Lincoln Douglas Debate

1
Lincoln Douglas Debate

• Unlocking the Doors to Persuasion

2
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

3
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

4
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.

5
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?

6
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)?

7
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

8
Part One An Overview

• Sample VALUES
• Individualism
• Utilitarianism
• Life
• Quality of Life
• Freedom
• Civilization
• Progress
• Global Security
• Safety
• Justice
• Human Dignity

9
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

10
Part One An Overview

• Sample CRITERIAS
• Lockes Social Contract
• Rousseaus Social Contract
• Hobbs Social Contract
• Rawls Distributive Justice
• Benthams Principle of Utilitarianism
• Mills Utilitarianism
• Kants Categorical Imperitive
• Maslows Theory of Self-Actualization

11
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 opponents value
• Prove that your case better supports your value
  than your opponents case supports theirs
• Prove that your case better supports BOTH values
  than your opponents case supports either one

12
Part One An Overview

• Round Structure
• 1 AC (affirmative constructive) 6 min.
• Neg. cx (cross examine) of Aff 3 min.
• 1 NC (negative constructiveNR) 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)

13
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)

14
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

15
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

16
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

17
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

18
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
• Dont allow your opponent to evade answering your
  questions
• In cx, try to boil your opponents case down to a
  few simple points
• NEVER be rude during cx- always thank your
  opponent for the answers

19
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, dont get angry
• Look out to the JUDGE during cx, do not look at
  your opponent

20
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)

21
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.)

22
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 ?