GUIDE TO LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE
Introduction
Lincoln-Douglas Debate is named after the historic debates between Stephen Douglas and
Abraham Lincoln. It’s important to understand that Lincoln-Douglas (LD) debate is rooted in
discussions about values. LD debate is about values deemed important whether they are on a
governmental, societal, or individual level, and it gives debaters an opportunity to examine
these values in a context. For example, the death penalty: is it a justified form of punishment?
Or, does our government have a moral obligation to pursue human rights around the globe?
Debaters have the opportunity to examine issues and decide how we, as a society should act,
make laws, and consider our way of life.
Debaters of Lincoln Douglas values debate, get to move from the realm of the way things are,
to the way things ought to be.
Second, LD debate is one-on-one debate. This allows the debater to control his or her destiny
in the round. And it works particularly well for those students who like to work independently,
or who may have scheduling difficulties and cannot work with a partner. For students who
enjoy working with a group, research, case-writing, and practice can be done by the team as a
whole.
Regardless of the reason, Lincoln-Douglas Debate promotes self-reliance, self-confidence, and
personal accountability. So, if you like one-on-one argumentation and enjoy working
independently, then LD is for you.
This guide is for both new debaters who are learning as well as for older debaters who want to
brush up on the skills and concepts used in the debate form.
I.
What is an argument?
This really is at the core of Lincoln-Douglas (LD) debate. In fact, any kind of debate activity is
about argument. We need to know what the basic structure of an argument looks like. Once
we know this, we can build arguments and cases that persuade. That structure is called the
Claim-Warrant-Impact structure.
1|Page
Definitions
Claim: The claim explicitly states what the argument is about. It asserts the values or truths
debaters put forward while they are arguing.
Warrant: why the claim is correct. This is the most crucial step of the argument. I will show a
few ways to “warrant” an argument or “claim” that it is true.
Impact: why the argument matters in the greater context of the debate, or case. This is
sometimes referred to as the “implication” as in what does this claim and warrant imply?
Example: Health Care Should Be Universal in the United States. This could be a typical LD
resolution. One team would affirm it and the other would negate it.
Claim: Healthcare should be universal because it ought to be a basic right of citizenship.
Warrant: a basic social contract argument that the Government has the responsibility to
protect the well-being of its citizens because citizens have given up rights to make the
government function. The basic idea here is Quid pro quo= in exchange for: so this is why the
government provides a defense system, a military, an infrastructure, etc. to keep citizens safe,
healthy and relatively happy.
Impact: Government must fulfill its duties of protecting its citizens or the social contract is not
valid.
So this is one type of argument… another example on the same topic…
Example 2:
Claim: The reason the government should provide universal health care is because it is the
most cost effective for its citizens.
Warrant: A single universal health care system will result in fewer bureaucratic obstacles for
citizen access to health care. (The student can then find statistics to support the warrant that
this will reduce bureaucratic obstacles and save money.)
Impact: If the government has the ability to do something less expensive, they should take
that course of action to best manage resources (taxes) people have given to the government.
So here we see the use of Claim-Warrant-Impact. What happens when we leave one of those
three elements out of the overall argument? Without the warrant, you just have an argument
2|Page
asserting something that is unsupported. An assertion alone is simply an
unwarranted/unsupported statement. The warrant tells more about why people should believe
that assertion/claim is true.
Sometimes people leave out the implication and then we really don’t know why their argument
is important and how it links into the large picture of what is to be accomplished by the
argument and what the purpose of the argument is in the larger case.
So, these three elements: Claim-warrant-impact are all three necessary for an argument to be
convincing. There are three main types of warrants: analytical, empirical, and psychological.
Types of Warrants
Analytical: a logically consistent reason why the claim follows through to the conclusion.
Empirical: displays why the idea is true in the real world (how people act). Empirical means to
observe or to study. Empirical warrants often provide measurement as verification, such as
statistics.
Psychological: these are a bit more tricky. When we state what people ought to do we are in
the realm of a psychological claim. A psychological warrant shows why there is motivation for
people to take certain actions.
Any of these types of warrants are acceptable for an argument.
Review
A good argument must have all three parts. It makes a claim about the truth of something; it
says why that truth is true (warrant); and it says why that is important for the overall
argument that the claim is trying to address (impact). If any of these parts are missing, then
the “argument” really is not an argument.
3|Page
II.
Understanding Values
Lincoln Douglas debate addresses statements of value rather than statements of fact. It is
difficult for many people to understand the difference between those. Here we will discuss
what is a statement of value and how does it differ from a statement of fact? And how does
one argue about a statement of value?
Facts are not arguable; there is no appeal to a higher authority. “The grass is green.” We are
not appealing to a higher authority or to some metaphysical concept about whether or not this
is true.
Definitions
Value: a statement of value, on the other hand, asks people to evaluate what they believe to
be true based on a higher-order concept, such as justice or morality. What a government
ought to do… how should nations interact with one another. These are the types of
questions that are involved in a statement of values.
How do we argue whether a Statement of Value is true or not? In Lincoln-Douglas debate,
we will either be affirming these statements or negating these statements.
How do you affirm a statement of Value?
Notice we use the word “affirm” rather than proving it ‘true.” There is a distinction between
affirming versus proving something true. It is a very important distinction in LD debate.
Affirm: To stand in support of; just, moral and consistent with the ethics the debater is trying
to advance. It is to prove in the vast majority of cases that the principle is of value or is
significant.
How do you negate a statement of value?
Negate: to negate a statement of value during the debate round, there are several different
options for the negative debater.
1) The negative could explain why the affirmative case is flawed. And since the affirmative has
the burden to put forward or advocate the resolution and defend it, if the negative can
4|Page
effectively negate it, and demonstrate how it is flawed, then the negative can succeed in
winning the debate.
2) The negative can advocate the converse of the resolution by strategically inserting the
word “not” in the resolution wording.
3) The negative debater could employ a sort of blending of the first two and show that there is
a net benefit to negating, as well as a net harm to affirming.
How do you take a “statement of value” and break it down?
Analyzing the Debate Resolution
In a round of debate, the affirmative debater must affirm the resolution and the negative
debater must negate it or prove it is a disadvantage. One of the challenges for both sides is to
decide the meaning of the resolution. Grouping words together to create “terms of art”
explains the meaning better.
You could define each word separately in the resolution, but that might not be as helpful as
looking at words in context as they appear together—it is better to group the words in units of
meaning. There are definite strategies that can assist with word definition:
1.
Use a dictionary such as Webster’s, Oxford, Black’s Law dictionary
2.
Look at topic specific literature and find contextual definitions. These contextual
definitions are often far superior than those found in a dictionary. They are grounded in the
literature of the topic. They are often put forth by experts in the field. So we are looking at
the resolution holistically to determine its overall meaning.
We need to understand the evaluative terms in the resolution: how we are supposed to decide
which side is true—the affirmative or the negative. Evaluative terms are terms such as
Ought to
Is just
Is unjust
These words and phrases give the debaters an understanding of what values they are
upholding in the debate. Debaters need to link the value in the debate round to the text of the
resolution. The text of the resolution is the only thing we have going into the round in terms of
5|Page
what everyone can agree upon. At the very least, it gives a baseline to the round for everyone
to agree on the essential meaning of the resolution and the value it upholds.
Defining terms in groups of words is important. While defining each term in the resolution
separately is, at least, a start, we have to look at how the individual terms work together and
from that, interpret the overall meaning of the resolution. Individual words like “democratic”
or “society” have meanings, but when grouped together they carry a more holistic meaning:
democratic society.
