INTRODUCTION TO LINCOLNDOUGLAS DEBATE
For Emerging Champions
Lincoln-Douglas web resources
http://debate.uvm.edu/learnld.html
WWW.NFLONLINE.ORG
Part One: Debating the Affirmative
Analyzing the Resolution
 Statement of Absolute Value
 Statement of Comparative Degree
 Statement of Superlative Degree of a Quality
Topic Analysis: Researching the Topic
 Determining Value
 Determining Value Criterion
Writing an Affirmative Case
Arguments
Contentions
Conclusion
Rebuttal
Crystallization
Voting Issues
Conclusion
Part Two: Debating the Negative
Values
1
PART ONE: Debating Affirmative in Lincoln/Douglas Debate
This lesson assumes you are the affirmative debater which means you are
defending the resolution. The resolution is a value statement that can be
either affirmed or refutted. It may take more than one reading to absorb and
internalize this information! Don’t be discouraged or intimidated! It just takes
a bit of time to get through it – but it’s worth it! Debate is exciting once you get
into the competitions!
Assumptions: Basic Format
Below is the basic formation for a round of Lincoln-Douglas Debate. You will
need to memorize the order of events and the time/minutes for each. You must
memorize the times, abbreviations and description of events in this chart.
2
LINCOLN-DOUGLAS ROUND
Time
Abbreviation
(minutes)
Speech
Description
6
AC
Affirmative
Constructive
The Affirmative reads a prewritten case that he or she has
researched and composed. It
should last the entire 6 minutes.
3
CX
Cross Examination
The Negative asks the
Affirmative questions.
7
NC (1NR)
Negative
Constructive (and
first negative
Rebuttal)
The Negative (almost always)
reads a pre-written case and
(almost always) moves on to
address the Affirmative's case.
3
CX
Cross Examination
The Affirmative asks the
Negative questions
1AR
First Affirmative
Rebuttal
The Affirmative addresses both
their opponent's arguments and
their own
NR (2NR)
The Negative
Rebuttal
The Negative covers everything
said in the round and gives the
judge reasons to vote for them
2AR
The Second
Affirmative
Rebuttal
The Affirmative may either
summarize the round or cover
everything, but they always give
reasons to vote for them
4
6
3
3
Analysis of a Lincoln-Douglas Debate Resolution
Step one in preparing your case is to analyze the meaning of the resolution.
There are three kinds of Lincoln Douglas Resolutions. Consider these because
your approach or strategy in arguing the resolution is linked to the kind of
resolution that you are facing. These are the three types of Lincoln Douglas
resolutions:



1.
Statement of Absolute Value
Statement of Comparative Degree
Statement of Superlative Degree of a Quality
Statement of Absolute Value
Absolute means unconditional or unqualified. Something is either True
or False. An absolute value resolution is a true/false type of resolution. If
something is “absolute” it is not viewed as partial or relative – it is completely
unequivocal (indisputable, unambiguous). So there are no “gray” areas. These
kinds of resolutions are very much true/false or black/white.
Ex: Resolved: A person’s right to bear arms in the U.S. is justified. (so
it is either justified or it is not justified. There is no “degree” or “variation”
in this argument. There is no idea of one thing being “better” than the
other.) If you are on the “affirmative” side – you must prove the
resolution true.
2. Statement of Comparative Degree
This type of resolution involves a values hierarchy – compares two
values claiming that one is for one reason or another better than the other one.
Ex: Resolved: Members of the U.S. Congress should value
the national interest above their constituent’s interest when the
two are in conflict.
Here you are comparing the national interest with the constituent’s
interest. Inherent in the wording of the resolution is a comparison! Remember,
it is your responsibility as the affirmative debater to defend the resolution.
(affirm = confirm, assert, verify)
Ex: Resolved: A just social order ought to place the principle of
equality above that of liberty.
4
Here you are again, faced with a Statement of Comparative Degree - you
are comparing equality with liberty. It is your responsibility as the affirmative
debater to defend the assigned value – in this case, equality. Prove that equality
should be placed above liberty.
Your proof MUST include a direct comparison of the two values. You
don’t just talk about why equality is good. But why equality is better than
liberty. That’s important.
You don’t have to prove that the other value is bad nor do you have to
prove that the other value is absolute. Only that equality is better.
Never try to defend more than you need to defend. All you need to do is
prove that YOUR value is better. (sometimes called proving the “value
premise” better)
3.
Statement of Superlative degree of a Quality
This is a “good-better-best” type of scenario
Ex:
Resolved: National Security should be a nation’s highest
priority
To affirm this you must ask “Why should National Security be the highest value?
