How to Construct a Lincoln Douglas Debate Case
Understand what Lincoln-Douglas (more commonly known as LD) debate is., Define terms., Pick a value., Choose your criterion., Write your contentions.
Step-by-Step Guide
-
Step 1: Understand what Lincoln-Douglas (more commonly known as LD) debate is.
LD debate is not solely a value debate.
That ship sailed with the realization that debating over "values" doesn't make sense a large portion of the time.
This is because the way in which we categorize "values" is contingent upon things already valued.
For example, someone may say a value is Justice because a just society gives that rights protection is important, appealing to utilitarianism.
A common misconception is that LD debate is not evidence-intensive.
You need cards (evidence from qualified authors)to back up most of your arguments.
Blue.
Green.
Red. -
Step 2: Define terms.
This can sometimes be important as terms have different meanings within different contexts.
This may require more than just your average dictionary, so look for cards from authors relating to the topic.
This is not, however, a necessity as most things are usually assumed to be a certain way within debate.
Most debaters tend to use American Heritage Dictionary.
The most important thing though, is that you refrain from using definitions that contradict your case, but are still accurate definitions. , The value of your case is a huge part of your framework.
Your value should be drawn from the resolution.
For example: "A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment." You may say that the value is justice because the resolution is attempting to determine whether or not an action is just.
Your value is the basis for your arguments, though most times the value doesn't play a role in the debate.
The primary issue within the framework (issues above contention-level arguments) is the criterion. , Your criterion is comparable to a filter.
For example, there may be many ways to achieve justice, but this is one way to achieve it (through an action of the resolution).
Your criterion serves as a concrete way to achieve an abstract value, such as justice.
For example, you can use "maximizing individual rights" as a criterion for the value social welfare.
This is the type of ethical debate that most scholars have when considering philosophical questions.
Most values such as Justice, Morality, and Societal Welfare are all ultimately determined by whether or not the revolutionary action helps or hurts the criterion.
Essentially, your criterion is the way that you achieve your value.
Remember that in Lincoln-Douglas debate, you do not have to explain how you are going to uphold the resolution, just why you should or shouldn't affirm. , Contention is another word for a point.
These points explain how the affirmative/negative action achieves your criterion.
The contentions in your case must link back to your value/criterion (or your opponents).
Usually it is unwise to have more than a maximum of three contentions as affirmative or 1 to 2 as negative.
Go for depth of argumentation rather than breadth.
It is much better to with one argument very clearly than muddle the debate on 3 different ones.
Main arguments should contain claims (a thesis), warrants (reasons that the claims are true), and impacts (why they matter
- usually in relation to a criterion).
Also, make sure they don't conflict with each other.
Use credible sources for your warrants and always cite your information. "Create "Blocks"": a list of arguments you think your opponent will use and include ways to counter them.
The more counter-arguments you can come up with, the more likely you are to encounter one in a round.
If you encounter a new argument in a round, make sure to make blocks for it.
If you create a good set of blocks, you will be able to anticipate attacks on your case and counter them accordingly.
When writing a negative case, have a "counter plan".
This means that because you are negating the resolution, you ought to have something that you can do as an alternative, that will uphold the same moral standards and values as the affirmative without the negative effects.
These usually aren't necessary in NLD (Novice Lincoln Douglas), but they can still give you an advantage above the affirmative because, unless they can prove why the resolution is the best and only way to go, their arguments don't weigh as much.
At the same time, remember that within some debate circuits, counterplans are not acceptable and considered "progressive" or something that should stay in policy debate.
If a counterplan is essential to a case, try to write an alternative negative case as well and make sure to ask for your judge's "paradigm" or judging preferences.
If they say they are progressive and are perfectly fine with counterplans go ahead.
If not, you may need to fall back on your "traditional" case, and place heavier emphasis on the framework (v/vc) debate. -
Step 3: Pick a value.
-
Step 4: Choose your criterion.
-
Step 5: Write your contentions.
Detailed Guide
LD debate is not solely a value debate.
That ship sailed with the realization that debating over "values" doesn't make sense a large portion of the time.
This is because the way in which we categorize "values" is contingent upon things already valued.
For example, someone may say a value is Justice because a just society gives that rights protection is important, appealing to utilitarianism.
A common misconception is that LD debate is not evidence-intensive.
You need cards (evidence from qualified authors)to back up most of your arguments.
Blue.
Green.
Red.
This can sometimes be important as terms have different meanings within different contexts.
This may require more than just your average dictionary, so look for cards from authors relating to the topic.
This is not, however, a necessity as most things are usually assumed to be a certain way within debate.
Most debaters tend to use American Heritage Dictionary.
The most important thing though, is that you refrain from using definitions that contradict your case, but are still accurate definitions. , The value of your case is a huge part of your framework.
Your value should be drawn from the resolution.
For example: "A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment." You may say that the value is justice because the resolution is attempting to determine whether or not an action is just.
Your value is the basis for your arguments, though most times the value doesn't play a role in the debate.
The primary issue within the framework (issues above contention-level arguments) is the criterion. , Your criterion is comparable to a filter.
For example, there may be many ways to achieve justice, but this is one way to achieve it (through an action of the resolution).
Your criterion serves as a concrete way to achieve an abstract value, such as justice.
For example, you can use "maximizing individual rights" as a criterion for the value social welfare.
This is the type of ethical debate that most scholars have when considering philosophical questions.
Most values such as Justice, Morality, and Societal Welfare are all ultimately determined by whether or not the revolutionary action helps or hurts the criterion.
Essentially, your criterion is the way that you achieve your value.
Remember that in Lincoln-Douglas debate, you do not have to explain how you are going to uphold the resolution, just why you should or shouldn't affirm. , Contention is another word for a point.
These points explain how the affirmative/negative action achieves your criterion.
The contentions in your case must link back to your value/criterion (or your opponents).
Usually it is unwise to have more than a maximum of three contentions as affirmative or 1 to 2 as negative.
Go for depth of argumentation rather than breadth.
It is much better to with one argument very clearly than muddle the debate on 3 different ones.
Main arguments should contain claims (a thesis), warrants (reasons that the claims are true), and impacts (why they matter
- usually in relation to a criterion).
Also, make sure they don't conflict with each other.
Use credible sources for your warrants and always cite your information. "Create "Blocks"": a list of arguments you think your opponent will use and include ways to counter them.
The more counter-arguments you can come up with, the more likely you are to encounter one in a round.
If you encounter a new argument in a round, make sure to make blocks for it.
If you create a good set of blocks, you will be able to anticipate attacks on your case and counter them accordingly.
When writing a negative case, have a "counter plan".
This means that because you are negating the resolution, you ought to have something that you can do as an alternative, that will uphold the same moral standards and values as the affirmative without the negative effects.
These usually aren't necessary in NLD (Novice Lincoln Douglas), but they can still give you an advantage above the affirmative because, unless they can prove why the resolution is the best and only way to go, their arguments don't weigh as much.
At the same time, remember that within some debate circuits, counterplans are not acceptable and considered "progressive" or something that should stay in policy debate.
If a counterplan is essential to a case, try to write an alternative negative case as well and make sure to ask for your judge's "paradigm" or judging preferences.
If they say they are progressive and are perfectly fine with counterplans go ahead.
If not, you may need to fall back on your "traditional" case, and place heavier emphasis on the framework (v/vc) debate.
About the Author
Emily Ferguson
Specializes in breaking down complex hobbies topics into simple steps.
Rate This Guide
How helpful was this guide? Click to rate: