LD STRUCTURE FOR THE NOVICE

I am certain that you are curious about how LD is actually structured....well I am going to try myhardest to show you how. These components are essential for building an LD case:

• Introduction• Value• Criteria

This is not your typical high school essay. In debate you have a case that MUST have adequateanalysis and case structure. I have divided this page up for viewing purposes. So At the bottom lookfor the link that takes you to the other page containing the rest of the information you need to knowto write an LD case. With this in mind, lets look at the first area of an effective case:

IntroductionMost people agree that in order to capture the audience you must have an attention getter. This isone of those times. When you are debating, more than likely the topic is going to have a lot of jargonthat your average joe blow just doesn't understand. Even if the person is smart as Einstein, they stillneed something that will capture their attention and put all eyes and ears on you! This is why anintroduction is ESSENTIAL to ANY debate case. If you have this attention getter you completelyattract your judges attention. This is VERY NEEDED! If they are bored from the start, they maymiss very important things that could make them vote for you! I'm sure your thinking, hmmmm ok,let's say i have an introduction, but what if it is still boring. Here are a few ways you can spice it up!

A catchy quote will capture most people if it is effective enough. Try to pick a quote that you thinkyou would want to hear if you were the judge.

An analogy. Think of it this way. If you were debating about nuclear weapons you could say: Evilis to people as nuclear weapons are to immorality. We don't want either of them to exist, but theydo. That one is weak I admit, but it gives you a chance to develop your own.

A statistic or fact. If you were doing a speech about guns and the protection of society, you mightsay: Every minute of every day of the year 50,000 people WILL DIE! This would capture attentionof anyone with a heart. They will realize HEY MAN, WHAT A BIG PROBLEM!!!! They willdefinitely listen.

ValueOk...Something that I believe you already realize is that this is VALUE debate. Values are basicallyjust something that has personal meaning or intrinsic worth. You have different types of values:Universal Values-Things that are held as global and are cherished and respected worldwide IntrinsicValues-Values that are essential and needed for everyday life.

Let's take a look at some of the intrinsic and instrumental values in our society:

Universal

Distributive JusticePeaceJustice

EqualityHumanitarianismFamily

Intrinsic

JusticeFreedomEquality

FamilyGlobalismPrivacy

SafetyLibertyConstitutional Law

Take note that a few of the universal values are also intrinsic values. I know you are probablythinking....well why is it that freedom, safety, and liberty aren't on the universal side. Well basically,some countries and people do not hold these things as valuable. Matter of fact many people andcountries think quite the opposite. Think of a value as something that is a goal that human beingstry to strive for. Something intangible that is of superior worth.

Sound simple enough? I think it is pretty clear cut! Let's move to the 2nd area of the basic LD case:

CriteriaThis is where Lincoln Douglas Debate gets a little more confusing. Criteria or Criterion set thestandard for measuring your value. Sound simple....no I don't think so. Criterion can be the makeor break in your case. Let's look at some sample criterion so we can see how they play perhaps themost important role in LD debate.

Utilitarianism -Greatest good for the greatest number of people

Teleology-The end justifies the means (or no matter what you do to achieve an end it is justified)

Deontology-The means justifies the end (opposite of teleology. If the means is not moral it shouldnot be used to produce a positive end)

Consequentialism-The consequences produced are either minor or major

Humanitarianism- Respecting human rights and the well being of the majority of human beings

Categorical Imperative -Immanuel Kant's four prong test for measuring a value:

The Formula of the Law of Nature: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become throughyour will a universal law of nature."

The Formula of the End Itself: "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in yourown person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time asan end."

The Formula of Autonomy: "So act that your will can regard itself at the same time as makinguniversal law through its maxims."

The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends: "So act as if you were through your maxims a law-makingmember of a kingdom of ends."

These are standards by which you can see whether or not a value is desirable or needed. I know thatthe catagorical imperative is confusing. However, it can usually serve as a model to test ANY value.It is not wise to use it if you are confused about how to format it into your case. I will show you howyou link the two together in your case and show why your value is needed and essential to theresolution.

