Lincoln Douglas Debate

1. Lincoln Douglas Debate Unlocking the Doors to Persuasion

2. Part One: An Overview • The Resolution is based in a VALUE conflict (ex. Whether the Individual is more valuable than the Society, or whether something is Just) • The Resolution is determined by the National Forensic League (NFL) • The Resolution will change every 2 months

3. Part One: An Overview • There are 2 debaters in the round: • AFFIRMATIVE upholds the Resolution the way it is stated • NEGATIVE argues against the Resolution

4. Part One: An Overview • Definitions • The central theme of LD Debate. • Pay close attention to the definitions you use- it is best to use the first one out of the dictionary, since this is the most common, and the one your judge will be most familiar with (and will agree with) • Look at the Abe & Steve debate: the whole point of that debate was whether slaves were DEFINED as human beings or not.

5. Part One: An Overview • The September/October Topic is: • RESOLVED: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. • What are the key words that need to be defined in this Resolution?

6. Part One: An Overview • The September/October Topic is: • RESOLVED: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. • What is the ET (evaluative term) in this Resolution? • What is the OE (object of evaluation)?

7. Part One: An Overview • VALUES • Can be anything, as long as they are supported (Criteria) • Be able to explain why it is important off the top of your head without quoting from your case • BELIEVE in your Value

8. Part One: An Overview • Sample VALUES • Individualism • Utilitarianism • Life • Quality of Life • Freedom • Civilization • Progress • Global Security • Safety • Justice • Human Dignity

9. Part One: An Overview • CRITERIA • Philosophies and/or contracts that will uphold the Value you choose • A theory to help you prove your Value is more persuasive

10. Part One: An Overview • Sample CRITERIAS • Locke’s Social Contract • Rousseau’s Social Contract • Hobb’s Social Contract • Rawls’ Distributive Justice • Bentham’s Principle of Utilitarianism • Mill’s Utilitarianism • Kant’s Categorical Imperitive • Maslow’s Theory of Self-Actualization

11. Part One: An Overview • Three main ways to win an LD round • Prove that your value is supported by your case, not supported by your opponent's case, and superior to your opponent’s value • Prove that your case better supports your value than your opponent’s case supports theirs • Prove that your case better supports BOTH values than your opponent’s case supports either one

12. Part One: An Overview • Round Structure • 1 AC (affirmative constructive) = 6 min. • Neg. cx (cross examine) of Aff = 3 min. • 1 NC (negative constructive+NR) = 7 min. • Aff. cx of Neg = 3 min. • 1 AR (affirmative rebuttal) = 4 • 1 NR (negative rebuttal) = 6 • 2 AR (affirmative rebuttal) = 3 min. • (Each side also has 4 total minutes of Prep Time)

13. Part Two: Case-writing • Introduction • Opening quotation(s) • Justification for your side • State the Resolution • State your Value • State your Criteria • Define all Terms • Preview your Contentions (main claims)

14. Part Two: Case-writing • Body • “Contentions” are your main points. Your main claim is called your “Tag Line” (statement of your opinion) • Contention I • Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis • Support of your VALUE • Contention II • Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis • Support of your CRITERIA • Contention III • Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis • Further support of your side of the RESOLUTION

15. Part Two: Case-writing • Body • Contention I (claim- ex. “Taking the life of even one individual undermines the basic right to life.”) • SUBPOINT ONE: Taking a life is immoral. • Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis • SUBPOINT TWO: It is immoral to assume any life is more valuable than another. • Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis • Support of your VALUE • Contention II (claim- ex. “Killing even one person will not result in the greatest good.”) • Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis (Subpoints 1, 2) • Support of your CRITERIA • Contention III (claim- ex. “Violating life also violates other basic rights.”) • Support/evidence/philosophy/analysis (Subpoints 1, 2) • Further support of your side of the RESOLUTION

16. Part Two: Case-writing • Conclusion • Affirmative: • Summarize main ideas • Re-stated Value/Criteria • Ending quotation(s) • Negative: • Summarize main ideas • Re-stated Value/Criteria • Ending quotation(s) • ATTACK AFFIRMATIVE

17. Part Two: Case-writing • Attacking • Their Value & Criteria • Point out flaws in how these uphold the Resolution • Point out flaws in their philosophy usage • Each Contention • Point out flaws in reasoning/logic • Point out flaws in evidence or philosophy usage • Central Ideas of their Case • Point out flaws in reasoning/logic • Point out items they should have addressed, but did not

18. Part Three: Cross Examination • In cx, the Negative tries to cast doubt upon the Aff position (and vice versa) • Do NOT make statements in cx- as questions and gain answers only • Don’t allow your opponent to evade answering your questions • In cx, try to boil your opponent’s case down to a few simple points • NEVER be rude during cx- always thank your opponent for the answers

19. Part Three: Cross Examination • Ask clarification questions for information you may have missed on your Flow Sheet • As the Answerer, answer as clearly and simply as possible • Have confidence in your case • Be polite, don’t get angry • Look out to the JUDGE during cx, do not look at your opponent

20. Part Four: Rebuttals • Follow the same rules outlined for the last half of the 1NC • NO NEW POINTS may be brought up in these speeches • Back-up evidence is useful, but not necessary. LD should not be an evidence war! • The last 2AC should be used to CRYSTALLIZE the round (and state why you have won the round)

21. Part Five: Speaking Style • The judge is the god or goddess in the room • It is the judge you must impress • Your opponent does not exist- they are merely a dissenting voice to the truth you speak • Convince yourself you are right in order to win the round • Speak to the type of judge you think you have (experienced or not, etc.)

22. Part Five: Speaking Style • Speak smoothly, without use of “uh….” • Vary your tone, rate, volume and inflection for emphasis • Practice your case in front of a mirror • Utilize controlled gestures and eye contact with your judge • Give yourself time to breathe • Be polite and conversational 