Textual Analysis: Resolutions
Debate resolutions are submitted and voted upon by members of the National Forensic League
and are nation-wide topics. Every two months a new topic is released. There are three basic
types of resolutions that are seen in Lincoln-Douglas Debate.
1. Comparative resolution
2. Absolute resolution
3. Superlative resolution
Comparative resolution: this has a comparative phrase directly stated within the resolution.
Example: “On balance, environmental protection ought to be valued above economic
development.”
Here, there are two concepts that are being directly contrasted and that gives the debater
insight into the types of arguments to make, because any argument that does not directly
compare these two ideas is not a topical argument. One must be better than the other. The
debate is about comparing the two.
Absolute resolution: a claim about what should happen. This makes some sort of claim about
what should happen, i.e. “Universal health care is just.” It makes a statement (claim) of truth
and the affirmative has to prove that such a thing is just. So they will have to define what justice
is, what universal health care is, and why universal health care matches-up with the tenants of
justice. It is asserting that absolutely, without a doubt, Universal health-care provides justice.
This also lets the negative know all the things that they can do, because in an absolute
resolution, the negative then has the ability to say that it isn’t just for some reason, or that
there is something about that, that lacks the quality of justice (at least for some element of
society) or that something else would be more just.
Superlative Resolution: one thing is superior to all the others. These do not appear so often—
in the last few years we have seen a fall-off of this type of resolution in LD debate. An example
of this type would be, “Capitalism is the most just form of economic system.”
6|Page
This asserts that there is one thing that is superior to all the others. This type of resolution is
very difficult for the affirmative debater, because they have to fend off every other type of
economic system in order to prove that capitalism is the most just.
It tends to give the negative debater the upper hand and more leeway and this is probably why
it has fallen out of favor.
These are the three types of resolutions and they give a hint as to the kinds of burdens that the
affirmative as well as the negative is going to have to uphold.
Next in our textual analysis comes the context of the resolution.
Context: from the Latin, “con-“ meaning, “with.” Concepts that underlie the text of the
resolution.
Many resolutions establish specific timelines or locations in which the resolution takes place.
For example, many recent resolutions have said, “In the United States.” So this tells students
that they are working with issues that are contextually grounded in United States laws, norms,
and morals. This helps students narrow the argument and can ensure the argument is topical.
Another common statement of context in recent resolutions is, “In the U.S. Judicial System.”
This is a very close specification as to what arguments need to be about. Sometimes the
demographic is a little bit more vague, as in “In a democratic society.”
So, this gives the students a hint that they won’t have to deal with totalitarian governments and
there is a set of norms about rights and voting procedures – so all of this narrows the scope of
what it is that they have to argue. Narrowing this scope is very critical.
Finally, another element we can draw is something about the actor and action of the resolution.
The actor and action of the resolution tells us something about the agent of the resolution.
Agent: a person or entity taking action specified in the resolution, if it were affirmed. For
example, a government is a common actor in the resolution. Or, an individual could be the
actor. It really makes a difference whether it is a government or an individual as the actor
because different actors have different capabilities, as well as impact on society at large.
Different resolutions question the agent’s motivations, as well as their capacities.
The resolution often will clearly state the actor—“The Individual ought to…” or “The
government ought to…” but much of the time it is not so clear cut.
7|Page
Review
When looking at a resolution we are looking to either affirm or negate the resolution: not
prove true or false. Then we have to look at what the resolution means as a statement of
value. To do that we will look at definitions, as well as contextual definitions, and we will look
at the evaluative phrase in the resolution. Also we will examine what type of resolution it is.
After looking at holistic meaning and putting the resolution in a context we are ready to start
writing our cases.
III.
Refutation and Clash
Debate wouldn’t be the same if students merely stood up and presented their ideas to the
judge. Debate involves clash and refutation between the arguments. In this section I will
discuss how you can engage in argumentation in order to engage in refutation and clash of
ideas.
There are many “methodologies.”
At the most basic level, you can simply claim that your opponent’s argument is wrong or
fallacious for some reason.
A fallacious argument is one that employs false logic or is unreasonable.
The simplest way to do that is, if the opponent provides some sort of claim, you can provide a
counter claim with an example as to why that’s not true. This might not lead to a very fruitful
discussion, but it is one way of taking out your opponent’s argument.
The next important thing you can do is discuss the uniqueness of your opponent’s argument.
Uniqueness: a specific outcome results from either supporting or negating the resolution. If a
debater proves it is true for both sides, it is considered non-unique. What does this mean?
Sometimes a debater claims that something is true only when you affirm the resolution. Or
conversely, the debater may claim that something is true only when you negate. If you can
show, that the outcome the debater is trying to claim happens not only on one side, but instead
on both sides, then you can claim that the debater’s assertion is non-unique. If it is non-unique
then the debater cannot use it as an advantage to his/her side.
Next we can discuss the relative importance of one argument over another. This deals with
weighing arguments.
8|Page
Weighing arguments: explaining their relative importance to the “big picture” of the round.
In a counter-claim you can discuss the relative importance of the two ideas. Explaining or
discussing (especially to the judge) the importance of ideas is called weighing the arguments.
So, what are different methods of weighing?
Weighing Mechanism
First, you can talk about the scope of the argument – the probability of how large or small the
problem is. That maybe your opponent’s argument only effects a small number of people…
whereas your argument affects all people. Therefore, your argument “weighs more” or has
more impact.
Next, very similar to this is the magnitude of that argument such as the number of people
impacted upon, and the severity. If your solution impacts more people in a more severe way, it
has more “weight.”
Finally, you can discuss time frame and how your opponent’s argument only happens for a
limited period of time. You can assert that the implementation of your counter-plan would
result in improvements in a much longer period of time than that of the opponent.
So these are examples of how to “weigh” arguments and you can explain to the judge what the
important weighing mechanisms are, and why you are winning the debate. It is critical that
you do this especially in your last speech of the round.
Fallacies in logic—strategies for taking out your opponent
You should become very familiar with Fallacies in Logic, also sometimes called logical fallacies.
You can examine the logical fallacies of your opponent’s arguments. You can, rather than
offering a counter to their logic, show why their internal logic is flawed. There are several
important logical fallacies that all debaters should be aware of.
1.
The first is the correlation causation fallacy/false cause: This is arguing a false
relationship between cause and effect, rather than correlation. For example, in the
resolution—a felon ought to retain the right to vote in a democratic society, a lot of
people make the claim that people who vote tend not to cause crime or engage in
crime, therefore if we give felons the right to vote, it connects them with society. The
problem with this logic is people are assuming that the action of voting is what is
9|Page
causing people to be good, rather than the fact that people who vote, tend to be the
type of people who do not commit felonies. We can see very clearly that if one
mistakes causation for correlation then the logical conclusion of the argument is no
longer true. The debater can take out the argument by exploring and taking out the
link that was made between the causation and correlation.
2.
The next logical fallacy is begging the question. It begins with the notion that the
resolution is true rather than developing an argument to conclude that the resolution is
true. The reasoning is circular… the debater tries to prove the resolution is true, so to
start from the premise that it is true is problematic. The debater tries to prove the
resolution is true, by assuming it is true, to prove that it is true. This is faulty logic.
3.
False dilemma: this is a scenario in which there is only one choice between two bad
outcomes, when in fact, there may be many other outcomes. To say either this happens
or this other event happens leaves the listener with only two choices. The problem is
there is often a third, fourth, or fifth option. Opponents of false dilemma need to
articulate why other options are possible. In this way, they can get out of the false
dilemma.
4.
