top of page

LD Debate

 

Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a debate event that calls back to the 1858 debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas.  The original Lincoln-Douglas debate focused on slavery and all the morals, values, and logic behind it.  As such, the current version of Lincoln-Douglas Debate (or LD for short) focuses on the morals, values, and logic behind actions taken.  The focus of the debate is more on the WHY behind our actions than the actions themselves.

 

To give a general overview of LD, LD is a one-one-one debate where each student is assigned a particular side on a given topic.  For classroom use, I would recommend just assigning one student to be Affirmative (for) the topic and one student to be Negative (against) the topic.  At tournaments, each student is expected to know both sides of the topic and the student will alternate throughout the tournament, debating Affirmative and Negative.  An LD debate lasts roughly 42 minutes, with time equally divided between the two sides.  Classroom modifications can be made to accommodate a shorter debate, more on that later.

 

LD is a very technical style of debating and will help teach students how to make thoroughly researched arguments with substance, rather than just attitude.  The unit will also focus on learning how to refute arguments made by an opponent.  By understanding not only what action is done, but why people or governments chose to take such actions, students will better understand the decision making process of those in positions of power.

 

To start the Lincoln-Douglas Debate unit, I typically start by giving students an example topic and have them write down some initial thoughts about the topic through some guided questions. The topic I start with is:

 

Resolved: An unjust government is better than no government at all.

 

A few typical starting questions would be:

 

1.  In your own words, what does this sentence mean?

 

2.  Define all the key terms from the topic, in your own words.  How does this change the sentence? (Key terms include unjust, government, better, no)

 

3.  Is the statement true?  Regardless of your answer, give 3 reasons why you believe what you do.

 

After giving them some time to answer, discuss the questions.  A few points to mention:

 

  • What does “no” government look like?  Has that ever happened?

  • What constitutes a government?  Can we live without it?

  • What is unjust?  How can a government be unjust?  What does that look like?

  • For those favoring an unjust government, ask the classic example of: would they prefer to live in a Hitler run Germany over anarchy?

  • For those favoring no government, ask the classic example of: in a world where every man/woman is for themselves, how does anyone survive/thrive?  Wouldn’t it be better to have some treated fairly so some system would be in place for the benefit of all?

 

In the end, the discussion is just to show there isn’t really a right answer.  LD doesn’t deal with definite yes or no questions – it deals with looking at the more difficult questions, with moral/ethical implications.  There are typically 2 fairly clear sides: an Affirmative side which says the sentence is true and a Negative side which will say the sentence is false.  Thus, the upcoming unit will deal with similar types of situations and each student will be assigned a particular side for the given topic to explore.  Then, a debate will take place between students to determine who is correct, for that particular debate.

 

The topic for the MS tournaments will be determined roughly 1 month before the tournaments.  For now, I will use an old high school LD topic which had a fair amount of depth to it.  The example topic is from November/December 2009 if you like the topic and want to explore the issue further.  If you utilized that information, you can find multiple resources for LD on the internet.  Therefore, the topic used for discussion will be:

 

Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.

 

Lincoln-Douglas Debate is best taught in context with a topic to use as a guide, so I’ll use the above topic as I break LD Debate down into easier to teach chunks.  To start with, I will focus on how to write the case, or the initial structure as to why your side of the debate is right.  Then, I will look at rebuttal preparations.  After that, I will go over the structure of LD Debate.

 

Case

 

In LD Debate, the case is the first item each side of the resolution must work on.  The structure is the exact same for both, so everyone will be working on the same thing at the same time.  The only difference is the length of the case, which will touch on later.  For now, here are the components of the case: definitions, value, criterion, and contentions.

 

Definitions

 

Definitions are the foundation of a debate.  Without a clear understanding of what you are arguing about, you cannot definitely prove who is right and who is wrong.  Definitions are the first part of what is called the “Framework” in LD Debate.  The Framework is how you look at your particular topic.  The perspective you take on the topic is directly connected to how you define the topic.  As such, the first part of the Framework is the definitions.

 

The process I typically have students go through is simple: find the best definition for their particular side of the resolution.  A wonderful side to help with this is:

 

Onelook – http://www.onelook.com

 

OneLook is a dictionary search engine, which enables students to look at multiple dictionaries at the same time.  Words are defined in various dictionaries, ranging from general usage to specific disciplines.  Since the topic above deals with public health concerns, medical dictionaries would offer the most topical approach.  Before we look specifically at the given topic, it might be good to reflect on how the meaning of words changes how you would proceed with viewing the topic.  Some key words to consider:

 

Public – what does this mean?  Does this mean everyone everywhere or just in general?

