The following is a comprehensive guide designed to help those starting out with Lincoln Douglas debate succeed in their first season. This guide covers case structure, cross-examination, rebuttals, inherent side advantages, introductory philosophy, and LD terminology.
General Case Structure
Definitions:
When the National Forensics League sends us our resolution, they do not define any of the words in it. It is the responsibility of each debater in the round to provide the definitions (from a dictionary or reputable academic source, generally) of any words that they see as potentially contentious. Occasionally, your cases will hinge on a certain definition. Nobody, including the judges, likes when a debate is centered on arguing for one definition over another, but it is sometimes a necessary argument to have when your opponent’s definition would badly hurt your case. In these instances, you will have to be able to prove that your definitions are in some way superior to those of your opponent. Warning: A common novice mistake is spending a significant portion of time defining every single word (or most words) in a resolution. While you may want to have every definition on you just in case it becomes an issue, do not waste your limited time defining non-contentious words.
Observations (optional):
While they are not always necessary, observations can sometimes be an effective way of preempting an opponent’s possible arguments, or of setting up a logical condition that supports contention-level points. Observations are simply extrapolations that you’d like to be made from the resolution, such as: “Because the resolution refers to “Just Governments”’, any arguments based on the actions of an unjust government, such as embezzlement, can be seen as non-topical and can be ignored”. Warning: just as with definitions be wary of wasting too much time on observations. Additionally, do not make the mistake of stating your main arguments as observations. These are not the points that you want the judge to determine the round on, they are merely meant to set up those points.
Value:
This is the first of two components to your “Framework”, and it is one of the most (and occasionally the most) important determinants to a round. Your value is the highest ideological goal to be striven for (according to you). Your burden, as it pertains to the value and the rest of the framework is twofold. You must logically prove that yours is the highest and best value to be striven for, and you must prove throughout your entire case that you achieve it. If your opponent has a different value that you, you must prove that yours is superior to his/hers. The most common value is “Justice”, and other common values include “morality” and “societal welfare”. While there is nothing wrong with using a common value, creative and different values can often catch your opponent off guard and be very effective if you know how to defend them. Warning: This is perhaps the worst mistake that a novice can make: DO NOT EVER CONCEDE YOUR VALUE. You must advocate zealously and vehemently for your value in your constructive, while under cross-examination, and in your rebuttals. In rebuttals, you can say something like “while I’ve already shown that my value is superior to my opponent’s, my case actually achieves both of ours better than his/hers does because…”, but never make it seem like you are primarily trying to uphold your opponent’s value.
Criterion:
This is the second component to your case’s Framework. Criterions generally come in the form a short progressive tense verb statement (that just means a verb ending in -ing to represent an action, like “Protecting individual rights” or “Upholding Locke’s Social Contract”). Your criterion is the way in which the actor of the resolution must achieve your value. For example, if the resolution is “Just governments ought to ensure food security for their citizens”, your value is “Morality” and you criterion is “Ensuring governmental legitimacy”, you must prove that in order to be moral, a just government must ensure its legitimacy. As with your value, you must prove the superiority of your criterion over your opponents (this is always true, but it becomes especially important when you and your opponent happen to have the same value). Warning: You must make sure that your criterion links directly back to your value to create your collective framework, and that you framework is the clear goal through your contentions. Any gap at any point in this chain will be pointed out and exploited by a competent opponent.
Contentions:
Your contentions are the main points of your case, and they should use about two-thirds of your time. Cases typically have 2-3 contentions, however you may want to use more or less depending on the arguments that you need to make (single-contention negative cases can sometimes be very potent in the hands of a well-trained debater). Your contentions should consist of tagline claims and support for them. For example, Your first contention may be: “Environmental protection leads to economic prosperity”. In a round, you would read that tagline and then spend at least a paragraph supporting it. This team does not use red herring contentions that are meant to be thrown away. All of your contentions must be strong points that you defend throughout the round, and that ultimately lead back to your framework. Your contention support will, in most cases, determine whether or not you win the round. You should give empirical evidence like statistics and studies that uphold your tagline, as well as the logic that explains the results of these empirics. Subpoints can occasionally be useful if you feel your contention should be divided into two or more major points (for example, a contention of “The living wage protects citizens’ rights” could be divided as such: “Subpoint A: protection of individual rights” and “Subpoint B: protection of group rights”). This may seem complicated now, but you’ll be given plenty of examples and practice forming contentions.
Warning 1: Evidence that shows a trend without the logic to explain it (warrant), or logic that predicts a trend without empirical evidence to prove it are both easy to take down.