Naturalistic (Is/Ought) fallacy: this is a fallacy that states that just because something is
a particular way, that it ought to be that way, or stay that way. This is a fallacy because
things do not have to be a certain way. Example: In the U.S. there is a lot of racism. But
that doesn’t mean that there ought to be a lot of racism. Replace IS with Ought and
you can expose this fallacy. This is also known as the Is/ought fallacy. So, debaters can
look carefully at the claims being made by their opponents and see if they are
forwarding what should happen in our society, rather than what is happening.
The above fallacies have to do with strategies for taking down your opponent’s argument so
that they cannot win the ballot.
The Turn
The Turn is when you use the opponent’s argument against him or against her. This is
different from a logical fallacy. In The Turn, you will advance your opponent’s argument
and show that it is a reason to vote for you.
10 | P a g e
There are two basic types of turns.
a. The Link turn
b. The Impact turn
Let’s look first, at the Link turn. The link turn changes the causality of the argument.
Example 1: the affirmative says X is bad, the negative agrees X is bad but argues that X actually
prevents the bad thing the affirmative is claiming will occur.
Example 2: affirmative says X is bad; the negative agrees X is bad and argues affirmative
actually causes X to occur.
Impact Turn
Now let’s look at the impact turn. This reverses the outcome of the argument.
Example 1: the affirmative claims that X action which occurs in the negative world is bad; the
negative agrees X will happen in the negative world, but argues that X is actually good.
Example 2: the affirmative claims that X is a good happening in the affirmative world; the
negative agrees that X happens in the affirmative world but argues X is bad.
So you can use their own logic against them… these are hard to come up with but very
powerful. You show how the thing they say is true, actually causes bad things for their side!
Let’s review the different types of refutation that you can apply: First, you can provide counter
examples to show why their argument is not true or is fallacious; next, you can non-unique
their arguments, in other words, show that it happens on both sides; next you can talk about
weighing the arguments and the relative importance of those two arguments, additionally, you
can talk about logical fallacies in their arguments; and finally, you can talk about turning the
opponent’s argument.
Blocking
So, when responding to our opponent’s arguments how do we prepare? The most common
refutation strategy we can use is blocking. This is the most common refutation tactic to
prepare for a debate:
11 | P a g e
Blocking: brainstorming possible arguments that can be made for a particular resolution, on
both sides, as well as the responses for those arguments. This prepares a debater to “block”
their opponents, much like a defensive move in sports.
Blocking involves sitting down with the coach and teammates before the round and thinking
about all of the arguments that people will make in the course of this resolution on both sides.
It is important to explore all of the types of arguments that might arise. It is important to
prepare with blocking… it offer options within the course of the debate round.
Another important skill is grouping arguments.
Grouping: When opponents make arguments that rely on the same claims or warrants, or that
multiple things have the same impact, a debater can attack that single concept, or explain why
several arguments lead to the same false implication or impact. And say why that implication is
false. This is a good way to be economical with your time.
Advance your arguments. In a debate round, it doesn’t matter if you have taken out every one
of your opponent’s claim if you are not ready then to uphold your own position. A good
“extension” of your argument is first locating where the argument is being made. Next
specifically respond to those arguments against those arguments that your opponent has
made. Repeat your claim, warrant, and advance your argument.
Extending your argument: repeat the claim that you made, specifically repeat the warrant,
and explain what the argument gains for you in the context of the entire round. Does winning
that argument mean you have won the round? Does it set up a logical link that you will make
later in the round? Later we will discuss “voting issues” and “crystallization” which depend on
your having extended your argument.
IV.
Writing the Affirmative Case
One of the most daunting experiences in Lincoln-Douglas debate is writing the case. To put in
logical order all of the steps that would lead to an affirmation or a negation takes research,
analysis and writing skills. How do you put together a case? What is the order and structure
of a Lincoln-Douglas case? What do all of the parts mean? And what is their purpose in the
context of the round?
We shall model this with an LD affirmative case, and then show how a negative case is largely
the same yet different.
12 | P a g e
What is the structure of an affirmative case?
1. Opening Statement: An LD affirmative case begins with an opening statement or
quotation to give context to the case. This is a preview statement that gives an idea of
what the listener is going to be hearing for the next six minutes.
2. State Resolution: Next, the case goes on to say what is the resolution. Recite the text
of the resolution exactly. It sounds silly, but a lot of debaters forget to tell the judge
what the resolution is. You’d be surprised how important that is.
3. Break down the resolution: Next you must break down the meaning of the resolution.
It is impossible to prove the resolution true if the judge does not have a firm
understanding of what the affirmative debater believes to be the meaning of the
resolution. Here is where the Aff debater should define key terms he or she thinks are
important. He or she should forward every definition that is important. This does not
mean that the debater has to define every word in the definition, but just those that
have specific meaning in the context of the resolution. The debater should not simply
use a list of dictionary definitions for the words in the resolution. Instead, explain the
implications of the definitions. What is it about this or that definition that makes it
important in the context of the round. For example, if the resolution says, “In a
democratic society…” a debater should define what a democratic society is. For
example, a democratic society could be one in which voting procedures determine the
outcome and the will of the populace. This is a very basic definition of a democratic
society. But then the debater could go on to say that any argument that presupposes
that people don’t have the will to say what the government ought to do is not really
topical in this round. You can see how the definition with the implication gives the
debater some leeway in the types of arguments they’re going to be able to defend
against when the negative gets up.
4. Next comes one of the most difficult parts of the case for beginning debaters. The
evaluative structure of the first affirmative case (1AC). The evaluative structure
comes in the form of two parts:
The Value and Value Criterion Model – Important but complex terms
5. Value: this is the large concept the affirmative case attempts to support, such as
“justice,” “morality,” “protection of rights.” These are large metaphysical concepts
which the affirmative case is trying to support or uphold. So where does the value
come from? How do you pick the most appropriate value? It is actually simpler than it
13 | P a g e
sounds. Use the text of the resolution. A debater should analyze what the resolution is
saying, and often times the value is going to be right there in the resolution. If it is not
explicit then ask what is the large metaphysical concept that we should be upholding?
The resolution can have different meanings to different people. The value can appear
to be somewhat vague at times. We need a way of clarifying this so that we know, as a
debater (and the judge knows) when we have achieved that value though our
arguments. That is what the value criterion is for.
6. Value Criterion/Standard: a way of measuring whether an argument has achieved the
value. A criterion is a measurement. The value criterion or standard is a way to
measure whether the argument has achieved the value. It is an evaluative mechanism
allowing a judge to weigh which arguments are important, how important they are, and
why they’re important. Example:
Let’s say that the value is Justice. What does justice mean? To some it means fairness, to some
it means giving each their due. How do we know what people are due? A good debater will
explain this.
When the Value is Justice, the value criterion could be Equal access to Rights. So we are saying
that any system or argument that allows for equal access to rights, for all individuals – this is
the appropriate way to determine if an action or an outcome is just. The value criteria is very
important because it limits the scope of what the debater has to argue in the context of the
round.
Determining the Value and the Value criterion is both difficult and important because it is a
path or blueprint guiding the debate.
7. Observations: the next part of the affirmative case is observations which help limit the
scope of the round trying to say what arguments are topical or not. Use the context of
the resolution.
These again try to limit the scope of the round – what arguments are topical or not.
This explains what argument wouldn’t be important in this round.
8. Framework: everything (that I just explained) collectively from opening statement
down and leading up to the individual arguments or contentions in the case, explaining
what the resolution means and how to evaluate it---all of this is known as “framework.”
The entire purpose of the framework is all about explaining to the judge, what the
resolution is and what it means in a context.
