linclon douglas debate

I compete in Lincoln Douglas style debate, and I am a debate nerd. Lincoln Douglas debate is often considered a values debate, where students debate a resolution (the resolution is the specified topic which could be something like "Resolved: Just governments ought to require employers to pay a living wage") either affirming the resolution, or negating it. 

Though, some believe otherwise, LD debate is not arguing, there is a format to follow, and this post will explain it. 

–

To start with, each debater writes a minimum of two cases, one case affirming the resolution, the other negating it, these cases will then be used though out tournaments.

    At the top of a case, one would typically find definitions. Definitions can play a large role when discussing something; take for example the world fish, if I were to define fish as someone who likes to swim a lot  and my opponent defines fish as a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate animal with gills and fins, living wholly in water, there becomes an obvious issue with trying to decide if fish should have rights. This is an extreme example for typically dictionary definitions are used and the terms don't vary so drastically, but it's just to prove a point. So, as you can see, it can be extremely beneficial to have terms clarified at the beginning of the round, as a way to set parameters. 

The Value-Premise usually follows the definitions. The Value-Premise, or Value, is something that is intrinsically good that one is able to uphold/promote on their side of the resolution, for example, Morality is a very typically value, as the principles concerning the distinction for what is right and wrong, being moral is something more rational beings can agree is good. 

The next part of a case is the Value-Criterion, otherwise known as the criterion, or standard. The criterion is a weighing mechanism that determines wether or not you are able to uphold your value, and your side of the case. These are typically a crucial part in the case, because if you're unable to prove how you uphold your value, then your entire case falls apart. Criterions are typically big scary words, that have super simple meanings, once they are defined; Utilitarianism is a very common criterion that is defined loosely as the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Because many philosophical concepts can be applied and used as a criterion, one can often find a large amount of philosophy in LD Debate. 

The substance of the debate comes from the contentions or the specific arguments made that back up your Value, and Criterion. There is no rule or limit, but typically there are 2-3 contentions, with a varying amount of subcontetnions to a case. A contentions on the affirmative for the living wage topic could be about how a living wage would reduce poverty, this contention would then contain both analytical and empirical evidence from experts, studies, meta studies, ect. about how implementing a living wage law reduces poverty. While a contention on the negative could be about how a living wage law would increase poverty.

–

With a basic case structure down the next part of a Linclon-Douglas Debate is in round mechanics of what goes on and how the round works. Before I being, there are two things you should know. First, is that the judge is the one who decides the round, and that there are many different things he/she can make a decision on, because debating is so subjective, and there is no set formula to determine who wins the round, 'the flow' is created. This brings me to the second point, 'the flow' is written or typed documentation (informal notes) of every argument that is said throughout the round, it is probably the most important part to any round, because if you don't remember what your opponent said, there is no way for you to properly respond. 

Affirmative Constructive (6 minutes)

In this speech, the affirmative reads their prepared case, while the negative and the judge flow/write everything down as to address it in later speeches. 

Affirmative Cross-Examination (3 minutes)

Here, the negative questions the affirmative over their case. This can be a way to clarify things, or a way to set up a trap for later speeches. 

Negative Constrictive (7 minutes)

At this point the negative presents their case, AND responds to all the arguments that the affirmative made in their case.

Negative Cross-Examination (3 minutes)

Here, the affirmative questions the negative over their case. This can be a way to clarify things, or a way to set up a trap for later speeches. 

First Affirmative Rebuttal (4 minutes)

In the first affirmative rebuttal or the 1AR, the affirmative makes responses to the arguments that the negative put on their side of the case, and they make responses to the negatives case. It is critically important that the affirmative does not forget/leave out any arguments in doing so, this would be considered a 'dropped' argument. If someone 'drops' an argument, that argument will not be able to be brought back up though out the rest of the round, and the argument is considered conceded. 

Second Negative Rebuttal (6 minutes)

Also known as the 2NR, this is when the negative has a chance to respond to arguments made on their case, back up arguments that they made on the affirmative case, and create an overview of the round and explain to the judge why they should win. This is the negatives last speech.

Second Affirmative Rebuttal (3 minutes) 

Also known as the 2AR, here the affirmative typically crystalizes the round, isolating the main and most important arguments of the round, and weighs those against the reasons why they believe that they should win the round. This is the last speech of the entire debate. 

–

The judge then looks at all the arguments made and refuted throughout out the round, and determines who wins. Though they are supposed to do their best to be objective and only decide based on reasons mentioned in the round, this isn't always the case. 

–

Overall, debate is a think-on-your-feet, be-persuasive-but-dont-sacrifice-quality-of-information type activity. I love it, and hope to continue debating though out the rest of high school and college. If you have any questions, feel free to e-mail me at blueeyedridgway@gmail.com.