UIL STUDENT ACTIVITIES CONFERENCE

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS BASICS

Tim Cook

Extemp Topic Analysis, www.extemptopicanalysis.com

 

1.  Definition/Purpose

 

“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, http://www.uil.utexas.edu/aca/hsrule/1002.html)

 

Goal

 

2.  Characteristics

 

LD                                                           CX

  

 

 

3.  Debate Concepts

               

                A.  Types of Resolutions

 

                B.  Burden of Proof

 

               

                C.  Presumption

 

 

                “Academic debate follows the ancient axiom, ‘the asserter must prove.’ In academic debate rounds the affirmative begins the debate.  The affirmative speaker begins by asserting the resolution.  The resolution is thus, the claim that must be proved.  Once having made that assertion, the affirmative has the burden of Proof.”  The Value Debate Handbook, Lee Polk and William English, 2000, page 8

 

 

                D.  Prima Facie Case

 

 

                      “A prima facie case is established when the affirmative adequately addresses the issues logically required to demonstrate that the resolution is an accurate/valid claim.” The Value Debate Handbook, Lee Polk and William English, 2000, page 9             

                         

 

What are the key issues in value or Lincoln-Douglas Debate?

 

 

                E.  Stock Issues

 

 

                “There are certain stock issues which must be addresses in analyzing any value claim.  Stock issues are questions which are almost always applicable to a particular type of proposition.  They will help you discover what issues you must address to win the debate.

                Three stock questions must be addressed to prove the validity of a value.  First, what is being evaluated?  Second, what is the appropriate standard for evaluating it? Third does the thing being evaluated meet the standard?  Without considering these questions, it would be impossible to establish that any evaluation is accurate, valid, or correct. To meet the burden of proof, an affirmative debater must establish the meaning of the object of evaluation, establish the appropriate standard for judging or evaluating the object of evaluation, and apply that standard to the object of evaluation. These are three issues that are relevant in justifying any evaluation.  These three issues, thus, constitute the prima facie burdens.  (The Value Debate Handbook, Lee Polk and William English, 2000, page 11)

                        

                “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)

 

                F.  Burden of Refutation and Rebuttal

 

 “Burden of refutation and rebuttal is a concept which explains that debaters must attack their opponents’ arguments (refutation) and rebuild their own when they have been attacked (rebuttal).” The Value Debate Handbook, Lee Polk and William English, 2000, page 9

 

                      Both the affirmative and negative have these burdens.         

 

4.  Resolution Concepts

 

                A.  Phrasing

1. Controversial

2. Be an affirmative statement

3. One idea

4. Neutral, not one sided, no loaded words

5. Significant value conflict

B.  Object of Evaluation

                                1. Historical context

                                2. Dictionary definitions

                                3. Field context, contextual meaning

                                4. Etc.

                C.  Evaluative Term

 

                D.  Conditional phrases

 

                E.  Topicality

 

 

5.  Speaker Format

 

AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE                              6 MINUTES

 

Read case

                                                                

CX PERIOD                                                                                      3 MINUTES

 

NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE                                                       7 MINUTES

 

Read Case

Clash with affirmative case

 

CX PERIOD                                                                                         3 MINUTES

 

 

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

 

Preparation Time. A maximum of three minutes of preparation time per debater is allowed during the course of the debate. Overtime. Overtime may count against a team at the discretion of the judge. Abuse of Time. Excessive abuse of the time allotments may result in disqualification at the discretion of the contest director.

 

6.  Value/ Criteria/Standards

 

 

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

“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.”

 

            A.  Vocabulary

 

                                1. Standard

 

                                2.  Value

 

 

                “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)

 

 

                                3.  Criteria / Criterion

 

 

                                                (v) justice                              (c) “giving every man his due” ?

                                                                                                (c) equality of opportunity

                                                                                                (c) promote individual fundament rights

                                                                                                (c) accommodates individual autonomy

                                                (v) legitimate gov’t              (c) consistent with the social contract

                                                                                                (c) provides for security

                                                                                                (c) follows the general will

                                                                                                (c) consistent with international standards

                                                               

                               

                                4.  Value Hierarchy

 

 

                B.  List of “time-honored” values/criterion

                                1.  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

                                2.  Criterion

·         Social Contract

·         Categorical Imperative

·         Utility

·         Harm Principle

·         Cost Benefit Analysis

·         Balancing

·         Market Place of Ideas

·         Pragmatism

·         Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

 

               

                C. Strategies for Arguing

                                1.  Generic responses to values

 

 

                                2.  Generic Criteria responses

 

 

7.  Affirmative Case

 

At a minimum in your case discuss the stock issues!  You must have all your major arguments in your case, no new arguments in rebuttals.  Use signpost language.  Not CX! Don’t just state argument and read a card.