Why is it superlative to everything else?” Do not assume the answer is obvious.
You must consider what your opponent (the Negative debater) might propose as
a superlative to this one. The opponent will argue a different superlative. They
might, for example, state that Justice or Privacy is the highest value.
So…as you analyze the resolution you first must:
Determine what kind of resolution you are dealing with. Define every word in
the resolution using several different dictionaries. Analyzing the resolution is
the beginning of topic analysis.
***
5
Writing a Case: Planning and Topic Analysis
1.
What are the values (ideas) in the resolution? Take it apart.
Justice? Morality? National Interest? You have to analyze the topic – the
resolution- and pull out the values in it.
Resolved:
Members of the U.S. Congress should value the national interest
above their constituent’s interest when the two are in conflict.
In topic analysis you must think: What are the reasons why this is true?
You might say, it provides for defense, interstate commerce, or a stronger
economy.
TOPIC ANALYSIS realistically requires that you spend one or two
days doing nothing but analyzing the topic and giving reasons why it is true.
Think of potential arguments and write all of this down on paper.
Example: Resolved: A victim’s deliberate use of deadly force is a just response
to repeated domestic violence.
In this resolution the word “just” is used. This asks whether or not the use
of deadly force is justified when facing domestic violence. The “value premise”
then, is justice.
When you introduce your case you will state the resolution and the value
premise. “I uphold that a victim’s deliberate use of deadly force is a just response
to repeated domestic violence. I affirm a value premise of Justice. This is the
proper value for the round because…..” In order to achieve Justice, we must
adhere to the value criterion of the right to self defense….
The side that best upholds his/her value premise, and adequately defends it
will win the debate. The “value criterion” is the means of achieving the value
premise. The value criterion is the method by which you prove your value to be
defended and affirmed.
6
2.
ANTICIPATE : before you write the first word of a case – what will the
opponent – the negative say and what are the values I will be able to defend and
stand on? Especially as the debate gets further along. What are the values that I
can pull out of the resolution and win with. The more you define the words in
the resolution, the closer you will be to pulling out the value premise that you
must defend. In the sample case I am giving you - you will see all of the Blocks
(in the appendix) against the case. There is a Title or tag line, a source, and a
summary of the rebuttal.
Along the way, research and document the potential arguments the
negative may have. You can win a case if you anticipate extensively what the
opponent will argue and be ready to tear down their case. It is critical that you
do this.
Pre-empting: you are going to put into (build into) your affirmative case
ideas that will clash with and undermine the negative’s case. Always consider
what the negatives are going to say. Organize your files by arguments so you
can find them quickly depending upon the direction the negative takes.
Let’s go back to this one: Resolved: National Security should be a nation’s
highest priority
Why? What value is emerging here? Security? Safety? Is it more important
than Liberty? Equality? Privacy? (Remember the movie “V for Vendetta”?
The nation gave up their liberty for security – and became a Fascist state! )
You must prove your position true. You cannot win by just proving the
negative false. Have I assumed my affirmative burdens? You must prove your
position true with factual evidence. Affirmative has the burden of proof.
Note: If the Resolution says that the Government has the responsibility to do
xyz then you cannot then prove that “society” or some other entity has the
responsibility to do xyz. Read the resolution very carefully.
3. The Affirmative Constructive Speech (1AC)
The affirmative’s speech is first. Your complete case is presented here. All
of your key arguments, contentions and definitions are presented in this six
minute speech. You cannot add new arguments in rebuttals. Every
reason for which you think we must adopt this resolution must be in the
constructive speech. It is the entire basis of your case.
Ex: Resolved: National Security should be a nation’s highest priority.
7
If you state in the Affirmative Constructive Speech (1 AC) that the
reason for this is national defense – you cannot later in a rebuttal, state that this is
also necessary for our economy. You cannot change position! No new
arguments can be stated outside of the first affirmative constructive speech. I
repeat! All arguments MUST be in the constructive speech. Rebuttals and
conclusions reinforce – do not add new arguments.
Exercise
Try to explain what type each resolution is below. Then determine a “value
premise” for each. In other words, what value is being protected? Then go a
step further and decide what the “value criterion” should be.
1. Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the
lives of more innocent persons.
2. Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote.
3. Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an
international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.
4. Resolved: In the United States, plea bargaining in exchange for testimony
is unjust.
Answers and details about each of the resolutions above are found at:
http://www.nflonline.org/Main/LincolnDouglas
Click on the blue link above the resolution for a briefing about how to
present the case and what value premise best serves the resolution!
***
8