Warning 2: Having a quote from a philosopher or expert or any other smart person can be an effective rhetorical choice as well as an effective way of linking your case back to your framework, but quotes are not evidence. The fact that a smart person agrees with you does not prove that you are correct.
Cross-Examination Basics
When Cross-Examining:
Lead the cross! Remember that this is your time to hurt your opponent’s case and set up your own. Do not let them ask you questions, do not let them change the topic, do not let them evade.
While taking notes on your opponent's case, put some kind of mark by the points you want to question them about. Make sure that you have enough points to question (it’s even worth spending a bit of prep time on this if necessary, every good debater should very easily use all 3 minutes of cross effectively).
Have goals in mind, but disguise them. For example, if you want your opponent to concede that the government is obligated to protect the the right to property, “what property violations warrant government intervention?” is a more effective question than “is the government obligated to protect the right to property?”. Remember that a competent opponent will be trying to thwart your goals, so if they can figure out what they are, they will be actively trying to avoid conceding them.
Make your opponent defend their framework, specifically their value. It’s easy to sound smart when reading a pre-written case, but very few debaters can effectively prove the superiority of their values on the spot.
Try to get definitive “yes” or “no” answers from your opponent.
Do not let your opponent filibuster. A common tactic of a scared opponent is to talk and talk and talk just to waste your time. While you absolutely want to let them answer the question, if it becomes clear that they are just trying to use up your cross-x time, a simple “Thank you, we need to move on” should be used to stop them.
Give your opponent time to answer the question, there is no sweeter sound than the stutters or the dead air of a stumped opponent.
Walk the line between leading your opponent and bullying them. You need to come off as strong and in charge, while still maintaining professionalism and courtesy. If you’re yelling, you’re doing it wrong.
When Being Cross-Examined:
Lead the cross! This can’t be done quite as explicitly as it can be when it is your cross, but you should still maintain a controlling presence (this comes with practice).
Avoid definitive “yes” or “no” answers. If a question requires explanation, then provide it. If your opponent cuts you off say something along the lines of “I have not finished my answer” to prevent your opponent from misusing your words in rebuttals.
Put yourself in the mind of your opponent. Try to figure out what concessions they want, and make sure that you don’t give them.
Ask for things to be clarified. If your opponent asks a broad question, ask them for specifics. Do not answer a question that is unclear in meaning without first clarifying.
Do not let your opponent use an either-or fallacy. This is when a false situation is created where two non-exclusive points are set up as exclusive options where only one can be picked. For example, if your opponent asks you “which of these is more effective, drone strikes or ground troops?” a response of “well nobody is advocating for either in isolation. Both are made more effective when they are used together.” will communicate to the judge that your opponent has used an either-or fallacy and will stop your opponent's current line of questioning.
Expect your opponent to question you on your framework. You should have planned responses and justifications for your value and criterion.
Stay calm. Remember, everybody makes some mistakes while being crossed. You will have the entire rest of the round to fix any that you make, you just have to be sure not to become discouraged thereby allowing one mistake to snowball into several.
Walk the line between evading a question and stonewalling it. While you will be the leader of this cross, a clear sidestep of a question or otherwise making it impossible for your opponent to get to their point makes you come off as afraid and does not bode well with judges.
Remember that it is your opponent’s job to use the time for their cross. If you have finished your answer, stop talking. A common trick of some debaters is to wait after you’ve answered so that you feel obligated to keep talking. Don’t. As long as you’ve given a sufficient answer, dead air is points against them.
Don’t be intimidated. Some debaters will try to scare you with big words or an angry tone. These are just tactics to try to get your mind off of the case. It is always easier to be cross-examined than it is to be the cross-examiner. With opponents as with bees, they are more afraid of you than you are of them (or, at least, they should be!).
Rebuttal Basics
You must rebut every contention and subpoint that your opponent makes, otherwise your opponent may say that you’ve dropped it and it will flow through the round.
Attacking the warrant is the strongest way to take down an argument. If you can walk a judge through the logical missteps of your opponent’s points, they are likely to strike them.
You will have to explain away your opponent's evidence. This can be done in two ways. If you have evidence to the contrary, provide it to prove that their is academic disagreement in the empirical field and simply win the warrant debate. If you don’t have evidence to the contrary, you have to prove that their evidence is non-applicable (it is rare that your opponent will have a study done to perfectly support their points. As long as you win the warrant debate, any breaks between your opponent's claim and their evidence will be sufficient for most judges).
You can claim that an impact is non-unique to thwart it without even refuting it. A non-unique argument is an impact that would/could exist whether or not the resolution is affirmed. If you can prove that an impact pointed to by your opponent (good or bad) exists regardless of the resolution, then the judge won’t use it to weigh the round.