 

A.  Introduction

                Opening Quote

                State Resolution

                Thesis

B.  Definitions

                Purpose

                Fairness/Clarity of Definitions

C.  Observation (Optional)

                Purpose

D.  Value Premise and Criteria

E.  Contentions

                Tags

                Analysis

                Evidence

                Linkage to standard

                Use of subpoints (Optional)

 

                State argument in a “flowable” statement.

                                Explain your argument

                                Give examples /Quote evidence if necessary

                                Use well-reasoned analysis to connect all your points and link to your standard

                                Conclude your issue by providing clear impacts/implications

                                Make transition to next issue

F.  Conclusion

                Summarize, but don’t repeat

                Re-establish thesis

 

 

8.  Negative Case

YOU MUST REFUTE, CLASH, ARGUE, AND/OR DISAGREE WITH THE AFF. CASE!!!!

Your task is to create doubt about the resolution.  Essentially the neg case is the same as aff case.  Begin with neg and then go aff.  Make your thesis, position, point of view, negative philosophy clear

Differences:

                1.  Definitions

                2.  Time Limit

 

 

There is nothing wrong with agreeing with some of the aff (definitions, etc), if they do not hurt your position

 

 

Other considerations for aff and neg case

 

1.  Use pragmatic examples and/or analogies

2. Use rhetoric / persuasion

3.  Preempting your opponent’s arguments in your case

 

9.  Refutation

The most important factor contributing to success in LD is how well you can clash, not how well you can deliver a canned speech.

                                                                                                               

 

Steps to refutation:

  1. State the argument to be refuted, reference on the flow

  2. Precise summary of the argument

  3. Point what the aff/neg failed to say

  4. State your counter argument (s)

  5. Prove your argu

  6. Summarize and move on

 

10.  Rebuttals

 

Three step process:

1. Summary of the theme of your arguments;

2. Summary of your opponent’s response; and

3. Statement why your initial position is superior.

 

Voters

 

Overview/observation in rebuttals

A. Restate your general theme/position and explain why opponent’s arguments fail to address

B. Story - an explanation of an affirmation means or negation means

 

1AR

Don’t drop important arguments

 

  1. Overview / Story or Identify major areas of conflict (1/2 minutes)

  2. Refute negative case (about 2 minutes)

  3. Rebuild affirmative case (about 1 ½ minutes)

NR

“Time to kill”  Have planned extensions for negative case.

 

  1. Overview / Story or Identify major areas of conflict (1/2 minute)

  2. Attack affirmative case ….crystallize (about 2 minutes)

  3. Attack the negative ……crystallize (about 2 1/2 minutes)

  4. Voters – write the ballot (about 1 minute)

 

2AR

Be persuasive, sale your position.

 

  1. Neg case (about 1 minute)

  2. Aff case (about 1 minute)

  3. Voters (about 1 minute)

Or

 

  1. Weigh / Respond to negative key issues

  2. Add your key issues and weigh

 

 

11.  Cross-Examination

 

            Generally a non-binding portion of the debate.  Anything you found out that is to your advantage during CX should be brought in your next speech.

 

12.  Flowing

                               

13.  Prep Time

 

14.  Research

 

15.  Organization

 

16.  Presentation

 

 

DELIVERY. Communication with the audience is to be considered a high priority for UIL debaters. Oral delivery in Lincoln-Douglas debate is to be communicative and persuasive. (2003-04 Constitution and Contest Rules
Section 1002: LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE, http://www.uil.utexas.edu/aca/hsrule/1002.html)

 

 

17.  Judges

 

18.  Conclusion

 

 

LD LINKS

·         UIL, http://www.uil.utexas.edu/aca/speech/index.html

·         National Forensics League, http://www.nflonline.org/

·         ETA, http://www.extemptopicanalysis.com

·         Planet Debate, http://www.lincoln-douglas.com  

·         LD Debate.org, http://www.lddebate.org/

·         Lincoln-Douglas Debate: A How-To Guide, http://www.uoregon.edu/~forensic/LDValue.html

·         Dallas Debate, http://dallasbebate.com/

·         LDDebate.com, http://lddebate.com/   Excellent online debate to read.

·         Victory Briefs, http://www.victorybriefs.net/vbd/

 

PHILOSOPHERS

 

·         Plato

·         Aristotle

·         Kant

·         Locke

·         Hobbes

·         Rousseau

·         Rawls