CHAPTER 4.2. Debate format Lincoln-Douglas

1. What is Lincoln-Douglas?

The basic format of the LD debates has long been used as a debate format in competition and in classrooms. The LD debate format is a one-to-one debate, in which two sides of an issue are debated. It starts with a statement of purpose/policy. (For example, School uniforms should be required in all schools? Which is Better, Anarchy or Tyranny? or, Is Multi-culturalism Good or Bad? or, Is the Death Penalty Just?) What the resolutions usually boil down to is a conflict between the rights of one individual or group of individuals pitted against the rights of some other individual or group of individuals. What the debaters try to look for in developing their cases is the greatest inherent value of either the affirmative or negative, that is, the underlying reason for their position—values are an extremely important concept in LD, and they include such abstract ideas as justice, freedom, and equality. Debaters defend the value on their side, while attacking the value on their opponent’s side (or at least the way the opponent is attempting to achieve that value). And the thing is, there’s no objective right or wrong on any resolution, which makes the entire enterprise boil down to one thing: who did the best arguing.

• Debate structure

The debater who agrees with the statement (the Affirmative) begins the debate, which is structured in this way:

CONSTRUCTUVE SPEECHES

Affirmative (AC)	6 minutes
Cross-examination by negative (CX)	3 minutes
Negative (NC)	7 minutes
Cross-examination by affirmative (CX)	3 minutes

REBUTTAL SPEECHES

Affirmative (1AR)	4 minutes
Negative (NR)	6 minutes
Affirmative (2AR)	3 minutes

• Constructive speeches

The purpose of the constructive speeches in the Lincoln-Douglas debate format is to present arguments and evidence in support of or against the resolution. The affirmative constructive (AC) speech is given by the debater who argues in favor of the resolution, while the negative constructive (NC) speech is given by the debater who argues against the resolution.

The AC speech presents a value premise, which is a statement about what is important or valuable in the context of the resolution, and a value criterion, which is a standard or principle that is used to evaluate the value premise. The AC speech also presents contentions, which are arguments that support the value premise. The goal of the AC speech is to persuade the judge that the resolution is true.

The NC speech restates the value premise presented in the AC speech and presents a value criterion to judge the value premise. The NC speech also presents contentions, which are arguments that challenge the value premise. The goal of the NC speech is to persuade the judge that the resolution is false.

A breakdown of the typical structure and content of each constructive speech:

Affirmative Constructive (AC)	Negative Constructive (NC)
Introduction: Use the introduction to grab the audience’s attention and introduce the topic.	Introduction: Use the introduction to grab the audience’s attention and introduce the topic.
Value premise: Present the value premise that you will be using to argue in favor of the resolution.	Restate the value premise: Restate the value premise that the affirmative debater presented in their AC speech.
Value criterion: Present the value criterion that you will be using to judge the value premise.	Present the value criterion: Present the value criterion that you will be using to judge the value premise.
Contentions: The contentions are the arguments that support the value premise. There should be two or three strong contentions that are relevant to the value premise and the value criterion. Use evidence to support your contentions and persuasive language to make your arguments more compelling.	Contentions: The contentions are the arguments that challenge the value premise. There should be two or three strong contentions that are relevant to the value premise and the value criterion. Use evidence to support your contentions and persuasive language to make your arguments more compelling.
Conclusion: The conclusion should summarize your arguments and restate your value premise and value criterion. Use persuasive language to make your conclusion more memorable.	Conclusion: The conclusion should summarize your arguments and restate your value premise and value criterion. Use persuasive language to make your conclusion more memorable.

C.1. The affirmative constructive (AC)

In a LD debate, the Affirmative Constructive (AC) speech is the first speech given by the affirmative side. It allows the affirmative side to lay the foundation for their position, define key terms, establish a value to defend, and present their main contentions and supporting arguments. It is an opportunity for the affirmative to present a clear and persuasive case that sets the stage for the subsequent speeches in the debate.

The speaker presents a main idea, called the value premise, which represents an important principle or belief related to the resolution. It’s like the overall moral or philosophical goal they want to achieve.

To support their value premise, the affirmative also presents a value criterion. This criterion is like a measuring stick that helps evaluate how well the value premise is met. It provides a specific standard or guideline to determine if the arguments presented by the affirmative align with the main idea they are defending. The role of the value premise and value criterion in the AC speech is to provide a framework for the debater’s arguments and to help the judge evaluate the strength of the debater’s case. Here is an example to illustrate the role of the value premise and value criterion:

• Value Premise: Democracy is the most important value.
• Value Criterion: The principle of representation should be used to judge the value of democracy.