 

Health – Long-term, short-term – what does it mean?

 

Public Health – Or, is there a separate look at what the two words together means versus separately.  After all, some words work in conjunction with each other in different ways than apart.

 

Just note why the definitions matter to them and let them explore to see what works best for their side of the debate.  The Affirmative will likely find a threat to a broad sense of “public health” would be more beneficial for their side, since they would be saving more lives that way.  The Negative would find a very narrow definition of public health to show it would be meaningless to move forward with compulsory immunization.  The same is true for other words in the definition – each side will want to find the definitions which better support their view of the resolution.

 

Definitions are a simple place to start for all students.  Each student should gather the best definition, along with the source name for this portion of the case.  For now, students can just save the definitions to a file or print them off and turn them in as a spot check for progress.  Regardless, students will have clear definitions as they move forward with their research for their debate.

 

 

Value

 

The Value in LD Debate is the second part of the Framework.  To explain the idea of the value, I would ask students what they think of when they hear the word “value.”  Usually, the first response is something to do with money.  When we think of what Value means in terms of LD Debate, we need to think of what concept is most important.  An apt comparison would be to ask what America values as a nation.  Typically, a response would be truth, justice, and the American way.  Every one of these is just a concept – something we adhere to, but can’t physically touch or embody in any real way.

 

The Value in LD Debate is the same.  When looking at the resolution, try to think of what concept is the most important to your side of the resolution.  Two concepts which are typical of LD Debate resolutions are justice and morality.  In this particular resolution, the word “justify” is used in order to differentiate the Affirmative from the Negative.  Therefore, the most likely value for both sides of the debate (at least for starting points) would be justice.  (In other cases, watch for the keyword “ought,” which often is a way of saying morally this is something we ought or ought not do.)

 

After a value is chosen, the student has to explain why the value is the best concept to utilize when looking at the resolution.  Students can do this through multiple methods, but a few of the common ones include:

 

1.  Defining the concept, just like definitions – Definitions still have power here and justice has many facets which will likely need to be defined to backup their interpretation.  Does justice mean what is best for all or just an individual?  Definitions are likely present to define the issue further…and there are multiple ways of looking at justice, be it through a medical, legal, or other point-of-view.

 

2.  Giving philosophical or expert testimony – Many smart people have talked about the concept of justice…use what they have said to further your case.  LD Debate is all about timeless concepts so students are free to use whatever resources they find to back up their own opinions.  If students find that Plato, Socrates, John Rawls, John Stuart Mill, or any other great thinker of their age discussed justice and it fits with the way they view the resolution – they should use it to backup or justify their reasoning on the resolution.  Students should always remember to properly cite their evidence, of course, but more of that when we discussion the contentions.

 

3.  Giving your own justification – The last strategy, and the one least favored, is to give your own good reasoning.  For instance, the word justify is in the resolution…probably means you should consider if it is just or not.  Common sense reasons work, just make sure they are worded correctly and actually explained in a way that makes sense to anyone listening.

 

The Value is how to look at the resolution, the particular student’s way of analyzing whatever evidence or reasons they find to be Affirmative or Negative.  As such, students need to remember to connect everything back to the “big picture” of what the value represents.  If Justice is the value, everything has to connect back to how it furthers (or, for the other side, erodes) justice.

 

Criterion

 

The criterion is the final piece of the Framework for the debate and acts as a bridge between the Value and the Contentions.  The Value, as previously discussed, is the concept that is most important when looking at the resolution.  The Contentions, as I will cover more in-depth next, are concrete reasons or evidence to support a particular side of the debate.  The criterion is what binds the two together.

 

A Criterion is the way in which the Affirmative or Negative obtains the Value.  Since the Value is an abstract concept, the Criterion is the means by which the Value is obtained.  So, let’s look at an example of going back to Truth, Justice, and the American Way.  How do we ensure we focus on Truth?  We have a system that protects due process rights.  How do we ensure Justice?  We endorse a system that maximizes the protection of life.  How do we achieve the American Way?  We do so by endorsing a system of democratic rights, specifically a free market society.