14 | P a g e
Contention Level
9. Contentions: explain why a particular side meets the framework and is the preferable
side of the resolution. So what does the contention level look like?
This part of the case must be very well organized. What a good debater often does is
start out with a thesis statement. This is an overarching summary of what all the
arguments in the case are proving.
This gives the judge a clear conception of what is going to follow. It is a rhetorical tool
that should never be neglected. In your affirmative or negative case you can have one
contention, or you can have multiple contentions. Each contention, individually, must
make a specific argument that affirms the resolution entirely. And if the debater “wins”
that contention they should win the round. So, what is the structure of a specific
contention.
Contention structure: Each contention contains:
CLAIM
WARRANT
Claim—warrants—Impacts
IMPACT
First there is a CLAIM – a statement of what is true.
Next there may be multiple WARRANTS – explaining/proving why that claim is true
Then, finally, the implications or IMPACTS of those arguments – why the claim is
important and how it links back to the value criterion/standard (thus proving the value).
Let’s discuss what the impact should sound like because the impact of the argument has
to explain why this argument LINKS to the VALUE CRITERION (VC) and explains the
importance of the argument and how it supports the value criterion and should
rhetorical and persuasively link to the idea of the VC.
A contention will have one major idea and various sub-point claims each with their own
warrant. Each sub-point has its own warrant as to why the larger claim is true.
You may have several sub-points with multiple claims . The IMPORTANT thing is that
each contention follows that Claim-Warrant-Impact structure.
The above content explains what an affirmative case looks like.
15 | P a g e
It is six minutes long, has an evaluative framework and the contention level with one or
multiple reasons why the affirmative debater should be winning the round.
V. The Negative Case
The negative case is structurally similar to the affirmative case. The difference is that
the negative case tends to be substantially shorter. The negative case tends to be about
two to three and ½ minutes. It is short because in the same speech the “neg” is going
to have to respond to the affirmative’s case. The negative case speech is a total of
seven minutes so 3 minutes maximum is the planned speech, and 4 minutes must be
responding (attacking) the contentions of the affirmative.
The Prepared section of the Negative case.
The Resolution has already been stated so in the negative case you do not have to
restate it. Protect your time. Waste no words. As the negative debater you should
offer definitions only if you decide that the affirmative definitions are not applicable.
Remember, you have to find ways to buy time as you have very little to establish your
case. Therefore, if you agree with the affirmative definitions, do not waste time giving
them again. So in the negative case you will include:
Observations about the context of the resolutions
The Negative Value
The Negative value Criterion
The contention level
Attack opponent’s case
Fewer Contentions
Whereas the affirmative’s contention level tends to have multiple arguments, usually
the negative only has one, maybe two contentions. They may have one or two sub
points. Remember, you must save time for a response to the affirmative argument.
Summary: the negative case is structurally similar, doesn’t do definitions if the neg
agrees with the affirmative definitions, and is much shorter to allow time to attack the
contentions of the affirmative. As the negative debater it is important that you address
(attack) each one of the affirmative’s contentions.
16 | P a g e
VI.
Research
Debate, including Lincoln-Douglas debate, is founded upon strong research. What are
the basic processes of research and how do we use that research for a Lincoln-Douglas
case?
Basic Research Methodology
There is so much information out there, that it can become very frustrating. You need a
research methodology.
1. Before looking at resources, sit down and look at (brainstorm) what the resolution
means, and key words and phrases and related terms, synonyms and concepts.
2. On the computer: realized that google is not research and is not appropriate debate
research. The problem is that anyone can post anything on the internet so we need
to understand that google is not an appropriate research tool.
Consult research databases your school or library subscribes to, such as Ebscohost or
JSTOR if available.
In a pinch, you can use google scholar.
3. The most important article you want to find is an article that is a “keystone” article
that summarizes the topic, highlighting the issues on both sides of the topic. This is
the type of article to look for. How do we find that?
4. Do keyword searches on the topic. The number of results may be high. To dig
through these, look at the titles. Some are very, very specific. First, look for generic
topic titles. Look for titles that seem to deal with the topic holistically rather than
specifically.
5. Your first day on the topic it is not a good idea to read entire articles. Instead look
for articles that have abstracts. These are (7-10 sentence) short summaries of
longer articles. Just reading the abstract can tell you if this is an article you are
going to want to read. The goal is to figure out which articles you want to eventually
read. You can compile a list as a pool of resources. This pile then becomes your
universe of information.
6. If the article does not have an abstract, then you can read the first four paragraphs
and the last four paragraphs to get a sense of the usefulness of the article. Reading
these paragraphs can help you determine if this article is going to come to some
conclusion that is going to be useful to you in your research.
7. The first day of the research process is done if you can, on day one, find the article –
perhaps 3-4 keystone articles.
17 | P a g e
8. Day two skim those articles… read the first sentence of each paragraph—these are
the topic sentences. If there are no topic sentences, then this is probably not a very
academic article and may not be useful.
9. After reading general articles, which should, if they are academic, have expansive
bibliographies, that will point to more information that you can research further.
10. Now you have read a number of articles that help you understand this topic
holistically. How do you use these articles to develop cases?
Quotations/Evidence/Cards = proof
Once you have read the articles and have begun to formulate a position, you then need to find
quotations, evidence (we call these cards in LD debate) to back up your assertions.
One of the most effective ways to warrant your evidence is to use experts on the topic. In this
way you can build your claim-warrant-impact structure. You can find this evidence from the
articles.
Quote: a quote can be a good piece of evidence if you offer the quote and explain why that
quote is true. This explanation must come from the expert. When you are cutting the evidence
from the article (cut cards) you want more than merely a quote. You want the underpinnings or
rationale- why it is true. You want all of the parts of the argument so that you can put that into
your case.
Now, when you put the expert evidence and testimony into your case, you must cite that those
are not your words, but instead are the words of this expert.
Citing sources is important. Include the author, publication, date, and citation at the bottom or
end of your case. This can be a footnote- you want ethical research standards all the time.
VII.
Structure of a Round.
Before the round. What does an LD debater need? They will know whether they are affirming
or negating when they walk into the round. They should walk in to that debate round with their
argument preflowed.
Preflow: the debater must have pre-flowed their arguments. This is a written summary or list
of all of the arguments that your side is going to make. This is located or written on what we
call – your flow (your notes). Flowing is debate jargon for a special type of note taking. By
listing on your flow, your arguments, you have an easy reference guide upon which to write
down your opponent’s responses to your arguments.
18 | P a g e
The Round
Affirmative Constructive (AC)
6 minutes max
Prewritten case brought to the round, explaining the resolution’s meaning, provides the
framework, and includes the contentions that support the framework.
Literally the debater is reading this to the judge. Use all of your time, and end with the phrase,
“I now stand ready for cross-examination.”
Cross Examination (CX) by the Negative
3 minutes max
The negative establishes presence in the round; questioning affirmative arguments, clarifying
what sh/he doesn’t understand, and attacking weak affirmative arguments. The negative
debater should establish a strong presence as it is the first impression in front of the judge.
Prep-time
After the first cross-examination, the Negative should take some prep-time . Each debater will
have 3-4 minutes of prep time to use within the round as they choose. In some leagues the
time is 3 minutes, in others it is 4. You may ask the judge before the round begins how much
prep time you are allowed. The negative debater should take about 2 minutes of prep time
before his/her speech to prepare responses to affirmative arguments. In that time they can
be writing their response on the flow. Now the negative speaks.
