What is LD Debate?
Metallica is not music!
To be music…
you must be able to understand the lyrics.
Standard
Rule
Test
Principle
Part One
LD Theory
“Lincoln-Douglas debate provides excellent training for
development of skills in argumentation, persuasion,
research, and audience analysis. Through this contest,
students are encouraged to develop a direct and
communicative style of oral delivery. Lincoln-Douglas
debate is a one-on-one argumentation in which debaters
attempt to convince the judge of the acceptability of their
side of a proposition. One debater shall argue the
affirmative side of the resolution, and one debater shall
argue the negative side of the resolution in a given
round.”
(2003-04 Constitution and Contest Rules Section 1002: LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE, http://www.uil.utexas.edu/aca/hsrule/1002.html)
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Judge Criteria
I. Purpose:
A. Case and Analysis
1. Defining the Values: Did the arguments presented focus on the values implicit in
the resolution?
2. Establishing Criteria for Evaluating the Resolution: On what basis (universal,
moral, social, political, historical, legal, etc.) is one value proven by the debater to be
more important than another?
3. Weighing Importance: Are the values advocated in support of the resolution
more important than the values diminished by the resolution, or are alternative values
supported by the negative enhanced by the resolution?
4. Application of Values and Criteria: Did the debaters apply their cases by filtering
appropriate arguments through the value and criteria?
B. Argumentation
1. Proof:
Did the evidence presented pragmatically justify the affirmative or negative stance?
Did the reasoning presented philosophically justify the affirmative or negative stance?
2.Organization: Are the ideas presented clearly, in a logical sequence, and with
appropriate emphasis?
3. Extension, Clash, and Rebuttal:
Did the debaters fulfill their obligation to extend their own arguments?
Did they appropriately refute the contentions of their opponents by exposing
weaknesses or inconsistencies?
C. Presentation
1. Expression: Were language, tone, and emphasis appropriate to persuasive
communication?
2. Delivery: Were gestures, movement, and eye contact audience oriented and
natural components of persuasive communication?
3. Rate: Was rate of delivery conducive to audience understanding?
II. Selecting the Winner: Putting aside personal biases and based on the analysis, argumentation,
and presentation of the debaters, which debater was the most persuasive?
What is the
purpose of LD?
A. Education
B. Truth Seeking
C. Win
Time Limits
1. Affirmative Constructive (AC)
2. Negative Cross-Examination (NCX)
3. Negative Constructive
4. Affirmative Cross-Examination (ACX)
5. First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR)
6. Negative Rebuttal (NR)
7. Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR)
6 min.
3 min.
7 min.
3 min.
4 min.
6 min.
3 min.
Preparation: Each debater has a maximum of three minutes preparation time to be used during the course of the
debate.
What are the key issues in
Lincoln-Douglas Debate?
Stock Issues
• Fulfill certain issues
• Expected arguments
What are the stock
issues in a criminal
case?
“There are certain stock issues which must be addresses in analyzing
any value claim. Stock issues are questions which are almost always
applicable to a particular type of proposition. They will help you
discover what issues you must address to win the debate.
Three stock questions must be addressed to prove the validity
of a value. First, what is being evaluated? Second, what is the
appropriate standard for evaluating it? Third does the thing being
evaluated meet the standard? Without considering these questions, it
would be impossible to establish that any evaluation is accurate, valid,
or correct. To meet the burden of proof, an affirmative debater must
establish the meaning of the object of evaluation, establish the
appropriate standard for judging or evaluating the object of evaluation,
and apply that standard to the object of evaluation. These are three
issues that are relevant in justifying any evaluation. These three
issues, thus, constitute the prima facie burdens.
(The Value Debate Handbook, Lee Polk and William English, 2000, page 11)
“From this four-step procedure comes the
‘stock issues’ of a proposition of value. They
are
1. How should we define the object of
evaluation?
2. By what criteria shall we evaluate it?
3. What is the relationship between the
evaluate term and the object of evaluation?
4. What is the hierarchy of values, and is the
affirmative value nearer to the top of this
hierarchy than any competitive value proposed
by the negative?
(Lincoln-Douglas Debate: Defining and Judging Value Debate,
NFISDA, Richard Hunsaker, 1990, page 7)
Stock Issues
in LD
• Value
• Criteria
• Application/Contentions
• Define terms
What are values and criteria?
“Yet, over twenty years after
Lincoln-Douglas debate made
its debut as a high school
event, there is still no
consensus on the use and
application of the value
premise or criteria.”
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON VALUES AND
CRITERIA IN LINCOLN-DOUGLAS
DEBATE: THE CASE CONTEXTUAL
STANDARDS, Minh A. Luong, NFL Rostrum
The Standard
• Means to measure or test the
resolution
• Relationship between value
and criterion
 Standards
 These are concepts or rules
used to evaluate the round.
