What is LD Debate?

Metallica is not music!

To be music
you must be able to understand the lyrics.

Standard
Rule
Test
Principle

Part One
LD Theory

Lincoln-Douglas debate provides excellent

training for development of skills in
argumentation, persuasion, research, and
audience analysis. Through this contest,
students are encouraged to develop a direct
and communicative style of oral delivery.
Lincoln-Douglas debate is a one-on-one
argumentation in which debaters attempt to
convince the judge of the acceptability of
their side of a proposition. One debater shall
argue the affirmative side of the resolution,
and one debater shall argue the negative
side of the resolution in a given round.
(2003-04 Constitution and Contest Rules Section 1002: LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE,

LD Judge Criteria

Case and Analysis

Defining the Values:

Did

the arguments presented focus on the values implicit in the

resolution?

Establishing Criteria for Evaluating the Resolution:

On

what basis (universal, moral, social, political, historical, legal,

etc.) is one value proven by the debater to be more important than
another?

Weighing Importance:
Are

the values advocated in support of the resolution more important

than the values diminished by the resolution, or are alternative
values supported by the negative enhanced by the resolution?

Application of Values and Criteria:

Did

the debaters apply their cases by filtering appropriate arguments

through the value and criteria?

LD Judge Criteria

Argumentation

Proof:
Did

the evidence presented pragmatically justify the

affirmative or negative stance?
Did the reasoning presented philosophically justify the
affirmative or negative stance?

Organization:
Are

the ideas presented clearly, in a logical sequence, and with

appropriate emphasis?

Extension, Clash, and Rebuttal:

Did

the debaters fulfill their obligation to extend their own

arguments?
Did they appropriately refute the contentions of their
opponents by exposing weaknesses or inconsistencies?

LD Judge Criteria

Presentation

Expression:
Were

language, tone, and emphasis appropriate to persuasive

communication?

Delivery:
Were

gestures, movement, and eye contact audience oriented and

natural components of persuasive communication?

Rate:
Was

rate of delivery conducive to audience understanding?

Selecting the Winner: Putting aside personal biases and

based on the analysis, argumentation, and presentation
of the debaters, which debater was the most persuasive?

What is the purpose of LD?

A. Education
B. Truth Seeking
C. Win

Time Limits

Affirmative Constructive (AC)

6 min.
Negative Cross-Examination (NCX)
3 min.
Negative Constructive
7 min.
Affirmative Cross-Examination (ACX)
3 min.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR)
Negative Rebuttal (NR)
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR)

4 min.
6 min.
3 min.

Preparation: Each debater has a maximum of three

minutes preparation time to be used during the course of
the debate.

What are the key issues in

LD?

Stock Issues
Fulfill certain issues
Expected
arguments
What are the stock
issues in a criminal
case?

Stock issues of Value

Proposition
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)

Stock Issues in LD

Value
Criteria
Application/Conten
tions
Define terms

What are values and

criteria?

Yet, over twenty

years after LincolnDouglas 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

The Standard

Means to measure or test

the resolution
Relationship between
value and criterion
Standards

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.

What is a value?

A value is anything of worth.

Values, by definition, will be broad and perhaps

vagueAlthough 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 Value

The "value", "core value", or "value premise"

represents the most important goal for the
round and are usually nebulous and somewhat
vague good objects. Out of fairness and
convention debaters rarely use values which
bias one side over the other.
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

Common Values

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

Justice

Legt govt Rights Autonomy

Safety

Societal Welfare

Progress

Democracy

How to establish an appropriate value:

A.Provideanadequateandappropriatedefinitionofyourvalue.
Mostvaluesareabstract,andcanhavedifferentinterpretationsbybothdebaters.Thus
whenyougiveavalueaspecificdefinitionneedstobegiven.
Forexamplelookatthevaluesuchaslegitimategovernment.Interpretationscanbe
variedonwhatalegitimategovernmentis.Somecouldinterpretlegitimategovernment
asagovernmentthatprotectsindividualrights,asotherscouldinterpretalegitimate
governmentasagovernmentthatprovidessecurityforitscitizens.Thusadefinition
mustbegiventogiveyouropponentandyourjudgeanunderstandingofwhata
legitimategovernmentactuallyis.
B.Showthevaluesresolutionalimplications:
Resolutionalimplicationssimplyshowwhyyourvalueisintrinsictotheresolution.Asa
debateryoumustlinkhowthevalueisrelatedtotheresolution.
C.Showthevaluesrealworldimplications:
Realworldimplicationsgiveanunderstandingoftheimportanceofthevalue.Italso
givesyourjudgeanideaofwhyyourvalueisneededandisimportant.
Forexampleifyourvalueismorality,youcouldsay
CambridgeProfessorMarkCoorayestablishestheimportanceofmorality,
Without morality all kinds of injustices and oppressions against individual persons are
sanctioned. No society can function efficiently or humanely and no civilization can
endure without this value.

The Criterion

Further define and

limit the value
How to achieve the
value
They allow us to
tell when the
requirements of
the value are met
Ingredients of the
cake

UIL Guide

A criterion is..

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)

Criterion

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.

Criterion

A criterion will usually be stated as a gerund (e.g. upholding a

system of checks and balances), or will be the name of a particular
philosophy or term (e.g., democratic peace theory).
The criterion serves several purposes then. First, it links the
arguments made in the rest of the speech with the value. In other
words, the speech usually argues that an affirmative or negative
world leads to or necessarily includes the criterion which in turn
leads to the value. In addition to this, there are two commonly used
variations of criterion. The first is generally classified as "a weighing
standard for the round," or a burden that both sides must prove
they fit in order to win the round. The other is a "burden criterion,"
which is placed on the affirmative by either side, and lays out a
burden the affirmative must fulfill in order to win. Values and criteria
can be debated over which provides for a fairer debate, which one is
more relevant, if the burden is fulfillable, etc.

Common Criteria

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

How to choose and establish an appropriate criterion:

A.Establishhowyourcriterionachievesyourvalue.Youmustprove
howyourcriterionachievesyourvalue,orelseyouarenotaffirming
ornegating.Thisistruebecauseifyouaresayingyouvalue
something,youmustprovehowyouachievethisvalueinthecontext
oftheround.Ifyourvalueisjusticeyoucantjustsaywhyjusticeis
important,youmustalsoprovewhyyourcriterionachievesjustice.
B.Providejustifications.Givewarrantsunderyourcriterion,onwhy
yourcriterionissoimportant.Themorejustificationsyougive,gives
youmoreoffenseonwhyyourstandardismoreimportantandwhy
youshouldaffirmornegate.
C.ProvideBurdens.Underthecriterionsetupaburdenframework.
Tellyourjudgewhatyouropponenthastodotowinyourcriterion.
Thisisgoodfortworeasons.Firstalotofopponentsdropburdens.
Two,burdenssetupabetterdebate.Ifyoucomeoutandtellyour
opponentwhattheyhavetodotowin,itallowsthejudgetoweighthe
roundaloteasier.

Examples
(v)justice

(c)givingeverymanhisdue?
(c)equalityofopportunity
(c)promoteindividualfundamentrights
(c)accommodatesindividualautonomy

(v)legitimategovt (c)consistentwiththesocialcontract
(c)providesforsecurity
(c)followsthegeneralwill
(c)consistentwithinternational

standards

Generic responses to values

1.Vague/Ambiguous
2.ValueObjection-aharmfuleffectofthevalue
3.Myvalueismoreimportant
4.Myvalueisprecursor-comesfirst
5.Myvalueincludesit-succumbstheirvalue
6.Notavalue,onlyamechanismtogainsomegood-i.edem

