Lincoln-Douglas Debate involves the philosophical
analysis and debate of a resolution that has no definite answer. Two debaters
argue in opposition to each other in a round, with one representing the
affirmative side and the other representing the negative side.
The affirmative must prove the resolution true; the
negative must simply prevent the affirmative from achieving this goal, although
this is also somewhat debatable. (However, unlike policy debate, this does not
denote a burden of proof.) Most debate events recognize two levels of
competitors: Junior Varsity and Varsity, while some tournaments include a
Novice division.
There are very few "official rules"
associated with the actual debates themselves. Almost any norm accepted by the
community can be (and often times is) challenged and disregarded by a debater
in favor of a form that they feel more often represents "good
debate." Norms also vary by locale; accepted standards in one state may be
different from those in another.
In the standard LD debate structure, each side
presents two kinds of speeches. The first is the constructive speech, where
each side will present a prepared speech arguing for or against the resolution.
The second is the rebuttal speech, used to refute arguments made by the other
side and make a final attempt to gain the judge's vote. Note, however, that
because the negative is trying to disprove the affirmative's position, the
negative's constructive speech will ordinarily contain elements of rebuttal as
well. Additionally, each debater has one opportunity to ask direct questions of
the other in the cross-examination period.
The only binding
rules are the time limits placed on the debaters for each speech they make. The
commonly accepted time structure is as follows:
·
Affirmative Constructive (AC) - 6 mins
·
Cross-examination of Affirmative speaker by the Negative - 3 mins
·
Negative Constructive & 1st Negative Rebuttal (NC and 1NR) - 7 mins
·
Cross-examination of Negative speaker by the Affirmative - 3 mins
·
1st Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) - 4 mins
·
2nd Negative Rebuttal (2NR) - 6 mins
·
2nd Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) - 3 mins
Note that the total time for speeches is divided
equally between the debaters, but unevenly among the speeches in order to
compensate for one side having the first and last word.
Debaters are also given preparation time just prior
to each speech. Each debater usually receives three minutes of preparation time
to divide between each speech. Some tournaments offer more than three minutes
and others may give more time to participants in the Novice and Junior Varsity
Divisions, due to their lack of experience. Debaters rarely use their time to
prepare for cross-examination. A recent trend among national circuit
tournaments has been to allow debaters to combine their cross-examination and
preparation time into a 6-minute block (referred to as "flex-prep")
that can be divided up and used however a debater wants throughout the round.
Most debaters who utilize flex-prep use it to give them more preparation time
and less cross-examination time, and also use it to ask cross-examination
questions relating to strategic issues before their final speeches.
In the first two speeches debaters present cases, or pre-written defenses of or
attacks against the resolution. The affirmative debater spends the entire six
minutes presenting the constructive since the negative has not yet spoken. The
negative's constructive will be in the first speech as well, and usually take
between two-and-a-half and three-and-a-half minutes. The rest of the first
negative speech will contain rebuttal arguments that respond to the
affirmative's case. Although there are no set rules about how a debater must
present his or her case, most debaters use a generic structure to ensure they
present their arguments in the clearest way possible anyway.
·
Definitions are usually placed at the beginning of the debater's opening speech. These
are explanations of key terms that the debater feels will be important in his
or her advocacy of the resolution. Many debaters strategically pick definitions
that both support their arguments and limit the amount of responses the
opponent can make. Debaters often draw definitions from specialized
dictionaries such as "Black's Law Dictionary" or take definitions
from academic articles written on subjects relating to the resolution.
·
Framework is a term used to describe the collection of observations and resolution
analysis, given near the beginning of a constructive speech. In addition
to definitions debaters provide analysis that narrows the debate, makes the
debate more clear and perhaps frames the resolution in a manner that improves
the debater's chances.
·
Standards are usually explained next. 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. Though not exclusively done in this fashion standards usually take the
form of two conceptual objects:
·
The "value", "core value", or "value
premise" represents the most important goal for the round and are usually
nebulous and somewhat vague "good things". Out of fairness and
convention debaters rarely use values which bias one side over the other. Examples
of values include democracy, liberty, societal welfare and justice. 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.
·
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. 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.
Following each debater's constructive speech, the
opponent is given a three-minute period to ask questions regarding the
constructive that was just given. Any questions may be asked, and debaters are
encouraged to use the time to clarify any confusing points made by their
opponent. However, the time is often used by each side to try to weaken the
other debater's standing. The questioner often will go to specific points in
the constructive where there may be a factual inaccuracy or other weakness, and
ask detailed questions that will force an opponent to admit the weakness.
Meanwhile, the questioned debater might try to dodge trick questions while
supplying long answers that will serve to (a) waste the questioner's allotted
time and (b) expand upon the original constructive.
The rebuttal speeches are the speeches in the
latter half of the debate. In this portion, most debaters focus on attacking
their opponents' arguments and defending their own in a way that will cement a
victory in the round. Toward the end of the final speech, the debaters will
reduce their arguments to a few core voting
issues that they want the judge to focus on when deciding the winner
(this process is known as "crystallizing").
