Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a  VALUE debate, meaning it is a debate about what ought to be rather than specific policy.  

It is often a topic regarding the conflict between the rights of the individual opposed to the rights of the larger society.  

The UIL resolution changes every semester. The national resolution changes every two months.

A round of Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a one on one debate, as opposed to CX or PF, which are two on two. Or Congress which can have many debaters in the round.

At a debate tournament, each student will debate at least 3-4 times.  The larger the tournament, the more rounds will be guaranteed.

During a tournament, debaters will argue both sides of the topic. A debater must be able to argue both sides of the topic.

Usually, each debater will be assigned the affirmative side for two rounds and the negative side on two other rounds.

A Lincoln-Douglas debate round lasts about 45 minutes. The times for the variousspeeches are very structured, as are the purposes of the speeches.

6 minute Affirmative Constructive (AC) 3 minute Negative Cross Examination 7 minute Negative Constructive/Rebuttal (NC) 3 minute Affirmative Cross Examination

(questions/answers) 4 minute Affirmative Reconstructive/Rebuttal

(1AR) 6 minute Negative Reconstructive/Rebuttal (NR) 3 minute Affirmative

Reconstructive/Rebuttal/Crystallization (2AR) It helps to memorize: "6 - 3 - 7 - 3 - 4 - 6 - 3" 4 minutes of Prep time for each debater.

AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE6 MINUTES

Read case

NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE

7 MINUTES Read Case Clash with affirmative case

1ST AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL 4 MINUTES

Affirmative overview Clash with negative case Extend and/or rebuild affirmative

case

NEGATIVE REBUTTAL 6 MINUTES

Negative overview Clash with affirmative case Extend and/or rebuild negative case Provide voters

2ND AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL 3 MINUTES

Clash with negative case Rebuild affirmative case Provide voters

My team utilizes DEBATE BRIEFS A Brief is a collection of evidence,

arguments, current topic analysis, definitions, etc.

Briefs are helpful, but remember that other teams may also have these collections

Evidence should also be found on the internet, but only use CREDIBLE sources

You will need to write TWO speeches:  the affirmative  (6 min.) that says that the resolution is true and the negative (3-4 min)that says that the resolution is false.  

Step One:  The Resolution.  The resolution is a statement of the topic of the debate. The entire debate is a test of the validity of this statement. Therefore, wording and semantics are crucial.Each important word must be defined  from different angles.

Step Two:  The Value Premise.

Remember that we said that Lincoln-Douglas Debate is aVALUE debate about what ought to be, right?

Each debate speech will center on a value that you choose as the cornerstone of your position.I know this seems very, very vague. Don’t worry, we’ll be spending a lot of time talking about values.

“From this four-step procedure comes the ‘stock issues’ of a proposition of value. They are

1. How should we define the object of evaluation? 2. By what criteria shall we evaluate it? 3. What is the relationship between the evaluate term

and the object of evaluation? 4. What is the hierarchy of values, and is the

affirmative value nearer to the top of this hierarchy than any competitive value proposed by the negative?

(Lincoln-Douglas Debate: Defining and Judging Value Debate, NFISDA, Richard Hunsaker, 1990, page 7)

Value Criterion (or Standard) Contentions Definition of terms- Not necessarily

stated in the AC/NC, but are critical to have in case the round shifts into a topicality debate.

 “Yet, over twenty years after Lincoln-Douglas debate made its debut as a high school event, there is still no consensus on the use and application of the value premise or criteria.”

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON VALUES AND CRITERIA IN LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE: THE CASE CONTEXTUAL STANDARDS, Minh A. Luong, NFL Rostrum

These are concepts or rules used to evaluate the round. Since both sides will likely make some convincing arguments in the course of the round, standards are used to determine which arguments matter more.

A Value is anything of worth. It is whatever the Aff or Neg debater hopes to achieve through their advocacy.

“Values, by definition, will be broad and perhaps vague…Although the criterion clarifies the value by being more specific, it is still difficult to completely define every aspect of the value. Philosophers have tried to do that for more than two thousand years; it seems unlikely that debaters will succeed in half-an hour.” (SEEKING CLARITY THROUGH THE FOG: ON THE USE OF VALUES AND CRITERION IN LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE, Courtney J. Balentine and Minh A. Luong, NFL Rostrum)

The wording of certain resolutions may implicitly prescribe the best value for the round. For example, the resolution "Democracy is best served by strict separation of church and state" implicitly suggests a value of "democracy". Since the wording of the resolution guides the selection of values the two debaters may have identical or similar values. In these circumstances focus is usually shifted to the criterion.

Justice Freedom/ Liberty Sanctity of Life vs. Quality of

Life Human Rights Free Expression / Speech Democracy Equality Societal Good / General Will /

Society Majority Rule National Interest / National

Security Legitimate Government Individualism / Autonomy Safety Progress Privacy

Value Hierarchy

Societal Welfare

Safety Progress Democracy

Justice

Leg’t govt Rights Autonomy

A. Provide an adequate and appropriate definition of your value.Most values are abstract, and can have different interpretations by both debaters. Thus when you give a value a specific definition needs to be given.For example look at the value such as legitimate government. Interpretations can be varied on what a legitimate government is. Some could interpret legitimate government as a government that protects individual rights, as others could interpret a legitimate government as a government that provides security for its citizens. Thus a definition must be given to give your opponent and your judge an understanding of what a legitimate government actually is. B. Show the value’s resolutional implications:Resolutional implications simply show why your value is intrinsic to the resolution. As a debater you must link how the value is related to the resolution. C. Show the value’s real world implications:Real world implications give an understanding of the importance of the value. It also gives your judge an idea of why your value is needed and is important.