Since both sides will likely
make some convincing
arguments in the course of the
round, standards are used to
determine which arguments
matter more.
What is a value?
A value is anything of worth.
“Values, by definition, will be broad and perhaps
vague…Although the criterion clarifies the value by being
more specific, it is still difficult to completely define every
aspect of the value. Philosophers have tried to do that for
more than two thousand years; it seems unlikely that
debaters will succeed in half-an hour.”
(SEEKING CLARITY THROUGH THE FOG: ON THE USE OF VALUES AND CRITERION IN
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE, Courtney J. Balentine and Minh A. Luong, NFL Rostrum)
The Value
The "value", "core value", or "value premise" represents
the most important goal for the round and are usually
nebulous and somewhat vague good objects. Out of
fairness and convention debaters rarely use values
which bias one side over the other.
The wording of certain resolutions may implicitly
prescribe the best value for the round. For example, the
resolution "Democracy is best served by strict separation
of church and state" implicitly suggests a value of
"democracy". Since the wording of the resolution guides
the selection of values the two debaters may have
identical or similar values. In these circumstances focus
is usually shifted to the criterion.
Common Values
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Justice
Freedom/ Liberty
Sanctity of Life vs. Quality of Life
Human Rights
Free Expression / Speech
Democracy
Equality
Societal Good / General Will / Society
Majority Rule
National Interest / National Security
Legitimate Government
Individualism / Autonomy
Safety
Progress
Privacy
Value Hierarchy
Justice
Leg’t govt
Rights
Autonomy
Societal Welfare
Safety
Progress
Democracy
How to establish an appropriate value:
A. Provide an adequate and appropriate definition of your value.
Most values are abstract, and can have different interpretations by both debaters. Thus
when you give a value a specific definition needs to be given.
For example look at the value such as legitimate government. Interpretations can be
varied on what a legitimate government is. Some could interpret legitimate government
as a government that protects individual rights, as others could interpret a legitimate
government as a government that provides security for its citizens. Thus a definition
must be given to give your opponent and your judge an understanding of what a
legitimate government actually is.
B. Show the value’s resolutional implications:
Resolutional implications simply show why your value is intrinsic to the resolution. As a
debater you must link how the value is related to the resolution.
C. Show the value’s real world implications:
Real world implications give an understanding of the importance of the value. It also
gives your judge an idea of why your value is needed and is important.
For example if your value is morality, you could say…
Cambridge Professor Mark Cooray establishes the importance of morality,
“Without morality all kinds of injustices and oppressions against individual persons are
sanctioned. No society can function efficiently or humanely and no civilization can
endure without this value.”
The Criterion
• Further define and limit the value
• How to achieve the value
• They allow us to tell when the
requirements of the value are met
• Ingredients of the cake
UIL Guide
A criterion is…..
“a standard by which something can be measured or
judged” (UIL Guide, page 12)
“a way to measure or judge whether or not upholding
the resolution achieves or enhances the value” (UIL
Guide, page 13)
“…it is certainly the area where the most confusion and
difference of opinion exist...” (UIL Guide, page 12)
The "criterion" or "value criterion" is the conceptual mechanism the debater proposes to
achieve and weigh the value. Oftentimes, the debater will simply talk about the criterion,
so it is sometimes referred to as the standard, in and of itself. First and foremost, the
criterion is how the debater achieves the value.
Given a value of liberty, for example, debaters might propose a criterion of protecting free
speech, reasoning that free speech is the most important aspect of liberty and that
possessing it will allow society to criticize government thereby maintaining other types of
liberty.
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).
The criterion serves several purposes then. First, it links the arguments made in the rest
of the speech with the value. In other words, the speech usually argues that an
affirmative or negative world leads to or necessarily includes the criterion which in turn
leads to the value. In addition to this, there are two commonly used variations of criterion.
The first is generally classified as "a weighing standard for the round," or a burden that
both sides must prove they fit in order to win the round. The other is a "burden criterion,"
which is placed on the affirmative by either side, and lays out a burden the affirmative
must fulfill in order to win. Values and criteria can be debated over which provides for a
fairer debate, which one is more relevant, if the burden is fulfillable, etc.
Common Criteria
• Social Contract
• Categorical
Imperative
• Utility
• Harm Principle
• Cost Benefit Analysis
• Market Place of Ideas
• Pragmatism
• Maslow’s Hierarchy of
Needs
How to choose and establish an appropriate criterion:
A. Establish how your criterion achieves your value. You must prove
how your criterion achieves your value, or else you are not affirming
or negating. This is true because if you are saying you value
something, you must prove how you achieve this value in the context
of the round. If your value is justice you can’t just say why justice is
important, you must also prove why your criterion achieves justice.