A rebuttal argument typically consists of three
steps: signpost (indicating which argument the debater is refuting), explain
(attacking flaws in the opponent's evidence or logic), and weigh (evaluating
the arguments based on the standards).
Most debates involve proving the resolution either
true or false; however, this is not the only way to handle the debate. The
alternative approach, almost exclusively used by negative debaters, is
kritiking the resolution. A kritik (German
for criticism) does not abide by the conventional value structure nor does it
attempt to prove or disprove the truth of the resolution; instead, it seeks to
prove the resolution harmful or impossible to argue. This approach is by no
means widespread, and while frowned upon in some areas, is steadily gaining
acceptance as crossover of Policy Debate technique becomes more widespread in
the LD debate community.
Another new strategy a debater may use while
arguing the negative is straight refutation. In a normal negative constructive
the debater outlines a case and refutes the affirmative's points, but when a
debater uses direct negation the negative constructive only consists of a
refutation of the affirmative's points. Like the kritiking strategy, the
straight refutation strategy is not widely used.
Affirmative debaters have responded to the
negative's kritik advantage by introducing a new affirmative strategy. Rather
than affirm the resolution "as a whole," affirmatives pick a particular
aspect of the topic as their case position. For example on the 2005 Nationals
topic: "The pursuit of scientific knowledge ought to be constrained by
concern for societal good" an affirmative using this strategy would
discuss how certain pursuits (such as cloning or building a Matrix) ought to be
constrained. In these rounds, the affirmative contends that they do not have to
defend all aspects of the topic, just the ones they choose. This strategy is
also adopted from Policy Debate, where the affirmative creates a policy plan
that does not affirm the whole topic and challenges the negative to prove why
the plan itself is bad. This approach is very new; so the debate community has
had little discussion over the acceptance of this style.
Some tournaments, or specific judges, may permit
debaters to use what has become known as "flex time," which combines
a debater's three-minute prep time with their three minutes of
cross-examination time into a hybrid time that may be used throughout the debate.
Using this form of time management, debaters will forego the normal cross
examination period and will instead immediately sit and preparing for their
next speech much like prep time, but they may decide to ask questions while
doing so. This has not been widely accepted, though, as many debaters feel it
changes the only real "rule" in the event, which is the structure of
time limits. Other debaters view it as a logical extension to the debate, as
both preparation and cross examination periods should be used as the debater
sees fit, especially if it fosters better debate.
Debate rounds are typically judged by an adult
(several if it's an elimination round), often an assistant debate coach, the
parent of a competitor, or a college student who participated in the event in
the past. Some Novice-only tournaments will employ experienced students as
judges.
Judging an LD round can be very difficult,
especially for inexperienced judges. Not only are the questions intrinsically
complex, but the typical debater uses arguments and citations from philosophers
and other writers that the judge may not be familiar with. Additionally, LD
topics often involve issues where the judge may have a strongly held opinion
for or against the resolution. Being neutral and judging on the basis who
upheld the round's standard (and not the nature of the argument itself) can be
difficult. To avoid this potential problem, resolutions are usually rather
abstract and do not touch on "hot button" issues of the day such as
abortion or gay marriage.
In some regional or circuit tournaments with
multiple divisions, inexperienced judges are most commonly placed in the Novice
division, while the Junior Varsity and Varsity divisions enjoy much more
experienced judges (often coaches of other teams or college students who
debated in high school). Other regional circuits value the difficulty of
debating in front of inexperienced judges, and recruit "lay" judges
from the community in order to provide the debaters with the experience of
attempting to explain complex issues to lay people. These judges are typically
friends and relatives of the families of the debaters of the sponsoring school.
Some circuits require all LD judges for rounds above the novice level to meet
training requirements.
Different areas of the country approach debate with
different goals. In some states, such as Kansas and South Dakota, high school
Speech is a for-credit class with a competitive debate element. Inter-school
tournaments are held on weekends, but the training for them is often
curricular. In other areas, debate may be a school-sponsored team similar to
football or basketball which has practice after school, rather than being part
of the curriculum, or it may be organized as a club activity with very little
involvement on the part of the school.
This distinction often results in a difference
among the nation's high schools in their understanding of the purpose of
competitive speech. Circuits like Kansas and South Dakota, in which Speech is
part of the curriculum, set the goal of participation to be an improvement in
the communication skills of the student. These circuits tend to use lay judges
in all events to provide the student the chance to develop analysis and
speaking styles which increase communication to the "everyday"
person. Other circuits, which see the event as essentially competitive (as with
sports) rather than curricular, place a higher value on expert judging so that
the playing field is fair. This distinction provides endless controversy when
students from districts with differing underlying philosophies compete against
each other at regional or national tournaments.
In a typical one-day tournament, each debater will
debate four rounds, two rounds advocating the affirmative side and two rounds
advocating the negative. Longer tournaments typically have five, six, or seven
preliminary rounds, in which all debaters participate. The top debaters from
the first rounds then advance to a single-elimination tournament to determine
the winner of the tournament.