Generic Criteria responses

1.Circulartothevalue
2.Begs
3.Insufficient
4.Mycriterionisaprecursor
5.Ambiguous,Vague
6.Notacriterion-i.eCostBenefitAnalysis
7.Criterionobjection-aharmfuleffectofthecriterion

Part Two
Case Construction

Case Construction
The role of the constructive is to lay out your position.
Ideally your first speech should be visionary, meaning
at the start of the debate you should know what you
need to win the round. You should also have a unified
cohesive position. Be sure that you can summarize
what you are going to talk about in a few seconds.
You need to have:

Resolutional Interpretation: what does the resolution mean, are

you making any assumptions, setting any limits or burdens

A value and criterion

Weighing: by starting to weigh arguments and stating
why yours is most important in your first speech it
makes your next 7 minutes infinitely easier.

Opening
Opening:
_________________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
Because I agree with ___________________________ that I must affirm / negate the
resolution.
State the resolution.
Before continuing I would like to define the following key terms:
------------ is defined by _____________________ is
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________.
------------ is defined by ________________________ are
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________.

Value and Criterion

The value I will be upholding in todays 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
_______________________________________________________________
______.

Contention (s)
Contention:
__________________________________________________________________.
(Object of Evaluation/Value/Criterion)
A.
Analysis
Evidence / Example
Impact to value/ Criterion
B.
Analysis
Evidence / Example
Impact to value/ Criterion
C.
Analysis
Evidence / Example
Impact to value/ Criterion

Tricks of the Trade

Framework
Warrant the criterion
Impacts
Voters
Keep it Simple

Framework

Please allow me to make an observation: Affirmative Burden

The affirmative must prove that freedom of expression ought
to be valued above political correctness. Weighing one
implication with another is the only way we can actually
determine which value should be prioritized. Therefore my
opponent cant just say vote affirmative, because political
correctness violates freedom of expression. My opponent has
to show why the implications of violating freedom of
expression outweigh the implications I give at the point you
dont have political correctness. This must be the way we
determine who wins the round, because rights conflicts will
always arise, and the only way we can determine how to
solve that conflict is by determining which side of the
conflict has more severe implications.

Warrant the criterion

The criterion is minimizing dehumanization.

Dehumanization is a process by which a group of

people assert the "inferiority" of another group
through subtle and overt statements.
This is fundamental to society because if you dont
minimize dehumanization, evil actions will become
acceptable.
Susan Opotow explains,
Once

certain groups are stigmatized as evil, morally

inferior, and not fully human, the persecution of those
groups becomes more psychologically acceptable. It may
seem even more acceptable for people to do things that
they would have regarded as morally unthinkable before.

Impacts

Absolutist approach to freedom of expression opens the door to extreme

dehumanization.
At the point freedom of expression becomes an absolute right; any and all types
of expression are acceptable. Thus hate speech and racist comments become
acceptable, and this inevitably leads to dehumanization.
Professor Delgado explains:

The psychological harm caused by racial stigmatization are often much more severe
than those created by other stereotyping actions. Race-based stigmatization is,
therefore, one of the most fruitful causes of human misery. The accumulation of
negative images presents them with one massive and destructive choice: either to hate
ones self, or to have no self at all, to be nothing. This ambivalence arises from the
stigmatized individuals awareness that others perceive him or her as falling short of
societal standards.

Therefore my opponent has the burden to prove that the implications of

violating freedom of expression outweigh the implications of racism.
However there are two reasons why my implications outweigh the affirmatives:

First, my implications outweigh on a magnitude level. Like Barndt explained racism of

any kind will inevitably destroy us all. Minimal violations of freedom of expression cant
outweigh destruction of all.
Second, my implications outweigh on a timeframe level. Racism is here now. The harms
to racism are happening now, so we must act immediately. My opponents harms of
violating freedom of expression only occur down the road.