B. Provide justifications. Give warrants under your criterion, on why
your criterion is so important. The more justifications you give, gives
you more offense on why your standard is more important and why
you should affirm or negate.
C. Provide Burdens. Under the criterion set up a burden framework.
Tell your judge what your opponent has to do to win your criterion.
This is good for two reasons. First a lot of opponent’s drop burdens.
Two, burdens set up a better debate. If you come out and tell your
opponent what they have to do to win, it allows the judge to weigh the
round a lot easier.
Examples
(v) justice
(c) “giving every man his due” ?
(c) equality of opportunity
(c) promote individual fundament rights
(c) accommodates individual autonomy
(v) legitimate gov’t (c) consistent with the social contract
(c) provides for security
(c) follows the general will
(c) consistent with international
standards
Generic responses to values
1. Vague/ Ambiguous
2. Value Objection- a harmful effect of the value
3. My value is more important
4. My value is precursor-comes first
5. My value includes it-succumbs their value
6. Not a value, only a mechanism to gain some good-i.e dem
Generic Criteria responses
1. Circular to the value
2. Begs
3. Insufficient
4. My criterion is a precursor
5. Ambiguous, Vague
6. Not a criterion- i.e Cost Benefit Analysis
7. Criterion objection-a harmful effect of the criterion
Part Two
Case Construction
The role of the constructive is to lay out your position. Ideally your
first speech should be visionary, meaning at the start of the debate
you should know what you need to win the round. You should also
have a unified cohesive position. Be sure that you can summarize
what you are going to talk about in a few seconds.
You need to have:
•Resolutional Interpretation: what does the resolution mean, are you
making any assumptions, setting any limits or burdens
•A value and criterion
•Weighing: by starting to weigh arguments and stating why yours is
most important in your first speech it makes your next 7 minutes
infinitely easier.
Opening
Opening:
“______________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
__________________________________”
Because I agree with ___________________________ that I must affirm / negate the
resolution.
State the resolution.
Before continuing I would like to define the following key terms:
------------ is defined by _____________________ is
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________.
------------ is defined by ________________________ are
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
________.
Value and Criterion
The value I will be upholding in today’s debate is
___________________.
(Define)____________ means
_________________________________________________.
(Impact / Importance)_______________ is important
because_______________________________________________
___________.
My value is upheld through the criterion of
__________________________.
(Define / Clarify)
_____________________________________________________.
My criterion to achieves __________________ (value) because
______________________________________________________
_______________.
Contention (s)
Contention:
____________________________________________________________
______.
(Object of Evaluation/Value/Criterion)
A.
Analysis
Evidence / Example
Impact to value/ Criterion
B.
Analysis
Evidence / Example
Impact to value/ Criterion
C.
Analysis
Evidence / Example
Impact to value/ Criterion
Tricks of the Trade
• Framework
• Warrant the criterion
• Impacts
• Keep it Simple
Framework
Please allow me to make an observation: Affirmative Burden
The affirmative must prove that freedom of expression ought to be
valued above political correctness. Weighing one implication with
another is the only way we can actually determine which value
should be prioritized. Therefore my opponent can’t just say vote
affirmative, because political correctness violates freedom of
expression. My opponent has to show why the implications of
violating freedom of expression outweigh the implications I give at
the point you don’t have political correctness. This must be the way
we determine who wins the round, because rights conflicts will
always arise, and the only way we can determine how to solve that
conflict is by determining which side of the conflict has more severe
implications.
Warrant the criterion
The criterion is minimizing dehumanization.
Dehumanization is a process by which a group of people assert the
"inferiority" of another group through subtle and overt statements.
This is fundamental to society because if you don’t minimize
dehumanization, evil actions will become acceptable.
Susan Opotow explains,
“Once certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally inferior, and not
fully human, the persecution of those groups becomes more
psychologically acceptable. It may seem even more acceptable for
people to do things that they would have regarded as morally
unthinkable before.
Impacts
A. Absolutist approach to freedom of expression opens the door to extreme dehumanization.
At the point freedom of expression becomes an absolute right; any and all types of expression are
acceptable. Thus hate speech and racist comments become acceptable, and this inevitably leads
to dehumanization.
Professor Delgado explains:
“The psychological harm caused by racial stigmatization are often much more severe than those
created by other stereotyping actions. Race-based stigmatization is, therefore, one of the most
fruitful causes of human misery. The accumulation of negative images presents them with one
massive and destructive choice: either to hate one’s self, or to have no self at all, to be nothing.
This ambivalence arises from the stigmatized individual’s awareness that others perceive him or
her as falling short of societal standards.