 

So, in order to put all of this into context with the resolution, how does the Affirmative or Negative obtain Justice?  This would be the Criterion for the round.  The Criterion should be simple and it should be something that can be evaluated by both teams.  If your Criterion is protecting the majority of people, the person who protects the most people should win the round.  If your criterion is rights protection, whoever proves the most rights are protected should win the round.  Or, the debaters will then have to compare and contrast the two and determine which is more important: lives or rights.  The criterion is the weighing mechanism in the round, the way to determine a winner based on the values presented and contention level arguments.  The criterion is the lynchpin that holds it all together.

 

As with the Value, once you have stated what Criterion you are using, you have to justify or explain why it is the best way to achieve the Value.  Students can utilize the exact same methods suggested above for the Value for this section.

 

Contentions

 

The final part of the case is often the portion where students spend most of their time.  The reason: this portion of the case is where any evidence and analysis takes place on the concrete level.  Contention is just a debate term for reason.  Each Contention will represent an independent thought or reason why the student should win the debate.  Contentions must connect back to the Framework of the debate (in other words, connect to the Value and Criterion), but are the proof that verifies the Framework is the best way to look at the resolution.

 

Each contention breaks down into three components: claim, warrant, and impact.  I will go through a process called “cutting cards,” which will give an overview of each item listed above and how it will look as a final product.  The following will also be available in handout form, for students to see as a reference.

 

“Cutting cards” is debate lingo for finding evidence and putting it into a format suitable for easy consumption for debate.  The process is really the same for any debate event, so this applies to Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, or even Policy Debate.  Here goes:

 

1.  Find an article on your topic with information you believe is pertinent/important/credible.  Students should use some common sense when considering sources, but they should be fine.  Here are some potentially good starting points:

 

Current Event focused evidence

 

  • Christian Science Monitor - http://www.csmonitor.com/ - One of the best sources for information on current events, updated daily.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deeper Analysis focused evidence

 

 

  • Cato Institute – http://www.cato.org – The Cato Institute is a large organization with information divided by topic area.

 

  • Heritage Foundation - http://www.heritage.org/ - The Heritage Foundation is another “think tank” organization like Cato, just on the opposite political spectrum.

 

 

  • Congressional Quarterly - http://www.cq.com – Information about Congress and what is happening in the United States.

 

 

 

  • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – http://plato.stanford.edu – This is a great starting point for any kind of philosophically based arguments for LD Debate.  The site offers a search engine for direct evidence from philosophers throughout the ages.

 

 

Legal Briefs and other High Level evidence

 

Do the students have a brother/sister/friend in college who wants to let them use their login information?  Great!  Explore using Lexis-Nexis, JSTOR, and/or Project Muse.  Great databases, once mastered.  Not for the faint of heart though – but invaluable once they learn to master them.

 

2.  Copy the card.  Students should read the article and find 1-2 paragraphs that give a specific point which they feel is important.  The student should include all relevant info from the article that deals with the particular issue they want to discuss.  If they feel there are multiple “cards” from a single article, no problem – just make them different cards.  Copy and paste the content into Word or the word processing program of their choice.  YES – I said copy/paste – how often have teachers recommended that?

 

3.  Make the MLA citation.  Above the 1-2 paragraphs, give a full MLA citation for the evidence.  Every single piece of evidence should have this information available.  All evidence should be from credible sources.  In a debate, the student can:

 

  • Ask for your opponent’s information

  • Discredit them for source quality, outdated evidence, or biased author attack

  • If they don’t have it, you can question the credibility entirely!

  • Regardless, you should always have the information available.

 

If the student doesn’t know how to setup a proper MLA citation, try out www.easybib.com.  Just realize the “Auto Citation” function screws up more than it works right.  Just have the students go through the process on their own…it will save them time in the long run.  Put “Author in Year writes” above the MLA citation – they will actually say that in the debate, the MLA citation is just for clarification questions.  Feel free to make it painfully small print, to save paper and make it less distracting when reading the case.  I usually go with font size 8.

 

4.  Make the claim.  What does the evidence prove in regards to the debate topic?  Students should state it in their own words.  Students should use a sentence maximum, but usually just an abridged shortened form of what your evidence talks about.  I usually describe it as a headline for a newspaper article – enough to get the general gist, but with more detail to follow.

 

For example, if the evidence is going to give statistical information on crime recidivism, the claim can be “Criminal recidivism rises/falls with rehabilitation.”

 

Short and sweet – connecting what the evidence will prove to your topic area.  This will be the first thing the student will say when talking about the point, so put it above the “Author in Year writes” and MLA citation.  I know it seems like I’m going out of order, but I’m going in the actual order I would use when cutting cards.