While this is a less effective refutation, you can also take down an argument by outweighing it. For example, if your opponent says “if we do X, 10 people will die”, you could try to prove (you’d need empirics for this) “if we don’t do X, 20 people will die”. Once again, this is not as effective as a full refutation.
Defending your own case can be done in a similar manner as the attacks listed above. Be sure to prove the superiority of your warrants.
Your final speeches should have key voting issues. These are just the points in the round that you won, and that the judge should base their decision on (“framework” should always be one of your KVI).
Inherent Neg/Aff Advantages
Neg:
Neg has the advantage of longer speeches, and therefore the ability to make connections more readily apparent.
Neg has the burden to disprove, which provides more freedom than positive proof (while Aff must defend the resolution as written, Neg can attack it through any means without necessarily defending any alternative).
Neg cross-examines Aff before Aff has heard Neg’s case. This means that a clever Neg can get Aff to concede to major premises of his/her case without Aff knowing it until the Neg Constructive.
By the time Neg reads his/her constructive, he/she has already heard Aff’s case. This means that if there are non-contentious points (like having the same value or definitions) Neg doesn’t have to waste time defending them.
Aff:
Aff has the advantage of more speeches, including the valuable first and last speeches.
A bit more of Aff’s case is pre-written than Neg’s (Aff has a 6 minute pre-written case and Neg’s is generally 3-4).
Aff cross-examines Neg after already hearing Neg’s attacks on the Aff case, so he/she can poke holes in Neg’s main attacks.
Because the arguments for a resolution tend to be more well established than against, it is often easier for Aff to find evidence than Neg.
Shared:
Each debater is allotted 4 minutes of prep time, to be used whenever and in whatever divisions that debater chooses.
Both debaters may ask to see a piece of their opponent’s evidence (though most judges will take time off of prep for this, and it should not be done in excess).
Both debaters have the same total time to speak in the round.
Common LD Terms
Affirmative: The side that supports the resolution is affirmative. The affirmative case explains why the resolution is correct and is presented during the affirmative constructive (AC).
Abuse: This refers to arguments, assumptions, or definitions made by one side that prevent both sides from completing on equal ground. Abusive assumptions skew the round in favor of one team.
Burden of Proof: A debater who offers an argument must show that it is valid in order for it to be accepted. In Lincoln-Douglas debate, the affirmative team has the burden to prove the resolution true while the negative has the burden to prove the resolution false.
Card: A piece of evidence with a claim and warrant.
Constructive: Constructive speeches are speeches in which debaters introduce their position and advocacy. The first two speeches are constructives.
Contention: A contention is a major argument in the debate. Affirmatives and negatives build their cases with contentions.
Criterion: A criterion is a necessary or sufficient standard by which to measure the competing values. It is a conceptual tool used to decide which value should be upheld.
Cross-x: Cross-x and CX are both short for cross-examination. Cross-x is the time one debater gets to interact with another debater by asking questions. Each debater gets three minutes of cross-x time after his or her opponent’s constructive speech.
Crystallize: Debaters generally crystallize the debate in their last speech. Crystallizing involves summing up the debate, addressing the most important arguments, and offering key voting issues.
Flow: Flowing is a note taking technique. Debaters and judges flow throughout the round to keep track of the arguments being made.
Prep Time: In Lincoln-Douglas debate, debaters have a total of four minutes of prep time that can be used.
Resolution: The topic of the debate. The resolution sets forth the issues to be discussed in the debate and the respective sides affirmative and negative teams will take.
Spread: Spreading is when one debater makes as many arguments as possible attempting to make too many for the opponent to answer. This is an ineffective strategy, as the judge often can’t make out major points.
Status quo: The status quo is the current situation while the debate is occurring. As a negative debater, never let an affirmative force you to defend the status quo.
Value: A value is an idea that a debater argues is paramount. The contentions in an Lincoln-Douglas case uphold the value. Generally, the debater will present philosophical background to support and explain their value.
Key Voting Issue: Both teams can make voting issues throughout the debate, but they are normally made in the last speech. A voting issue is a reason to affirm or negate. Voting issues are arguments that have been won by one side or another that conclude that the resolution is true or false.
Warrant: The logical reason why your claim is true. If an argument has no warrant, it may be automatically disregarded by some judges.
Dropped Point: If your opponent drops a point of yours, it means that they have failed to acknowledge it during the time that they must have, and it is assumed to be a concession (by most judges).
Thus marks the end of this post. If you have any further questions, please feel free to email us via our email: resources.debate@gmail.com. Please spread the word to other debaters who you think may find this website useful! Make sure to check out our other posts, as they're guaranteed to help.