolution• Point out flaws in their philosophy usage

• Each Contention• Point out flaws in reasoning/logic• Point out flaws in evidence or philosophy usage

• Central Ideas of their Case• Point out flaws in reasoning/logic• Point out items they should have addressed, but did

not

Part Three: Cross Examination

• In cx, the Negative tries to cast doubt upon the Aff position (and vice versa)

• Do NOT make statements in cx- as questions and gain answers only

• Don’t allow your opponent to evade answering your questions

• In cx, try to boil your opponent’s case down to a few simple points

• NEVER be rude during cx- always thank your opponent for the answers

Part Three: Cross Examination

• Ask clarification questions for information you may have missed on your Flow Sheet

• As the Answerer, answer as clearly and simply as possible

• Have confidence in your case

• Be polite, don’t get angry

• Look out to the JUDGE during cx, do not look at your opponent

Part Four: Rebuttals

• Follow the same rules outlined for the last half of the 1NC

• NO NEW POINTS may be brought up in these speeches

• Back-up evidence is useful, but not necessary. LD should not be an evidence war!

• The last 2AC should be used to CRYSTALLIZE the round (and state why you have won the round)

Part Five: Speaking Style

• The judge is the god or goddess in the room

• It is the judge you must impress

• Your opponent does not exist- they are merely a dissenting voice to the truth you speak

• Convince yourself you are right in order to win the round

• Speak to the type of judge you think you have (experienced or not, etc.)

Part Five: Speaking Style

• Speak smoothly, without use of “uh….”

• Vary your tone, rate, volume and inflection for emphasis

• Practice your case in front of a mirror

• Utilize controlled gestures and eye contact with your judge

• Give yourself time to breathe

• Be polite and conversational