 

5.  Cutting the card time.  Go through the 1 – 2 paragraphs copied/pasted from the article.  Find the sentences that matter the most to the particular point being made.  Bold/Underline those words.  The rest, shrink to size 8 font.  This way, the entire original context remains intact, but the student is only reading the info that is vital to the case.  No one can accuse the student of altering the intent of the author if all of the original wording is available right in front of them.

 

6. Write your impact.  After the evidence, explain how it relates to the topic and why it matters in the round.  This is the student’s analysis on what the evidence does in the debate round.  Explain why the argument helps the Affirmative or Negative win the round.  The impact is the student’s chance to explain how you connect the dots from what the author of a paper said to what the student is arguing about during the debate.

 

The final product will follow this structure:

 

CLAIM – what you believe is true, in your own words

 

WARRANT – the proof/evidence you offer to back up your claim, composed of:

 

Author in Year writes,

 

FULL MLA CITATION

 

Copied/pasted 1-2 paragraphs from a particular article, bolding/underlining the important stuff and shrinking the rest.

 

IMPACT – why it matters in your own words, connecting the evidence to your particular debate topic.

 

Here’s an example of the entire process, from an old LD case:

 

Russia has interfered with peace around the world

 

Lantos in 2007 writes,

 

[Tom; Representative from California; “Russia on the Eve of National Elections;” Hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; 30 October 2007; Lexis]

 

For reasons that are perhaps not clear, the Putin government has repeatedly shown an irresponsible attitude toward global threats to peace, especially with regard to Iran. The Russians say that they are opposed to a nuclear Iran. Indeed, Putin recently said that the two countries most threatened by an Iranian bomb would be Israel and Russia.

 

Even so, Putin insists upon fishing in these very troubled waters. He refuses to join with the civilized world in placing meaningful sanctions on Iran, and he goes so far as to sell to Iran advanced anti-aircraft missiles.

 

Putin has also hindered the United Nations efforts to preserve peace in the Balkans by resolving the final status of Kosovo. His threats to veto any UN resolution that would grant long-deserved independence to Kosovo make it unlikely that a unified international agreement will be found. If the United States and its European allies unilaterally recognize an independent Kosovo -- as I strongly support and seems most likely at this stage – Putin has threatened to recognize Abkhazia, a move likely to destabilize an already fragile situation in the Caucuses.

 

Russia is opposing the United States’ efforts to ensure that Iran remains non-nuclear.  They refuse to allow sanctions to be placed on them, despite Iran’s repeated disregard for the United States and the United Nations.  Not only that, but they also oppose an independent Kosovo – an ally of the United States.  All of these efforts show that Russia is a threat to our interests.

 

So, students can now go forth and make cards!  Cards are good for a number of reasons:

 

  • You don’t have to have the entire article with you at all times, since you have the context always.

  • You can easily see what info is from the article and what info is from you – at a glance

  • You have the citation information for easy comparison

  • You will make your judge happy, if evidence credibility is an issue – you look professional

  • You meet NFL rules – you need full citation info and you have it – in style

  • These will (eventually) form the majority of your contention level offense

  • The remainder will be for your rebuttal preparation – so everything will have a purpose

 

That concludes the case.  The case will be where students spend a great deal of time, since the end product is so critical to the actual debate.  The process is time-consuming, but worth the effort if a solid case is the end result.  However, the case is only the starting point for LD Debate.  There is one more element to discuss regarding preparations that occur prior to the debate.

 

Rebuttal Prep

 

The second step in preparing for Lincoln-Douglas Debate is called Rebuttal Prep.  Rebuttal preparations are meant to help with the additional speeches in the debate.  The intent is to think about what your opponent is likely to argue in the debate and prepare your responses.

 

The preparation process is the exact same as the process described for the Contentions in the Case.  So, the students will find additional evidence and put into the same structure as the Contentions (claim, warrant, and impact) for use in the Rebuttal portions of the debate.  There is no real limit to how much rebuttal prep students should complete.  The more prepared they are, the more likely they are to win the debate.  For classroom purposes, I usually give students a minimum number of cut cards.  Typically 5-7 would be a good number to start with, although you can utilize your own judgment based on the amount of time allotted for your unit.

 

For Rebuttal Prep, the Claim is typically setup as an “Answer to” a specific argument the student expects to hear.  For example, if the student knows the Affirmative will make an argument that suggests Compulsory Immunization Saves Lives, they can find evidence that states it kills a portion of the populace as well due to weakened immune systems.  This is an “answer to” the argument because the portion of the population that dies does not feel protected from the supposed threat. In addition, the student can make arguments about those with compromised immune systems (such as HIV) who cannot take the immunizations because they will die.