Negative Constructive (NC)
7 minutes max
The negative should read prewritten case of 2-3 minutes, leaving ample time to attack the
affirmative case. So, first they are going to read their prewritten negative case which should be
written to use 2-3 ½ minutes. There is no “right answer” for how long a negative speech/case
should be, but time must be left to attack all of the contentions of the affirmative. After
reading his or her case, the negative should say, “I will now respond the my opponent’s
arguments.” This transitional sentence lets the judge know what you are about to do.
Now the negative debater will logically go down the flow, item by item, contention by
contention. (Flow: taking notes to record arguments and rebuttals)
Compare and contrast the evaluative framework of the negative to the evaluative framework of
the affirmative to show which is superior, or why they are essentially alike, which sometimes
happens; and then respond to all of the affirmative arguments.
This can be done by responding to each individually, or by grouping them and responding to
them as such. The negative wants to respond to all of the affirmative arguments and leave
19 | P a g e
them no “easy outs.” If the negative fails to attack one of the contentions or arguments of the
affirmative, then the aff can say, “He failed to contest my argument, so it stands.”
Cross Examination of the Negative by the affirmative (CX)
three minutes
This is the same as before, but this time the affirmative gets to ask the questions. Affirmative
can compare and contrast arguments between the two sides, clarify negative arguments, and
lay the groundwork for the next speech. A very good tactic here is to figure out what the
affirmative has to accomplish in his/her next speech and use this cross-x to set up for this.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR)
four minutes
(Affirmative might want to take about two minutes of prep time before the 1AR to plan what
s/he needs to accomplish.) Many people think that the 1AR is the most difficult speech in the
entire debate round. Why is that? Very simply, in this speech the affirmative has to
1) Defeat the negative case
2) Defeat responses against the affirmative case
3) Rebuild and extend affirmative arguments (offense)
There is much to do in this short speech. Focus on what you need to win the round. The
debater needs a strategy here and must select carefully what is important. Here the
affirmative needs to convince the judge that the affirmative case is superior and link it back to
the Value and Value criteria.
Negative Rebuttal (NR):
six minutes
Use remainder of prep time. Here the negative should explain how the round should be
evaluated, resolving framework (V and VC) issues; defeat the affirmative’s case, defeat
responses against the negative case; and rebuild and extend negative arguments (offense). It
is essential that the negative give “voting issues” which are clear statements of why the
negative is winning and the affirmative is not. These are clear reasons linked to the
framework that the debater has established as to how the judge should be evaluating the
round and why they are winning and their opponent has lost. The negative should use the
remainder of prep time before the NR, since it is her or his final speech of the round.
20 | P a g e
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR)
Three Minutes
(Affirmative should take the balance of their prep time before the 2AR since it is the final
speech of the round.) In this speech the debater should give a holistic impression of how the
round should be evaluated, and establish clear affirmative voting issues. These are clear and
cogent reasons as to why they are winning the round. Here the affirmative does not have
time to respond to a large number of arguments so they must use time effectively within the
course of the 2AR.
This is the entire structure of the debate round.
21 | P a g e
VIII.
Cross Examination Tactics
When cross-examining your opponent we have to look at what are the purposes of that cross
examination? There are four basic purposes in cross-x when you are the person asking the
questions.
Four purposes of cross-examination
1. First and very importantly, is to establish a presence in the round.
2. Clarification-clarify any points of confusion about your opponent’s case.
3. Set up own case: set up things that will be coming up in later portions of the
round
4. Attack specific notions and fallacies within your opponent’s case.
So, how do we do these things?
Establish presence in the round
In order to establish good presence in the round it’s always good to have a good first opening
question. Don’t make the mistake of beginning the cross-x with a clarification question, such
as “what was your second contention? Or What was your value criterion?” This establishes a
very poor presence within the context of the round. The first impression you have given the
judge is, I didn’t pay attention! That is something that we want to avoid. You may need to ask
those question but not at the start. You want a strong opening question relating to a central
theme that attacks that side of the resolution.
Asking Clarification Questions
When you do ask for clarification, it is important to be specific. Don’t just stay, what’s your
value criterion? That type of question allows your opponent to ramble on and on and waste
your cross-examination time while building his/her case. Have a specific question, such as
“What is the text of your value criterion and can you explain to be how it links to your value (or
how it links to the resolution?) Notice, even though it is a clarification question it sounds as
though you are on the offense. It sounds like you are intelligently questioning the logic of their
argument, when really, all you might want to do is know, what was that thing again? So that is
an example of how to take a clarification question and being offensive with it.
Ask multiple short questions that lead up to a larger idea instead of one large question that
rambles on. Generally the more we talk, the less it becomes clear. Keep the questions concise
and to the point.
22 | P a g e
Use of multicolor pens
When flowing the opponent’s case have a different color pen to circle the concepts or issues
you want to ask about, so that, in cross-x you can immediately see them and know exactly what
you need to attack. (This helps to set-up your own case because what you attack here, you will
counter with your own case later.)
Examine the Links in your opponent’s case
Discuss how your opponent is making claims but not linking it to the resolution. This is the
most underrated skill. Just Keep asking why? Why? Why? Ask why they think this is sufficient
for achieving the resolution.
Here are some tactics you can use when you are the one being cross-examined.
1. Most of all: the most important thing is to remain Calm, Composed and Focused. You want
to establish a presence. You want to convince the judge that you know your case forwards and
backwards. So guess what? To be effective in cross examination, you have to know your case
forwards and backwards. You want to be able to respond almost immediately to your
opponent’s questions. You do not want to be fumbling with papers, or searching for words or
not knowing what the text of the argument is. You want to assertively to be able to say: what I
said was …. And what that means is …. So knowledge of your case is absolutely crucial to your
success during cross examination.
Additionally, the job of the person who is cross examining you is to get you to move away from
your position. So you want to stick as close as you can to your position as possible. Don’t let
them push you away from the logic that you have so carefully constructed.
If they ask you a direct question, answer it. Do not be an obstructionist because this will annoy
the judge. You need to be willing to engage in the actual questions that are being asked if they
are reasonable. However, if your opponent is asking questions that are deliberately belligerent
or trying to misconstrue or are asking irrelevant questions, say how does this relate to the
resolution. Or… you seem to be deliberately misconstruing my argument, which is this… so stay
as close to your argument as possible. Don’t let them push you off.
IV.FLOWING
One of the most underrated skills in Lincoln-Douglas debate is the ability to flow effectively.
So, what’s flowing?
Flowing: a note taking procedure to record arguments and rebuttals, in an organized, logical
format. This helps debaters visualize how arguments interact with each other. Write down
what your opponent says in a logical but abbreviated manner.
23 | P a g e
Debaters speak on the quick side. It is impossible to write down everything they are saying.
You have to develop a series of symbols/short-hand to capture the main ideas.
V = value
VC= value criteria
J = justice
Everyone must develop their own symbols or short-hand. The affirmative begins with one
column for the 1AC. This is the pre-flow.
The next column would be the negative answers to the affirmative constructive and then the
next column would be the affirmative rebuttals to the contentions of the 1NC.
The next column contains the negative responses to the affirmative responses. And the last
column is the 2AR- how the affirmative is wrapping up the entire round.
The negative flow begins with the pre-flow which is done before the debate begins, back at
home the night before the debate. Next is the 1AR or the affirmative response to the negative
case. Then the NR column is how the negative is responding to the affirmative arguments..and
finally the AR—what the affirmative is saying in response to the negative case.
Write small with space in between individual arguments because you are going to want to do is
next to an argument, the response to the argument. You want to be able to see, which
arguments were responded to, and which arguments were dropped or not responded to.
Arrows: use to show how you extend arguments across the columns (known as “across the
flow”) and also you can use them to show which arguments respond to which arguments.