Further define and limit the value The mechanism to achieve the value They allow us to tell when the

requirements of the value are met If the value can be understood as

“What do we want” the criterion can be understood as “How are we going to get it”

“a standard by which something can be measured or judged” (UIL Guide, page 12)

“a way to measure or judge whether or not upholding the resolution achieves or enhances the value” (UIL Guide, page 13)

“…it is certainly the area where the most confusion and difference of opinion exist...” (UIL Guide, page 12)

The "criterion" or "value criterion" is the conceptual mechanism the debater proposes to achieve and weigh the value. Oftentimes, the debater will simply talk about the criterion, so it is sometimes referred to as the standard, in and of itself. First and foremost, the criterion is how the debater achieves the value.

Given a value of liberty, for example, debaters might propose a criterion of protecting free speech, reasoning that free speech is the most important aspect of liberty and that possessing it will allow society to criticize government thereby maintaining other types of liberty.

Philosophic The more traditional

criterion. This is the part of

the AC or NC that will introduce the philosophic concept that will serve as the underpinning for the AFF/NEG Advocacy

Contextual You will recognize it

by the inclusion of an action

Examples: Upholding a system of

checks and balances Ensuring rights for the

oppressed. Increasing access to

healthcare

Social Contract Categorical Imperative Utility Harm Principle Cost Benefit Analysis Market Place of Ideas Pragmatism Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

A. Establish how your criterion achieves your value. You must prove how your criterion achieves your value, or else you are not affirming or negating. This is true because if you are saying you value something, you must prove how you achieve this value in the context of the round. If your value is justice you can’t just say why justice is important, you must also prove why your criterion achieves justice.

B. Provide justifications. Give warrants under your criterion, on why your criterion is so important. The more justifications you give, gives you more offense on why your standard is more important and why you should affirm or negate.

C. Provide Burdens. Under the criterion set up a burden framework. Tell your judge what your opponent has to do to win your criterion. This is good for two reasons. First a lot of opponent’s drop burdens. Two, burdens set up a better debate. If you come out and tell your opponent what they have to do to win, it allows the judge to weigh the round a lot easier.

1. Vague/ Ambiguous 2. Value Objection- a harmful effect of the value 3. My value is more important 4. My value is prerequisite-comes first 5. No bright line- We don’t’ know when it is

achieved. 6. Not intrinsic to the resolution (Rez calls for

something else) 7. Not intrinsically valuable (Not valuable In and

of itself)

1. Circular to the value 2. Insufficient- Not sufficient to achieve

the value 3. My criterion is a precursor 4. Ambiguous, Vague 5. Not a criterion- i.e Cost Benefit Analysis 6. Criterion objection-a harmful effect of

the criterion

The value I will be upholding in today’s debate is ___________________.

(Define)____________ means _________________________________________________.

(Impact / Importance)_______________ is important

because__________________________________________________________.

My value is upheld through the criterion of __________________________.

(Define / Clarify) _____________________________________________________.

My criterion to achieves __________________ (value) because _____________________________________________________________________.

Contentions are where the evidence you gathered from the internet/ the evidence from purchased briefs come into play.

Contentions, when done correctly, provide offense for the AFF/NEG as to why the resolution should be affirmed or negated.

Contentions should not generally affirm or negate the topic, they should have a clear link to the value and criterion you present at the top of your case.

Contention: __________________________________________________________________.

A.AnalysisEvidence / ExampleImpact to value/ CriterionB.AnalysisEvidence / ExampleImpact to value/ CriterionC. AnalysisEvidence / ExampleImpact to value/ Criterion

Establish Value Supremacy Do not drop arguments Have round vision In the NR/2AR give voters

1. My first voter is the professor Delgado card. Extend the analysis from Delgado that unlimited free expression leads to dehumanization. You must

vote on the Delgado card, because the impact of dehumanization outweighs any other impacts in the round on two levels.

First, dehumanization outweighs any affirmative impacts on a magnitude level. Like Delgado explained racial stigmatization of any kind will inevitably destroy us all, by dehumanizing certain classes of groups. Minimal violations of freedom of expression can’t outweigh destruction of all.

Second, dehumanization outweighs on a timeframe level. Dehumanization is occurring now. The harms to dehumanization are happening now, so we must act immediately. My opponent’s harms of violating freedom of expression only occur down the road.

2. My second voter is contention two. First, at the point my opponent completely drops this contention on face you have too vote for it.

This is true because even if you don’t by the arguments, it doesn’t matter because there are no arguments on the flow that say you should reject the arguments.

However I give two explicit reasons on how political correctness can solve for dehumanization. Both these reasons give you enough offense to negate, because at least I give you some reasons why we should have political correctness.

3. My third voter is the Professor Lawrence Card. You have to vote on this card, because it turns the whole affirmative case. The affirmative tells us we

should promote the market place of ideas, but he can’t even meet the market place of ideas. This is exactly what the Lawrence cards tells you. You will never be able to meet the market place of ideas, because certain speech will silence certain groups destroying their ideas from reaching the market place of ideas.

-Categorical Imperative Act only on that maxim

through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law

-Duty ethicsi. Only absolutely good is a good willii. Intent

-Only tells us what is not moral not what is moral

-UtilitarianismThe greatest

happiness of the greatest number

-Harm Principle-Can only violate liberty if harmed others

-Social ContractIndividuals enter

society expecting that their individual rights will be best protectedi. All have basic rightsii. Leave State of Nature and sacrifice some freedom for security

-Government’s first duty is to protect the rights of the people

-Humans are selfish and the state of nature stinks

War of all against all in which human life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short

-Government needed as a security mechanism-Good use of force

-Individuals sacrifice all autonomy

-General will-Takes in views of all

The general will is always rightful and always tends to the public good

-Government will always act in citizens best interest

-Desire of self preservation