Here is the remainder of the LD Structure:• Thesis• Contentions• Subpoints• Conclusion

ThesisThis is where the value and criteria portion of the page come together. It is probably blurry andpretty unclear at this point. However this is how you link the two together. I am going to show youan example of how you use the thesis statement:

Resolution: The protection of American society ought to be valued above the right to bear arms

Value - Safety

Criteria - Utilitarianism

Thesis - By regarding what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people, we must look atSafety as a value. Since safety is what the greatest number of people wish to attain, Safety is a veryintrinsic value. The right to bear arms is not valued higher than the protection of American societybecause the majority wishes to have safety.

Does this make sense. I hope so....now it should seem less muddled to you! Just remember, use thesetechniques to make a kick $%^ thesis:

• Use your criterion to measure you value• Show how your value is superior and essential to the resolution• Link the resolution to your value and criteria• Use the example above as a model to your case

ContentionsThis is the actual meat of your case. With contentions you actual have the opportunity to bring inyour evidence, logic, and reasoning. The thing that most LDers need to understand is this. Whilelogic and reasoning is good, it is always good to have factual evidence in the debate round. This isvery key!!!!!! It is almost ESSENTIAL to have some type of fact or authority figure backing yourlogic in the round. We will explore this further when we go into subpoints. When you look atsubpoints you will see how to construct a contention and the impact they will have on your case.

SubpointsOk. This is where we dig a little bit deeper. In a subpoint you are actually explaining yourcontention. Take a look at this example:

Contention I- Guns Harm the Society Subpoint A- In America, a majority of accidents are caused by guns Subpoint B- A majority of homicides are by guns

In these subpoints you are explaining how guns are actually harming the society. You use reasonswhy the contention is true. It is adding meat to your case. You can use a variety of philosophers andsources to make your case develop.

Philosophers Magazines/NewspapersDavid Hume U.S. News and world reportImmanuel Kant TimeHenry David Thoreau NewsweekHerbert Marcuse BusinessweekVandava Shiva The EconomistRalph Waldo Emerson ForbesJohn Locke BloomburgJean Jacques Rousseau Wall St. JournalJohn Stuart Mill New York TimesAbraham Maslow Washington PostJeremy Bentham Boston GlobeFredrick Nietzche USA TodayJohn Rawls Dallas Morning NewsFrancis Bacon Chicago Tribune

Once you have your sources established, from there you can develop the evidence in your case.When using subpoints, remember that they MUST link to your value, criterion, and contention tagline. MANY eggs to put in one basket. However, LD is about linking and showing how yousuperceed your opponents value, criterion, and contentions.

ConclusionFinally, I bet you are thinking....whew! This page is FINALLY over....yes. It does take a long timeto finally understand the structure of an LD case. I look at is as a long analytical process with manymany roads to travel. However, it is very necessary. Here is where we come to a closing. Theconclusion is merely a summarization of EVERYTHING in your case. Sounds like a bit much! Thisis true. However, it isnt as difficult as it seems.

For example, Lets say we are still on the gun control topic:

By looking at the everlasting effects on the society. American's must look toward their safety whenevaluating what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Since guns are a potentialharm to American safety, protection of society outweighs the law of the land in ANY event. Asphilosopher Thomas Hobbes reasoned, the government has an essential function to preserve the livesof its citizens. Without such protection it is not just for the individual.

Get the jist? Just summarize. Something you have been doing on English papers for years.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Speech Time and Order

Affirmative Constructive (AC)- 6minutes Cross-Examination of the Affirmative by the Negative (CX) – 3minutes Negative Constructive (NC) – 7minutes Cross-Examination of the Negative by the Affirmative (CX) – 3minutes 1st Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) – 4minutes Negative Rebuttal (NR) – 6minutes 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) -3minutes ***Preparation Time- 4minutes*** (Each debater has up to 4minutes of preparation time to use throughout the course of the debate. Students may use their prep time before any of their speeches, but may not during the speeches.)