This allows you to see how the arguments interact with one another.
24 | P a g e
ADDENDUM
25 | P a g e
RESEARCH
The Key to Finding the Best Evidence
 Background Information
◦ Wikipedia: not to be cited
◦ Google: best tool, but make sure to look past the first page
◦ If using google, look for articles that are PDF(s) or link to scholarly sources
How to Format Evidence
Describe primary argument in one sentence (“Tag-Line” )
Include: Author(s). Qualifications. (Date). Source Title.
Source Publication. (URL- cut & paste it here if there is one.
Evidence is cut and pasted. No “sound bites” – no selectivity
Or bias.
No use of … ellipses – this can mean disqualification.
Full disclosure.
Have full article also.
Starting the Accumulation of Evidence
 Think-tanks and Databases:
◦ Hoover institute (Stanford)
◦ Economic policy institute
◦ Urban institutecato institute (liberal)
◦ Heritage foundation (conservative)
◦ Brookings institute
◦ American enterprise institute (conservative)
◦ The center for strategic and international studies
◦ Center for American progress (liberal)
◦ Center on budget and policy priorities
◦ National center for policy analysis
◦ Progressive policy institute (liberal)
◦ Democratic leadership council (liberal)
◦ Public agenda
26 | P a g e
◦ American center for democracy
◦ Human rights watch
◦ Peterson Institute (Foreign Policy)
◦
 Limited access databases:
◦ CIAO (Columbia international affairs online)
◦ Global insight
◦ Ingenta connect
◦ JSTOR
◦ Policyfile
◦ Project muse
◦ Proquest
◦ Questia
◦ Sage
◦ Science direct
◦ Springer link
◦ Wiley interscience
◦ Worldwide political abstracts
Free databases, government sources
 Gov accountability office (GOA)
 Congressional budget office (CBO)
 Any other branch directly related to the topic
◦ National institute of health (NIH)
◦ Environmental protection agency (epa)
◦ Center for disease control and prevention (CDC)
◦ federal reserve board (the fed)
◦ Social Sciences Research Network
◦ National Bureau of Economic Research
 Often opinionated
 Create online free access account:
◦ The economist
◦ Foreign affairs
◦ Foreign policy
◦ Harvard international review
27 | P a g e
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
Brown journal of world affairs
Policy review
Harvard business review
MIT Sloan management review
Time
Newsweek
Business week
The new York times
The wall street journal
The LA Times
 Search the college with your key words in a search engine
 More quality sources:
◦ Harvard
◦ Stanford
◦ MIT
◦ Upenn: knowledge@wharton
◦ Yale
◦ Princeton
◦ Dartmouth
◦ Columbia
◦ Berkeley
◦ Duke
◦ Univ Chicago
◦ Brown
◦ Georgetown
 Books can be a great source of “big picture” information
 Amazon.com: “key word” searches
 Google books
 WorldCat
 Ebrary
ORGANIZING YOUR EVIDENCE
 Make sure to always have every article highlighted and in round with you (organize by
alphabet: author/study name)
 For complex studies, make sure to summarize them in 5-6 sentences
 Fact sheets: used to quickly organize all available evidence on a specific argument
28 | P a g e
TOPICALITY
PART 1 INTRODUCTION TO TOPICALITY
Topicality is a procedural argument presented in the (2NR) that the affirmative team has
not met their burden of affirming the resolution. It should be considered when you
prepare for the 2NR.
http://www.planetdebate.com/media/view/118
I.
Topicality and Fairness in debate
Topicality is basically a question of fairness. First, topicality argues that the
affirmative’s team interpretation of the resolution is not correct. They are “nontopical” or in other words, do not fit within the bounds of the resolution. The
Negative can show that the affirmative is not topical through demonstrating that the
case interpretation does not fall within the judge’s jurisdiction or is unfair to the
negative.
II.
Jurisdiction, in the legal field, generally refers to the question on whether or not a
judge has the authority to rule on a given case. For example, in the U.S., the Supreme
Court has limited jurisdiction. Not all cases can be brought before the Supreme Court
if there is not a constitutional problem or something that is specified in the
constitution. Normally you would not have your speeding ticket case heard before
the Supreme Court.
III.
In debate, jurisdiction refers to whether or not the judge can vote on the affirmative
team’s case given their duty is to either affirm or deny the given resolution for the
29 | P a g e
debate round. If the resolution is, “This House should Feed Africa,” and the
affirmative team runs a case to send food to aid China, then the judge, if they voted
for the affirmative team, would not be affirming whether or not they should “Feed
Africa.” The negative could cry “Topicality” and prove that the affirmative’s plan
did not meet the resolution. As such, the judge lacks jurisdiction to vote on the
affirmative team’s plan since doing so would not affirm the resolution. The judges
may not be aware that the affirmative is not upholding the resolution so you need to
explain that. This is your job if you decide to challenge the aff with “topicality.”
IV.
Fairness The second notion is that of fairness. Topicality is one way in which you
can call the affirmative team on abusing the fairness established by the topic. By
showing the affirmative team’s interpretation is unfair to the negative through
topicality, the judge would be ensuring the fairest debate. Fair debate promotes
education and ensures healthy competition. In sports, fairness is often paramount. In
basketball you rarely see one team’s basket at 10 feet while the other team’s basket is
40 feet in the air. In football both teams have to gain 10 yards for a first down. We
would say it’s unfair if the home team had to go 5 yards for a first down whereas the
visiting team had to go 40 yards. You are making a similar argument with topicality:
it is unfair for the negative to have argue this case. As with most other arguments in
debate, there is much variance over the importance different judges, competitors,
teams, and regions of the country place on topicality. Some judges feel it is a waste of
time to argue topicality and see it as “whining.” Instead, they would rather just have
you debate the case given by affirmative team. Other judges or regions of the country
are much more likely to “pull the trigger” on topicality.
Topicality always comes down to the debate round in question. The previous example, of a
policy towards China when the resolution directed action towards Africa, might be an easier
position to win, compared to a policy towards one country in Africa where some might say the
resolution required a policy towards the entire continent.
30 | P a g e
Regardless of the judge’s predisposition towards topicality, however, a well argued topicality
position is hard to ignore. While the hurdle might be higher with some judges, if run correctly,
they might be inclined to vote on it given the circumstances of the round.
PART 2 STRUCTURING TOPICALITY
There are a few varieties of “topicality” positions to run. The first, covered below, is a straight up
clash of definitions.
Topicality Shell – Definitions
The decision to attack your opponents case based on Topicality involves planning. How has
your opponent violated the essence of the topic? There are four basic components of a well-run
topicality violation. These are:
A) Interpretation
B) Violation
C) Standards
D) Voter
Make sure to include each part and label each part distinctly. Mumbling through each position or
running them out of order will only make it harder for the Topicality violation to win you the
round.
A) Interpretation
The first part of the topicality violation is your interpretation of the word or phrase in question.
You first want to say what word in the resolution you are defining and then give your definition.
That’s all. Here you are simply setting up what you think the best definition should be. For LD
debate this almost HAS to be carded evidence. The affirmative team, if they are well prepared,
should have evidence proving their case is topical. Usually at least one of their authors asserts
31 | P a g e
the case area is topical. If they have evidence and you have assertions, the judge will probably
not vote for you.
B) Violation
Here is where you argue how the affirmative team’s interpretation does not meet your own
definition. Usually this is rather obvious, but you want to argue how the affirmative team’s
definition is different and distinct from your own. The best answer the affirmative will make is
that “we meet their violation” because without this difference the rest of the position does not
matter.