 

So, Rebuttal Prep is simple in concept: you try to outthink your opponent by developing arguments which “answer” what you believe your opponent will say.  The more prepared ahead of the debate, the easier the actual in-class debate will be because the student will have that much more information and understanding of the topic on their side.

 

Structure of LD Debate

 

Now that we’ve covered the Case and Rebuttal Prep for LD Debate, let’s talk about the structure of the actual debates.  Case writing and Rebuttal Prep all come before the debate even begins.  The paperwork aspect takes quite awhile, but it also enables the students to actually debate because, without the prep work, they would know nothing about the topic itself.

 

In order to cover the structure, I will first go over the time structure and then give a breakdown of what the job of each speech is.

 

Time Structure

 

LD Debate follows the following time structure.  The time structure given is what occurs at tournaments – I will give some recommendations on modifying for classroom use later in the guide, should you need to modify due to time constrictions.  Here goes:

 

1st Affirmative Constructive                          6 minutes

 

Cross-Examination (NEG questions AFF)     3 minutes

 

1st Negative Constructive                             7 minutes

 

Cross-Examination (AFF questions NEG)     3 minutes

 

1st Affirmative Rebuttal                                 4 minutes

 

1st Negative Rebuttal                                    6 minutes

 

2nd Affirmative Rebuttal                                3 minutes

 

Prep Time                                                     4 minutes for EACH side

 

 

 

Speech Breakdown

 

1st Affirmative Constructive

 

The job of the 1st Affirmative Constructive is the most straightforward in LD Debate.  The only task required is the Affirmative present their case.  Therefore, the student just needs to stand up and read the case they have been working on for the preparation period prior to the debate.  The Affirmative case needs to be 6 minutes in length, including definitions, value, criterion, and contentions.  The time limit is a maximum – the student should be cut off if the time limit is reached, only able to finish their sentence if necessary.  Everything from the Case portion is simply read in this speech.  Some judges look at delivery elements (eye contact, vocal variety, etc.), but the focus will primarily be on the argumentation presented.

 

Cross Examination (NEG questions AFF)

 

The Negative speaker has the chance to ask questions to the Affirmative speaker.  These questions could be directed toward the following goals:

 

  • Clarify arguments made by the Affirmative

  • Point out flaws in the logic of the Affirmative

  • Setup own arguments against Affirmative case

 

The Negative is in control of the questioning time and questions only go one-way.  In other words, the Affirmative can’t answer with a question in return.  The Affirmative needs to answer the questions asked as quickly and clearly as possible.  Cross Examination lasts for 3 minutes maximum.  When the time is up or the Negative has no further questions, questioning time is over.  For Cross Examination, both debaters stand and face the judge/teacher.  The reason they face the judge is because they are trying to convince the judge/teacher who is correct – each person is assigned a side in the debate, they will never convince the other person to give up.  The only person making a decision is the judge/teacher so they are the focal point.

 

1st Negative Constructive

 

The 1st Negative Constructive doesn’t have quite as easy of a job as the Affirmative because the Negative has to do two things: present their own case AND attack the opponent’s case.  So, the Negative starts by doing the exact same the Affirmative did in their Constructive Speech – they present the Negative case, which is composed of Definitions, Value, Criterion, and Contentions.  However, they then move on to attack the opponent’s case directly.  So, the Negative Case should be roughly 3 – 4 minutes in length.  This leaves the remaining 3 – 4 minutes for attacking the Affirmative case, utilizing any Rebuttal Prep the Affirmative has.  Once again, 7 minutes is the maximum amount of time allowed – the student should be cut off when the timer finishes, only be allowed to finish their last sentence if necessary.

 

Cross Examination (AFF questions NEG)

 

The process outlined here is the exact same as the previous Cross Examination, except this time, the Affirmative is in control.  3 minutes of questioning are allowed, the Affirmative is in control of the time.  Both face the judge/teacher and continue until time runs out or the Affirmative is finished asking questions.

 

1st Affirmative Rebuttal

 

Just to get this out of the way, I wanted to state upfront: the 1st Affirmative Rebuttal is the most difficult speech in the debate.  The reason: time.  The Affirmative has 4 minutes to respond to 7 minutes of arguments from the Negative.  So, in those 4 minutes, the Affirmative has to respond to the Negative case and then rebuild their own case because the Negative just attacked it in their last speech.  So, the Affirmative has their work cut out for them.  As always, the Affirmative stands for this speech and speaks to the judge, trying to convince the judge the Affirmative is winning the debate.