In many tournaments, and especially in smaller
tournaments, all debaters present have the potential to "hit," or
square off against, all other competitors in the tournament. A debate in which
each competitor goes against every other one is called a Round Robin. At other
events, generally larger tournaments, less experienced debaters may be
separated from more experienced debaters, forming two parallel tournaments.
Some LD tournaments are "power-matched"
(also called "high-high" or "low-low"). In this system,
after each round, the meetings for the next round are decided on the basis that
winners meet winners and losers meet losers. Other tournaments are
"high-low," or "power-protected," meaning meetings for the
next round are winner against loser. A combination of the two involves
power-matching win-losses and power-protecting speaker points. Still other
tournaments use randomized brackets. In "elimination rounds" after
the primary four to six preliminary rounds, the top seed will "hit"
the lowest "seed." Seeds are determined first by prelimary round
records and then by the amount of speaker points awarded by judges in
preliminary rounds.
Most high school debaters participate in local
tournaments in their city, school district, or state. Hundreds of such
tournaments are held each weekend at high schools throughout the United States
during the debate season.
A small subset of high school debaters, mostly from
elite public and private schools, travel around the country to tournaments in
what is called the "national circuit." The six largest and most
competitive national circuit tournaments are the Glenbrooks, held at Glenbrook
North and Glenbrook South high schools in the Chicago suburbs, the Barkley
Forum at Emory University, the Harvard Invitational at Harvard University, the
Greenhill Fall Classic in Dallas, the Heart of Texas Invitational at St. Mark's
School of Texas, also in Dallas, and the Minneapple at Apple Valley High School
in Minnesota. As the debate season comes to a close, national championship
tournaments are held to bring together the best debaters from around the nation
to compete against one another. These tournaments tend to be invitation-only,
based on success in various qualifying events.
The unofficial national circuit championship is the
Tournament of Champions (LD) (TOC) held at the University of Kentucky. To be
eligible for the TOC, debaters must collect at least two bids at various
qualifying tournaments held throughout the year. These tournaments are given a
certain number of bids to be awarded to debaters who reach a certain level in
the elimination rounds. The amount of bids given depends on the size of the
tournament and the relative calculated strength of the debaters who attend. For
example, the Southwest Championships held at Arizona State University is a
medium-sized tournament attended by debaters of all experience levels from the
surrounding states, and therefore only receives two bids, awarded to the
debaters who reach the final round of the tournament. Conversely, the
Glenbrooks tournament, considered the most competitive tournament in the
country, is attended by approximately 200 experienced debaters and is given 16
bids to hand out to competitors who reach the octofinal round.
For non-national circuit debaters, either the
National Speech and Debate Tournament of the National Forensic League or the
Grand National Tournament of the National Catholic Forensic League is the
national tournament of their sponsoring organization. Competitors qualify to
the national tournament by placing in the top spots at local district-level
tournaments. The number of competitors in each district determines the number
of competitors that will qualify to the national tournament.
Resolutions (topics to be debated) change every
two months. They are usually very vague and theoretical to allow for many
different arguments and interpretations. Resolutions are chosen by a wording
committee. This group releases ten potential topics for the upcoming year at
the NFL Nationals Tournament. Past resolutions include:
·
Resolved: In the U.S. judicial system, truth seeking ought to take
precedence over privileged communication. (Sept-Oct 2003)
·
Resolved: The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate
international conflict. (Nov-Dec 2003)
·
Resolved: A government’s obligation to protect the environment ought to
take precedence over its obligation to promote economic development. (Jan-Feb
2004)
·
Resolved: As a general principle, individuals have an obligation to value
the common good above their own interests. (March-April 2004)
·
Resolved: Civil disobedience is justified in a democracy. (NFL Nationals
2004)
·
Resolved: A nation's citizens' rights ought to take precedence over its
security. (NCFL Nationals 2004)
·
Resolved: Individual claims of privacy ought to be valued above conflicting
claims of societal welfare. (Sept-Oct 2004)
·
Resolved: The US has a moral obligation to promote democratic ideals in
other nations. (Nov-Dec 2004)
·
Resolved: Democracy is best served by strict separation of church and
state. (Jan-Feb 2005)
·
Resolved: To better protect civil liberties, community standards ought to
take precedence over conflicting national standards. (March-April 2005)
·
Resolved: The pursuit of scientific knowledge ought to be constrained by
concern for societal good. (NFL Nationals 2005)
·
Resolved: The primary purpose of formal education ought to be to impart
knowledge. (NCFL G Nationals 2005)
·
Resolved: In matters of U.S. immigration policy, restrictions on the rights
of non-citizens are consistent with democratic ideals. (Sept-Oct 2005)
·
Resolved: Judicial activism is necessary to protect the rights of American
citizens. (Nov-Dec 2005)
·
Resolved: The use of the state's power of eminent domain to promote private
enterprise is unjust. (Jan-Feb 2006)
·
Resolved: Juveniles charged with violent crimes should be tried and
punished as adults. (March-April 2006)
·
Resolved: When in conflict, an individual's freedom of speech should be
valued over a community's moral standards. (NCFL Grand Nationals 2006)
·
Resolved: In matters of collecting military intelligence, the ends justify
the means. (NFL Nationals 2006)