Voters

1. My first voter is the professor Delgado card.

2. My second voter is contention two.

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 cant 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
opponents harms of violating freedom of expression only occur down the road.
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 dont by the arguments, it doesnt 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 cant 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.

Part Three
Philosophy in LD

Love and pursuit of wisdom

by intellectual means and
moral self-discipline.
Investigation of the nature,
causes, or principles of
reality, knowledge, or
values, based on logical
reasoning rather than
empirical methods.
The critical analysis of
fundamental assumptions or
beliefs.
A system of values by which
one lives: has an unusual
philosophy of life.

Socrates is customarily regarded as

the father of political philosophy and
ethics or moral philosophy, and as a
fountainhead of all the main themes in
Western philosophy in general.

I. Kant
-Categorical Imperative
Act only on that maxim
through which you can
at the same time will
that it should become
a universal law
-Duty ethics
i. Only absolutely good is
a good will
ii. Intent
-Only tells us what is not
moral not what is moral

Kant developed his moral philosophy in

three works: Groundwork of the
Metaphysic of Morals (1785), Critique of
Practical Reason (1788), and Metaphysics
of Morals (1798).

II. Mill
-Utilitarianism
The greatest
happiness of the
greatest number
-Liberty-Natural Rights
-Harm Principle-Can
only violate liberty if
harmed others
-Market Place of Ideas

John Stuart Mill (May 20, 1806 May

8, 1873), an English philosopher and
political economist, was an influential
liberal thinker of the 19th century. He
was an advocate of utilitarianism, the
great ethical theory that was
systemized by his godfather Jeremy
Bentham.

III. *Locke
-Social Contract
Individuals enter society
expecting that their
individual rights will
be best protected
i. All have basic rights
ii. Leave State of Nature
and sacrifice some
freedom for security
-Governments first duty is
to protect the rights of
the people

John Locke (August 29, 1632

October 28, 1704) was an
influential English philosopher.
His writings influenced the
American revolutionaries as
reflected in the American
Declaration of Independence.

IV. *Hobbes
-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 mechanismGood use of force
-Individuals sacrifice all
autonomy

Thomas Hobbes (April 5, 1588

December 4, 1679) was an
English philosopher, whose
famous 1651 book Leviathan set
the agenda for nearly all
subsequent Western political
philosophy.

V. *Rousseau
-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

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (June 28, 1712

July 2, 1778) was a Geneva-born
philosopher of the Enlightenment whose
political ideas influenced the French
Revolution, the development of socialist
theory, and the growth of nationalism. His
legacy as a radical and revolutionary is
perhaps best demonstrated by his most
famous line in The Social Contract: "Man is
born free, and everywhere he is in chains."

VI. Rawls
-Distributive Justice
Justice is the first
virtue of social
institutions
i. Veil of Ignorance
ii. Maximin Rule
-Fairness

John Rawls (February 21, 1921

November 24, 2002) was an American
philosopher, a professor of political
philosophy at Harvard University and
author of A Theory of Justice (1971),
Political Liberalism, Justice as Fairness: A
Restatement, and The Law of Peoples. He
is considered by many scholars to be the
most important political philosopher of the
20th century in the English-speaking world.

VII. Nozick
-Property rights
Taxation of earnings
from labor is on
par with forced
labor
-Entitlement Principle
-Taxations,
redistribution, etc. =
slavery

Robert Nozick (November 16, 1938

January 23, 2002) was an American
philosopher and Professor at Harvard
University. His Anarchy, State, and
Utopia (1974) was a libertarian answer to
John Rawls's A Theory of Justice,
published in 1971.

The Big Picture

Part Four
Demonstration Debate

Speaker Format

AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
MINUTES
Read case
NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
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 REBUTTA
6 MINUTES
Negative overview
Clash with affirmative case
Extend and/or rebuild negative case
Provide voters
2ND AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL
MINUTES
Clash with negative case
Rebuild affirmative case
Provide voters