 

1st Negative Rebuttal

 

The Negative Rebuttal is the Negative’s last speech in the debate.  In this speech, the Negative has to rebuild their case, attack the Affirmative case one last time, and then give Voting Issues, or specific reasons why the judge should vote for the Negative.  The Negative should be specific and explain how the judge should vote and why they should vote Negative.  The speech time is 6 minutes.

 

2nd Affirmative Rebuttal

 

This is the last speech in the debate and the most critical for the Affirmative.  In the speech, the Affirmative must give clear Voting Issues as to why they should win the debate.  This is likely to involve rebuilding their case, reviewing attacks on the Negative, and clearing explaining to the judge/teacher why the Affirmative should win.  Voting Issues should be presented, telling the judge how they should vote and why they should vote Affirmative.  The speech time is 3 minutes.

 

Prep Time

 

During the debate, each person can utilize Prep Time.  Basically, a “time out” that can be utilized anytime in-between speeches.  So, a student is not allowed to call time out during their actual speech, but CAN call time out before/after each speech.  Typically, the Affirmative will use their prep time before the 1AR speech and before the 2AR speech.  The Negative will utilize their prep time before the 1NC speech and the 1NR speech.  No time limits are imposed on HOW the prep time is utilized, but a good starting point for students is to use roughly half their prep time before they give a speech.  The time is necessary to give students a chance to look through their rebuttal prep or to come up with responses on the spot to arguments their opponent made.  Prep time should be timed to ensure each team receives equal prep time.

 

At this point, I’ve covered LD Case Structure, Rebuttal Prep, Time Structure, and Speech Structure.  Each component is an integral part of Lincoln Douglas Debate, but there is plenty left to cover.  So far, I’ve given an overview on how LD Debate works, with a focus on the written and spoken component.  Now, I’m going to dive into two final areas of analysis: LD Strategy and Flowing.

 

LD Strategy

 

Now that I’ve shown exactly what each speech is supposed to do, I’ll go over how that actually occurs.  The scariest part of any debate for a student is the Rebuttal portion of the debate.  Students often freeze up because they just don’t know what to say.  Now, this is where the Rebuttal Prep portion of the debate is supposed to help, but sometimes the Rebuttal Prep isn’t enough.  Therefore, a few tips are presented here to help students figure out what exactly to do during those moments in the debate.

 

 

Rebuttal Tips

 

Signpost – Signpost is a debate term for telling the judge and your opponent what argument you are talking about.  This is essential in debate, since there are likely 5 – 10 different arguments or things to argue about being said throughout the debate.  The easiest way to make signposting second nature is to ensure everything is labeled and you state the label throughout the debate.  When you are reading your case for the first time, you should say things like, “to clarify today’s debate, I offer the following definitions…the value will be….the criterion will be…Contention 1….Contention 2…”  Each label makes it easier for everyone involved (judge/teacher and opponent) to know what you are talking about.  So, when you get up to attack the other team’s case, tell what issue you are attacking before you start your attack.  You should say something like, “My opponent’s value was…they are wrong because…”

 

Use evidence and explain your reasoning – Whenever possible, utilize evidence to respond to your opponent’s arguments.  Without evidence, you are just using your words to counter their words…backed by evidence.  It CAN work, but you are fighting an uphill battle.  You should have plenty of evidence for use from your Rebuttal Prep.  However, if you don’t have anything, think about your own case.  Does it have anything which directly conflicts with something your opponent said?  If so, say that!  This is called cross-applying evidence, which will now serve offensive and defensive uses in the debate.  The biggest pointer though is just to explain what you mean.  Just as in Extemporaneous Speaking, it isn’t enough just to say why you are right.  You need to explain how the evidence works, why it proves you are right/your opponent is wrong, and how it functions in the debate.  Your explanation of how things work is essential to winning the debate.

 

Connect the dots – Something many novice debaters forget to do is to connect the dots.  Everything said in the debate has to connect back to the value and criterion.  If a debater wins a Contention, but doesn’t connect it back to the Value/Criterion…that’s a reason not to vote for them.  However, the opponent needs to be the one to point the lack of connecting the dots out.  If a debate student shows they connect everything together and the opponent doesn’t, that’s a fairly easy way to vote for a particular student.  Every student should constantly be aware of how all of the pieces fit together as part of the puzzle that is the debate.  Full understanding of this concept takes time, but is very beneficial to students in the long-term.