Therefore my opponent has the burden to prove that the implications of violating freedom of
expression outweigh the implications of racism.
However there are two reasons why my implications outweigh the affirmatives:
First, my implications outweigh on a magnitude level. Like Barndt explained racism of any kind will
inevitably destroy us all. Minimal violations of freedom of expression can’t outweigh destruction of
all.
Second, my implications outweigh on a timeframe level. Racism is here now. The harms to racism are
happening now, so we must act immediately. My opponent’s harms of violating freedom of
expression only occur down the road.
Part Three
Philosophy in LD
• Love and pursuit of wisdom by
intellectual means and moral
self-discipline.
• Investigation of the nature,
causes, or principles of reality,
knowledge, or values, based
on logical reasoning rather
than empirical methods.
• The critical analysis of
fundamental assumptions or
beliefs.
• A system of values by which
one lives: has an unusual
philosophy of life.
Socrates is customarily regarded as
the father of political philosophy and ethics
or moral philosophy, and as a
fountainhead of all the main themes in
Western philosophy in general.
I. Kant
-Categorical Imperative
Act only on that maxim
through which you can
at the same time will
that it should become a
universal law
-Duty ethics
i. Only absolutely good is
a good will
ii. Intent
-Only tells us what is not
moral not what is moral
Kant developed his moral philosophy in
three works: Groundwork of the Metaphysic
of Morals (1785), Critique of Practical
Reason (1788), and Metaphysics of Morals
(1798).
II. Mill
-Utilitarianism
The greatest
happiness of the
greatest number
-Liberty-Natural Rights
-Harm Principle-Can
only violate liberty if
harmed others
-Market Place of Ideas
John Stuart Mill (May 20, 1806 – May
8, 1873), an English philosopher and
political economist, was an influential
liberal thinker of the 19th century. He
was an advocate of utilitarianism, the
great ethical theory that was systemized
by his godfather Jeremy Bentham.
III. *Locke
-Social Contract
Individuals enter society
expecting that their
individual rights will be
best protected
i. All have basic rights
ii. Leave State of Nature
and sacrifice some
freedom for security
-Government’s first duty is
to protect the rights of the
people
John Locke (August 29, 1632 –
October 28, 1704) was an
influential English philosopher.
His writings influenced the
American revolutionaries as
reflected in the American
Declaration of Independence.
IV. *Hobbes
-Humans are selfish and the
state of nature stinks
War of all against all in
which human life is
solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish and short
-Government needed as a
security mechanismGood use of force
-Individuals sacrifice all
autonomy
Thomas Hobbes (April 5, 1588–
December 4, 1679) was an
English philosopher, whose
famous 1651 book Leviathan set
the agenda for nearly all
subsequent Western political
philosophy.
V. *Rousseau
-General will-Takes in
views of all
The general will is
always rightful and
always tends to the
public good
-Government will
always act in citizens
best interest
-Desire of self
preservation
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (June 28, 1712
– July 2, 1778) was a Geneva-born
philosopher of the Enlightenment whose
political ideas influenced the French
Revolution, the development of socialist
theory, and the growth of nationalism. His
legacy as a radical and revolutionary is
perhaps best demonstrated by his most
famous line in The Social Contract: "Man is
born free, and everywhere he is in chains."
VI. Rawls
-Distributive Justice
Justice is the first
virtue of social
institutions
i. Veil of Ignorance
ii. Maximin Rule
-Fairness
John Rawls (February 21, 1921 –
November 24, 2002) was an American
philosopher, a professor of political
philosophy at Harvard University and
author of A Theory of Justice (1971),
Political Liberalism, Justice as Fairness: A
Restatement, and The Law of Peoples. He
is considered by many scholars to be the
most important political philosopher of the
20th century in the English-speaking world.
VII. Nozick
-Property rights
Taxation of earnings
from labor is on par
with forced labor
-Entitlement Principle
-Taxations,
redistribution, etc. =
slavery
Robert Nozick (November 16, 1938 –
January 23, 2002) was an American
philosopher and Professor at Harvard
University. His Anarchy, State, and
Utopia (1974) was a libertarian answer to
John Rawls's A Theory of Justice,
published in 1971.
The Big Picture
Part Four
Demonstration Debate
Speaker Format
AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
6 MINUTES
Read case
NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
7 MINUTES
Read Case
Clash with affirmative case
1ST AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL
4 MINUTES
Affirmative overview
Clash with negative case
Extend and/or rebuild affirmative case
NEGATIVE REBUTTAL
6 MINUTES
Negative overview
Clash with affirmative case
Extend and/or rebuild negative case
Provide voters
2ND AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL
Clash with negative case
Rebuild affirmative case
Provide voters
3 MINUTES