If the affirmative team is able to prove to the judge that both “interpretations” of the resolution
are the same (sounds more difficult than it is) then the judge would have no justification to vote
for topicality.
C) Standards
The heart of a topicality violation comes down to the standards debate. Here is where you prove
that your interpretation is superior to the affirmative team’s definition. After you’ve argued your
interpretation and violation, the judge has two different interpretations of a word or phrase in the
resolution. Which one should she choose? The criteria, so to speak, are the standards you and the
affirmative team argue should guide the judge’s decision. You can think of the standards as a
scale with each team arguing their interpretation is better than the other teams. If your standards
weigh more heavily to the judge on the scale your interpretation should be picked for the round.
Arguing a standard includes two parts. First, explain what standard you are using and what it
means in the context of debate. Second, explain why the standard is relevant in the debate round.
As shown in each of the standards below, both components are necessary in order to make a
persuasive argument. In essence, impact your standard to be the most important one. The
Affirmative should present counter standards that support their interpretation – why should the
judge chose yours? It’s the same debate you are having with the affirmative team’s advantages
versus the negative team’s disadvantages. Which impact is more important? Which standard is
best?
Some common standards are:
32 | P a g e
1. Ground
Here you argue that your interpretation best divides the ‘ground’ from which each team
has to argue their side from. Giving both sides equal opportunity to argue positions is
fundamental to debate. Skewing the ground to the advantage of the affirmative leads to
debate losing its purpose. I always think of ground in terms of a basketball court. How
big should each team’s side of the court be in a game? Normally, the half court line
evenly divides the space on the court between the two teams. Imagine how unfair one
team would feel the game is if the home team got 75% of the court. It’s the same thing
with a ground standard – how does their interpretation skew the available arguments on
the topic so they get more than their fair share.
NOTE: This standard does not necessarily argue that you should have good ground to
argue. That’s the job of the topic committee to ensure that both teams have ample
opportunity to make solid arguments. The topic may saddle the negative team with bad
ground but you still have ground. Avoid making arguments like “well, all the affirmative
team’s interp does is leave us with this horrible argument X.” Whether or not the
arguments are good/bad on each side of the resolution is a distinct argument from
whether or not each team has access to a fair share of arguments. It’s up to you as a
debater to make sure your arguments are strong.
2. Grammar
A grammar standard argues that the affirmative team’s interpretation is wrong according
to the rules of grammar. Some examples are plural vs. singular, a vs. the, etc. One
potential problem with using grammar standards is that it might be that it is unclear why
resolutions must follow the rules of grammar – are resolutions a sentence? Do resolutions
need to be grammatical? You’ll want to argue YES if you argue grammar.
3. Common usage
One powerful standard is common usage. Here you argue that your interpretation is what
most people would come up with if asked to define the word in question. This is
33 | P a g e
sometimes not as effective in policy debate since you are doing specific research on the
topic and are expected to be more well read on the topic. However, since NFA-LD states
that it is a communication oriented activity you may gain some traction on the argument
that the interpretation of the topic should be what a general audience would think of when
hearing the topic.
4. Literature Check
This is the gold standard in debate. You have evidence that you quote that says their case
is NOT an example of the resolution.
Dictionary
Much like the grammar standard, you can use a dictionary standard if your interpretation
would be found in the dictionary whereas there would not for a particular word. As with
previous standards, you must also argue why dictionary definitions are superior to use.
Usually helpful on the generic words in the resolution. For this year’s topic, on foreign
policy, try to find international relations sources. The The Penguin Dictionary of
International Relations is one source that would probably carry more weight in a round
than Websters. A lot of debaters also successfully use Black’s law dictionary as a more
authoritative source.
5. Brightline
A Brightline standard argues that your interpretation sets up the clearest distinction
between what would and what would not be topical. This is good since it would set up the
clearest ground for each team. Unclear distinctions on what a word means can often lead
to messy debates and government teams ‘spiking’ out of positions by saying that their
definition precludes a position from ‘mattering’ in the debate round. This is often a good
approach when the affirmative team is vague or unclear with their definitions. What does
substantially mean in the resolution? It can be confusing. Try to hold the affirmative team
to a clear definition of HOW MUCH they are doing with their case.
34 | P a g e
6. Education
Here you would argue that your interpretation would allow for the most educational
debate round. You would then argue that debate’s primary purpose is education and the
government’s interpretation denies to both the opposition and the judge educational
benefits. Education is usually debated on a breadth versus depth distinction. Does the
affirmative team force the negative to research TONS of stuff but only on the surface?
That would be a breadth of education on the topic. Or, does the affirmative team’s
interpretation force the negative to research a FEW topics but in great depth? One could
argue that either approach (breadth or depth of research) is good or bad for education.
This is not an exhaustive list of standards, nor will there ever be. Creative standards can be used
and as long as one can justify the use of a standard feel free to use it.
One note of caution, in arguing a topicality position you are more or less arguing the affirmative
team’s interpretation of a word is unfair to your side. Running a topicality interpretation or
standard that advantages the negative to the detriment of the affirmative team hardly makes the
debate round better. Thus, you want to make sure your running topicality not to skew the round
towards your side but instead to make the debate round more fair.
D) Voter
Finally, now that you’ve shown the judge a different interpretation of a word in the resolution,
how the affirmative violates your interpretation, the standards which you think the words should
be evaluated, you want to tell the judge why this all matters. This is a critical portion of the
topicality position.
I would recommend the following 3 voters for any topicality positions: jurisdiction, fairness and
a-priori.
1) Jurisdiction
35 | P a g e
Your first voter should always be jurisdiction. One reason is that for a lot of judges this is all
they need to hear to vote for a topicality position. Any other voters are nice but once you make
the jurisdiction ‘voter’ you’ve done enough especially given the fact that the NFA-LD rules
specify that topicality IS a vote in pretty clear language (“Topicality is a voting issue.”).
You want to argue here that if the judge believes there is a superior definition of a word (your
interpretation – A) in the resolution (based on the standards – C) that the government team does
not meet (based on the violation – B), then a vote for the government would not be voting for the
“resolution” which is all the judge is empowered to do. As such, the judge is left with
presumption to vote negative.
2) Fairness
The second voter should always be fairness as this is the next most likely reason why a lot of
judges will vote for topicality positions. As noted earlier, the main reason topicality can be run is
because by virtue of being able to set up the debate round, affirmative teams have an interest in
maximizing their chances of winning which some teams do by running unfair cases to the
negative.
Beyond saying “Waaaah,” however, and just whining they other team is not playing “fairly,” by
running a full fledged topicality position, you are demonstrating that a “fairer” alternative exists
that would have created a better debate. By running all four parts of the Topicality position you
demonstrate to the judge what “would have been more fair” and ask they award the ballot to the
opposition to effectively punish the government team for being unfair.
In extremely egregious cases of teams being non-topical a lot of judges will sympathize with
negative teams and will vote on fairness issues.
3) A-priori
Under the stock issues paradigm (which is the “official decision-making paradigm of NFA LD”
according to the rules) being ‘topical’ is a requirement the affirmative teams hasto uphold. Thus,
if the case was not topical, at first glance, the team did not uphold one of its ‘burdens.’ As such,
the judge would first evaluate whether or not the team was topical before looking to the rest of
case. Instead of seeing whether or not the policy action was net beneficial, the judge has to see
36 | P a g e
whether or not its topical. Thus, you make your topicality position come before the rest of the
round.
There are other voters that you can run and as with the standards section and there will never be
one definitive set of voters. As long as you can argue your voter is a sufficient justification to
award you the ballot based on the topicality position you’re good.