 

Don’t forget about the definitions – Often, students forget about why they read definitions in the beginning of their case and the definitions could have helped them for an easy victory.  Let me give you an example.  The Affirmative is talking about Juveniles going to Adult prison.  They define Juvenile as anyone mentally competent over the age of 18.  The Negative gets up and reads Contentions about mentally handicapped people in prison.  An easy way out of all those attacks for the Affirmative is to look at their definition of Juvenile and say none of those arguments apply to the Affirmative case.  Now, this isn’t the only attack the student should make, but it is one which utilizes definitions and highlights why they are important in the round.

 

Flowing

 

“Flowing” is a debate term to describe a specific form of note taking common in Lincoln-Douglas Debate.  You may be wondering how students are supposed to keep track of all the stuff going on during the debate.  The answer is simple: the students need to take notes.  Now, note taking isn’t the most exciting part of debate, but accurate note taking does lead to winning more debates because students can only argue against something if they remember what was being said.

 

In this section, I will give some pointers on how to take notes in LD Debate.  Realize, each individual likely will develop their own system.  There is nothing wrong with that, since the purpose of note taking is to help the student know what was being said in the debate.  However, I will give some guidelines and offer some handouts which will advocate a specific style of note taking to start with.  Some students take to the style immediately; others struggle throughout the entire unit.  The intent is always to enhance student understanding of what arguments are being made in the debate, so remember the goal as you teach note taking.

 

1.  Setup your flow sheet – The first step in note taking is setting up how you will be taking notes.  For beginners, I usually give them a blank sheet of computer paper and tell them to divide the sheet into columns.  Each column will represent a particular part of the debate.  For the front of the paper, I have students make 5 columns.  For the back of the paper, I have the students make 4 columns.

 

2.  Label your columns – Now that the paper is setup properly, it’s time to label the columns.  The front of the paper will start with the 1AC column, named such because all notes from the 1st Affirmative Constructive speech will go here.  From this point forward, everything dealing with the Affirmative Case will go on the front of the paper – including any attacks made by the Negative and responses by the Affirmative.  The rest of the columns will be labeled with their corresponding title.  In order, it goes: 1AC (1st Affirmative Constructive), 1NC (1st Negative Constructive), 1AR (1st Affirmative Rebuttal), 1NR (1st Negative Rebuttal), and 2AR (2nd Affirmative Rebuttal).

 

The back of the paper will also be labeled, but starts with the 1NC (1st Negative Constructive).  All notes from the Negative Case will go here.  From this point forward, everything dealing with the Negative Case will go on the back of the paper – including any attacks made by the Affirmative and responses by the Negative.  The rest of the columns will be labeled with their corresponding title.  In order, it goes: 1NC (1st Negative Constructive), 1AR (1st Affirmative Rebuttal), 1NR (1st Negative Rebuttal), and 2AR (2nd Affirmative Rebuttal).

 

Now you are ready to takes notes on a debate.  Watching a LD debate beforehand or going through a practice debate while using the note sheet will help students get used to this style of note taking.  I will include a sample form on the Handout section and links to online debates on the Resources page.

 

3.  Tips for Note taking – There isn’t a right or wrong way to take notes.  However, I will offer some tips which will help standardize what is being done, in case you want to give points for note taking and ensure students are doing this part of LD Debate.

 

  • Setup headings for common items – DEF for definitions, VAL for Value, CRIT for Criterion, 1 with a circle around it for Contention 1, etc.

  • Underline author’s name – This way you can identify what author said what visually

  • Write responses next to original argument – If your opponent attacks your Contention 1, write the response next to Contention 1….that way, you know what they said about it.  This will vertically/horizontally align everything so you can visually see what has been responded to and what has not.

 

Note taking is an essential part to debating, since it ensures you know what the opponent has stated and gives you a visual reference point to look at throughout the debate.  Note taking is a difficult task, since we are attempting to listen, think about what was said, and then use our fine motor skills to articulate what was said on paper.  The process is not easy, but will prove invaluable for students as they progress through the school system.  The same skill set can be utilized in classrooms as well as the business world.  Being able to record an accurate record of what was said is a great asset for LD Debate and I encourage you to get your students to practice throughout the unit so they can utilize their notes during their actual in-class debate.