How to Correctly Utilize Cross-Ex in LD DebateBy Adam Tomasi

Cross-ex is one of my favorite parts of debate and it’s unfortunate to me that cross-ex isunderutilized in so many LD rounds. Debaters spend too little time asking the strategic questionsthat they should be asking; instead, they’ll ask clarification questions on arguments that theyprobably didn’t need their opponents to clarify. If debaters improve their cross-ex strategy by askingon-point questions that weaken their opponent’s arguments from the start, they’ll improve theirperceptual dominance and speaker points.

Whenever debaters pursue a line of questioning, their questions should do two things—first, theyshould start by explicitly referencing an argument their opponent made, and second, they shouldfollow-up with a question that sets up an argument they could make in a later speech. Questions ofthis sort include:

“You claimed that your [so-and-so] evidence says [argument], but how is that consistent with theun-underlined portion of the card which says [something else]?”

“Your [so-and-so] evidence says that adolescents are too susceptible to peer pressure, but why is thisat all relevant for medical decisions?”

“Your strat skew standard says that if I didn’t specify a type of medical decision, I could shift to anew advocacy in the 1AR. How could I possibly do that when I’ve committed in the AC todefending the resolution as a general principle?”

These questions are significantly more strategic and perceptually dominant than questions like:

“What does this card say?”

“Can you explain the function of this argument?”

“How do I turn the case?”

Those are questions that you should already have an answer to in your own mind if you’ve alreadythought about your opponent’s arguments—whether you saw them on the NDCA wiki or havethought/discussed with a coach about a similar position. You should only ask clarification questionsif you’re genuinely confused about an argument. If you’re asking clarification questions because youare unsure what more insightful questions you could ask, you should do cross-ex drills with a friendor coach to improve on that. If you’re asking clarification questions because you want to startprepping while your opponent goes on a tangent about their case, you’re not using the three minutesyou’re allotted to the best of your abilities.

Some may believe that cross-ex is not a time for forwarding arguments. Let me clarify my view bysaying that I don’t think that people should “forward arguments” as in asking questions like,“You’ve said that adolescents are competent enough to make medical choices, but how is that truewhen they’re more susceptible to peer pressure?” That question gets the easy response of, “I don’tsee why that’s relevant or true.” Rather, you could forward an argument by asking questions thatchallenge the internal logic of your opponent’s evidence. Example: “Your evidence says that

adolescents are competent enough to make medical decisions, but this card’s about 16 and 17 yearolds. Why should we trust 13, 14, or 15 year olds to make autonomous medical choices?” In usingCX to press your opponent on the chain of logic justifying their conclusions, you give yourselfadditional firepower in addition to the cards that you’re reading. Your speech could run like:

They say adolescents are competent:

1. [Card that says adolescents are too susceptible to peer pressure/impulsiveness]

2. Their evidence is specific to 16 and 17 year olds, not adolescents in general—that was cross-ex.

3. [Card that says adolescents need parental guidance because parents know better and are helpfulon intense medical matters]

As you’ll see above, that sample block outline has “that was cross-ex” tagged right after an analytic.You want your cross-ex questions to be so interactive with your opponent’s logic that you could turnthem into analytics to make on case. You want to indicate that the argument you’re making wasinitially stated in cross-ex so that the judge is explicitly reminded of the moment you wereperceptually dominant.

You can also use cross-ex to bolster the efficiency of your 1AR responses to neg arguments. Forexample, if you spent 30 seconds of cross-ex explaining a really nuanced aff framework argument,you don’t need to spend anything close to 30 seconds explaining it in the 4 minute 1AR. So, youcould give a tagline summary of the complex framework argument and say “that was explained incross-ex” following it. Not only will you be more efficient, but the judge won’t think you aren’texplaining your arguments enough because you explained them in cross-ex.

It’s sometimes said that many judges don’t pay attention to cross-ex. If that’s true, it’s likely becausejudges find three minutes of clarification questions to be inherently boring. I postulate that ifcross-ex is utilized correctly, this will no longer be the case. If you start off cross-ex with a bang,positioning yourself as asking the smart questions, judges will not only pay attention—they’ll alsoreward you with higher speaker points.