There are quite a few example T positions on the free evidence page here. It’s always good as
you are researching to cut topicality cards as you see author’s defining key words in the
resolution.
Testing the topicality of an affirmative plan is an important step in the debating process. It is
only after we decide WHAT we are debating that we can truly have an educational and important
debate. That said, as a negative running topicality is always a choice. If you prefer not to argue
over definitions feel free to argue case straight up. However, be ready to have teams run some
very interesting cases on you!
37 | P a g e
VALUES AND PHILOSOPHY
PART I WHAT ARE VALUES?
 What are Values?
 Value Standards (Value Criteria)
 L-D Debate Details
I.
Lincoln Douglas Debate Values are found in:
a. Encyclopedia of philosophy
b. International encyclopedia of social sciences
c. Any library book on Values and philosophy
II.
Characteristics of Values
a. Universal standards that transcend various situations
b. Expected standards to which we hold people accountable
c. Ex: reverence for life – transcend situations by trying to sustain life.
Our society has many moral precepts regarding sustainment of life.
Try to preserve life in medicine and life.
d. Use standards to apply to case
III.
Situational Ethics/Values
a. Many debaters wish to apply “situational ethics” to debate.
- Universal standards are sanctified in LD debate.
- A value is by definition – universal
- Prescriptive – values are prescriptive– what “ought” to be done
- LD is not “descriptive” it is prescriptive.
- Naturalistic Fallacy (read about this idea about the “ought”
- Values are survival guides in both quantity and quality.
38 | P a g e
- Socio-biology: it is our biological nature/drives/that guide us in
determining what our value structure will be: need for survival.
When in conflict with other values…humans choose survival as
the primary value. Without life no other values matter or can exist.
b. Value standards are not empirical in nature.
IV.
Value Standards in LD Debate
Books: The Individual and the Political Order
Philosophical Ethics Beauchamp
Becoming Logical Churchill
Of Right and Reason
IV.
Approaches
a. Deontological: standard that is duty based. It is rights based. It is not
consequentially based. Do it because it is your duty and it is right. The
study of what is morally obligatory, permissible, right, or wrong
b. Teleological (pragmatic) When we decide action, we decide it based on
consequences.
Teleology: relating to the study of ultimate causes in nature or of actions in
relation to their ends or utility.
39 | P a g e
Hospital Advisory Board
 Faced with ten people who want a kidney transplant. They are varied in age
and occupation, gender… there’s a 3-year old, a 19-year old drug user, a
Pulitzer prize winning writer…etc.
 Who should get the kidney transplant? Who should be passed-over.
 Deontological standard states that each human life is valued the same
regardless of one’s occupation or gender, or race, etc. So only fair solution
would be to have a lottery. Each person would have the same chance.
 A teleological approach would be to try and analyze the relative “value” of
each person to society and what their ultimate contribution would be.
 KANT (noted philosopher) stated that if faced with such a situation of
someone running by you in a hurry being pursued by someone with a
weapon, Kant says if the one brandishing the weapon asked you where the
man went, it would be your duty to tell, honestly, because you cannot know
the consequences. (Deontology)
 Teleological philosophy says you can lie, based on your assumptions of the
outcome.
V.
Natural Law Theory (Lock)
a. Each person is unique yet equal to others. Humans are the same.
So application of natural law theory involved equality. Ex:
freedom of the press vs fair trial. If these are in conflict you can
ask which value supports natural law theory. (Thomas Jefferson
was a follower of Lock and placed natural law theory into the
Decl. of Independence)
VI.
Social Contract Theory
a. Because man has equal rights, humanity, etc. no one can dominate us
without our consent. Consent is essential. We should not have to
give up our rights without our consent. There are different contract
theorists. (Locke, Hobbs, Second Treatise on Government, Rousseauon other end of the spectrum from Lock/Hobbs. He is a humanitarian)
40 | P a g e
VII. Utilitarianism: Philosophers
a.
b.
c.
d.
John Stuart Mill
Richard Brandt
Brad Hooker
Source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Definitions:
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, which means that it stipulates that the
morality of an action is determined by its outcome. (This is opposed to deontology,
which argues that moral actions should flow from duties or motives.) This
consequentialism is then combined with hedonism, which posits happiness or
pleasure as the ultimate worthwhile pursuit. Therefore, since only the
consequences of an action matter, and only happiness matters, the action is the one
that results in the greatest sum of happiness.
Act utilitarianism is a utilitarian theory of ethics which states that the right action
is the one which produces the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure for the
greatest number of beings. Act utilitarianism is opposed to rule utilitarianism,
which states that the morally right action is the one that is in accordance with a
moral rule whose general observance would create the most happiness.
"An act is right from an ethical point of view if, and only if, the sum total of
utilities produced by that act is greater than the sum total utilities produced by
another act the agent could have performed in its place." (Jeremy Bentham)
Rule utilitarianism is a form of utilitarianism which states that moral actions are
those which conform to the rules which lead to the greatest good, or that "the
rightness or wrongness of a particular action is a function of the correctness of the
rule of which it is an instance."[1] For rule utilitarians, the correctness of a rule is
determined by the amount of good it brings about when followed. In contrast, act
utilitarians judge actions in terms of the goodness of their consequences without
reference to rules of action. Another variation of rule utilitarianism stresses the
greater utility of following a given rule in general, arguing that the practice of
41 | P a g e
following some rule in all instances (always stopping at red lights, for example)
will have better consequences overall than allowing exceptions to be made in
individual instances, even if better consequences can be demonstrated in those
instances.
As a debater, make sure that you specify the type of Utility you are citing.
Recommend avoiding Act Utility because it is a philosophy which is used to justify
horrible acts.
VIII. Emmanuel Kant Standards
a. Categorical Imperative: You shouldn’t do anything that you wouldn’t
want anyone else to do. (like golden rule) If you don’t want them to do
it to you, then do not do it.
b. In every round of debate it can exist to support either side.
c. The Third Formulation: you should not use people as means to an end.
d. See details about this philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kantmoral/
e. Ends/Means: ends do not justify the means. If the process by which you
do justice is not moral, if it is evil: you should not do it.
f. Principle of Double effect
IX.
John Rawls/Harvard
a. Recommend that you read something about him.
b. Standard used: The Original Position or the Veil of Ignorance. We
should make standards based on a pretense that we do not already
have our position assigned. It encourages us to try to
understand/empathize totally with the downtrodden. The standard of
action should be based on the idea that those making the rules could
be placed in that position.
X.
Values Hierarchy
a. It is important to understand the idea of the “ordering of values” –
often there is clash or disagreement over the most important value.
42 | P a g e
b. Aff and Neg may want to support the same value. Both may have the
same value as the core value. The clash then comes in the wording of
the value or in the value criterion – how to go about achieving it.
c. Instrumental values need to be achieved to reach the “terminal value”
d. LD is debate/oratory. Aff presents his/her support and Neg presents
why X should not be affirmed. Often there is wonderful oration but
the two do not clash.
e. Sometimes LD seems to lack “clash” – and is more oratory. LD was
founded to produce oratory – but in the round you have to find a way
to clash. Establish what your values are, but then a rationale for your
values. You must compare. As a debater you need to establish a
rationale and criteria to determine which value is better than the other.
(Could be “what’s best for most” or “cost/benefit analysis” or “future
suggests this value is better” “progress and technology”
f. Most of the “debate” occurs around the criteria.
Read philosophy of values! Make a list of things you value in life. How did you
come to value those? Do considerable amount of reading! It begins to get
overwhelming. Understanding what values are will help.
43 | P a g e