 

Lincoln-Douglas Debate Review

 

Lincoln-Douglas debate is a very technical style of debate.  I have covered the basics, but there are many additional resources to go further into the activity if you want to learn more.  I have included a few different guides available on the Resource page, along with other sites of interest.  Since we are focusing on MS LD Debate, I believe the above is a great starting point for anyone interested in debate.  LD is a great activity for one-on-one debate and offers a way to dive into an issue unlike any other kind of debate activity.  The philosophical focus is unique and can really help explain why actions are taken on a variety of issues.

 

 

LD – Suggested Schedule

 

As always, the following is just a suggestion.  The actual amount of time you take will depend greatly on how long your actual class period is and how many students are in your classroom.  Regardless, here is a starting point.  Handouts mentioned are in the Handouts Section and Links are in the LD Resource section.

 

Day 1 – Intro activity with provided LD topic, Introduce LD Debate,                               Assign topic/opponents

 

Day 2 – Discuss Definitions, Explore/use OneLook.com, Discuss Value,                       Research Time

 

Day 3 – Discuss Criterion, Review “How to Cut Cards” Handout,                                   Research Time

 

Day 4 – Check student cards, Review LD Case Outline structure,                                 Research Time

 

Day 5 – Discuss Flowing, Flowing Activity, Read LD Sample AFF Case,                        Research Time

 

Day 6 – Review Student Cases, Discuss Cross Examination,                                         Read LD Sample NEG Case

 

Day 7 – Practice Cross Examination, Review Format of LD,                                           Research Time

 

Day 8 – Review LD Key Terms, Review Student Cases,                                                 Research Time

 

Day 9 – LD Cases Due, Start Rebuttal Prep, Watch LD 101 video series

 

Day 10 – Research Time, Flowing Review, Watch LD Debate video

 

Day 11 – Research Time, Review Novice LD Tip Sheet, Finish LD Debate video

 

Day 12 – Start LD Debates (Typically 1-2 debates per day, if following full time limits)

 

Day 13 – Continue LD Debates

 

Day 14 – LD Debates

 

Day 15 – LD Debates

 

Day 16 – LD Debates

 

Day 17 – LD Debates

 

Day 18 – LD Debates (continue until finished with all students)

 

If you are following the full LD time limits, you may want to assign multiple LD topics to your class to ensure a bit more variety of arguments and keep students from simply “borrowing” ideas from one another.  The National Forensic League has a complete list of past topics on their website, located at http://www.nationalforensicleague.org.  Simply search for “Past LD Topics” and you’ll find many you can utilize.  Some of the sources listed below offer material for a number of topics, so you will have plenty of resources.

 

If you want to modify LD times in order to make it more useful/practical for your classroom time frame, let me offer a few suggestions:

 

1.  Cut time equally – I would usually recommend starting with 1-minute from each Constructive.  If this isn’t enough, cut a minute from each Cross Examination time.  Next, 1 minute from each Prep Time.  If this still isn’t enough, cut 30 seconds from the 1NR and the 2AR.  This is about as far as I would recommend cutting LD, since the time limits get really difficult for the Affirmative with any more cuts.

 

2.  Make one-on-one debate a team activity – If you really can’t manage LD with the above suggestion, turn the debates into team projects.  3-person Affirmative teams vs. 2-person Negative teams.  Each student would be responsible for giving a particular speech and would have to work together to create the Case and Rebuttal Prep.  You would really need to vary topics up with this method, but it could save you a great deal of class time, since LD Debates take awhile when only 2-4 students a day can debate.

 

 

LD – Handouts

 

Here are some handouts which might prove helpful while teaching LD Debate.

 

 

I have also included some items I found around the web, which might prove helpful for additional background info and other ideas for teaching LD.

 

 

 

 

LD Resource Links

 

Ayn Rand Institute – http://www.aynrand.org – The Ayn Rand Institute offers LD resources under the “Students/Debate Resources” link, which includes topic overviews and analysis on different LD resolutions.

 

NFLtv - http://nfltv.org/category/lincoln-douglas/ - This site offers video instruction for LD Debate, including “How to” videos, topic analysis on different LD topics, and actual final round performances from the high school national tournament.

 

NSD Update – http://nsdupdate.com – A common site for HS LD Debaters, the site offers many resources for LD Debate and gives current info on HS debate tournaments.  The Resources link is valuable, as it provides information on a variety of subjects and even videos on different subject areas.

 

Victory Briefs – http://victorybriefs.com – Another common site for HS LD Debaters, the site is a source for information on the current HS debate tournament schedule and offers some free (and pay) resources.

 

 

 

 

 

bottom of page