In this example, the affirmative debater is arguing that democracy is the most important value. The value criterion that the debater is using to judge the value of democracy is the principle of representation, which means that individuals should have the right to elect representatives who will make decisions on their behalf. The debater might develop contentions such as the importance of individual rights, the dangers of government overreach, and the benefits of a democratic society. The debater would use evidence to support their contentions and persuasive language to make their arguments more compelling.

Imagine the following resolution:

“The EU countries should lower the voting age to 16″

The affirmative debater might argue that democracy requires that all citizens have the right to vote, and that the value criterion of representation should be used to judge the value of democracy. The debater might develop contentions such as the importance of youth engagement in politics, the benefits of early civic education, and the dangers of disenfranchising young voters. The debater would use evidence to support their contentions and persuasive language to make their arguments more compelling.

Value Premise: Youth empowerment is the most important value.	Value Premise: Democratic participation is the most important value.
Value Criterion: The principle of representation should be used to judge the value of youth empowerment.	Value Criterion: The principle of inclusivity should be used to judge the value of democratic participation.
The affirmative debater is arguing that youth empowerment is the most important value. The value criterion that the debater is using to judge the value of youth empowerment is the principle of representation, which means that young people should have the right to elect representatives who will make decisions on their behalf. The debater might develop contentions such as the importance of youth engagement in politics, the benefits of early civic education, and the potential for young people to bring fresh perspectives to political issues. The debater would use evidence to support their contentions and persuasive language to make their arguments more compelling.	The affirmative debater is arguing that democratic participation is the most important value. The value criterion that the debater is using to judge the value of democratic participation is the principle of inclusivity, which means that all members of society should have the right to participate in the democratic process. The debater might develop contentions such as the importance of expanding the electorate, the benefits of engaging young people in politics, and the potential for young people to bring new ideas and perspectives to political issues. The debater would use evidence to support their contentions and persuasive language to make their arguments more compelling.

Imagine the following resolution:

«The government should prioritize renewable energy sources over fossil fuels.«

Value Premise: Environmental protection is the most important value.	Value Premise: Economic prosperity is the most important value.
Value Criterion: The principle of sustainability should be used to judge the value of environmental protection.	Value Criterion: The principle of efficiency should be used to judge the value of economic prosperity.
The affirmative debater is arguing that environmental protection is the most important value. The value criterion that the debater is using to judge the value of environmental protection is the principle of sustainability, which means that resources should be used in a way that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The debater might develop contentions such as the importance of reducing carbon emissions, the benefits of renewable energy sources, and the dangers of climate change. The debater would use evidence to support their contentions and persuasive language to make their arguments more compelling.	The affirmative debater is arguing that economic prosperity is the most important value. The value criterion that the debater is using to judge the value of economic prosperity is the principle of efficiency, which means that resources should be used in the most effective way possible to achieve the desired outcome. The debater might develop contentions such as the benefits of renewable energy sources for job creation, the economic costs of climate change, and the potential for renewable energy sources to reduce dependence on foreign oil. The debater would use evidence to support their contentions and persuasive language to make their arguments more compelling. Overall, the value premise and value criterion are important components of the affirmative constructive speech in a LD debate. They provide a framework for the debater’s arguments and help the judge to evaluate the strength of the debater’s case. By choosing a strong value premise and value criterion, and developing strong contentions supported by evidence and persuasive language, the debater can prepare a strong affirmative constructive speech.

By utilizing the value premise and value criterion, the affirmative debater constructs a persuasive case that emphasizes the importance of environmental sustainability and argues that prioritizing renewable energy sources aligns with those principles. They aim to convince the audience that their position is valid, beneficial, and in line with the broader values and criteria being discussed in the debate.

Here is a breakdown of the typical structure and content of an AC speech:

The typical structure and content of an affirmative constructive (AC) speech in a LD debate is as follows:

1. Introduction (30 seconds): The purpose of the introduction to grab the audience’s attention and introduce the topic. A good introduction should be clear, concise, and relevant to the resolution. It should grab the audience’s attention and introduce the topic.
2. Value Premise (30 seconds): State the value premise that it will be arguing for. The value premise is the overarching value that the debater is arguing for. It should be clear, concise, and relevant to the resolution.
3. Value Criterion (30 seconds): State the value criterion that it will be using to judge the value premise. The value criterion is the standard by which the value premise should be judged. It should be specific, measurable, and relevant to the value premise.
4. Contention 1 (1-2 minutes): Present the first contention, which is an argument that supports the value premise. The contentions are the arguments that support the value premise. There should be two or three strong contentions that are relevant to the value premise and the value criterion. Evidence must be used to support the contentions and persuasive language to make arguments more compelling.
5. Contention 2 (1-2 minutes): Present the second contention, which is another argument that supports the value premise.
6. Contention 3 (1-2 minutes): Present the third contention, which is another argument that supports the value premise.
7. Conclusion (30 seconds): Summarize the arguments and restate the value premise and value criterion. The conclusion should summarize the arguments and restate the value premise and value criterion. Persuasive language must be used to make conclusions more memorable.

C.2. Cross-examination by negative (CX)

In a LD debate, the negative debater has the opportunity to ask questions during the cross-examination (CX) period of the affirmative constructive (AC) speech. The CX period is a time for the negative debater to clarify the affirmative debater’s arguments, challenge their evidence, and test the strength of their case.

How to prepare for the CX

AFIRMATIVE	NEGATIVE
Know the arguments: The affirmative debater should be familiar with their arguments and evidence so that they can answer questions effectively during the CX period.	Listen carefully: The negative debater should listen carefully to the affirmative debater’s arguments during the AC speech and take notes on key points.
Anticipate questions: The affirmative debater should anticipate the types of questions that the negative debater might ask and prepare responses in advance.	Anticipate weaknesses: The negative debater should anticipate weaknesses in the affirmative debater’s arguments and prepare questions that challenge those weaknesses.
Stay calm and focused: The affirmative debater should remain calm and focused during the CX period, even if the negative debater asks challenging questions.	Use the CX period strategically: The negative debater should use the CX period to challenge the affirmative debater’s evidence, clarify their arguments, and set up their own arguments for the next speech.
Use the CX period to your advantage: The affirmative debater should use the CX period to clarify their arguments, challenge the negative debater’s evidence, and set up their own arguments for the next speech.	Stay calm and focused: The negative debater should remain calm and focused during the CX period, even if the affirmative debater responds defensively or aggressively.

Types of questions that can be used in the CX

During the cross-examination (CX) in a LD debate format, the negative debater can use different types of questions to challenge the affirmative debater’s arguments and evidence. Here are some examples of questions that the negative debater can use during the CX:

1. Clarification questions: The negative debater can ask the affirmative debater to clarify their arguments or evidence to ensure that they understand the affirmative debater’s position.
2. Evidence questions: The negative debater can ask the affirmative debater to provide evidence to support their arguments and challenge the validity of that evidence.
3. Hypothetical questions: The negative debater can ask the affirmative debater to consider hypothetical scenarios that test the limits of their arguments.
4. Comparison questions: The negative debater can ask the affirmative debater to compare their arguments to alternative positions or evidence.
5. Strategy questions: The negative debater can ask the affirmative debater about their overall strategy for the debate and how they plan to respond to potential challenges.

Overall, the negative debater can use a variety of questions during the CX period to challenge the affirmative debater’s arguments and evidence. By doing so, the negative debater can test the strength of the affirmative debater’s case and prepare for their own constructive speech.

Here are some examples of the different types of questions that the negative debater could use during the CX period for the motion «The EU countries should lower the voting age to 16»:

1. Clarification question: Can you clarify what you mean by «lowering the voting age to 16»? Are you suggesting that 16-year-olds should be allowed to vote in all elections or just certain ones?
2. Evidence question: What evidence do you have to support the claim that 16-year-olds are mature enough to vote? Have there been any studies or research conducted on this topic?
3. Hypothetical question: If 16-year-olds are allowed to vote, what would prevent other groups, such as 14-year-olds or non-citizens, from demanding the right to vote as well?
4. Comparison question: How does lowering the voting age to 16 compare to other proposals for increasing youth engagement in politics, such as expanding civics education or creating youth councils?
5. Strategy question: How do you plan to address potential concerns about the maturity and knowledge of 16-year-old voters in your next speech? What arguments do you plan to make to counter these concerns?

Here are some examples of the different types of questions that the negative debater could use during the CX period for the motion «The government should prioritize renewable energy sources over fossil fuels»:

1. Clarification question: Can you clarify what you mean by «prioritizing renewable energy sources»? Are you suggesting that the government should invest more money in renewable energy research or that they should mandate the use of renewable energy sources in certain industries?
2. Evidence question: What evidence do you have to support the claim that renewable energy sources are more effective than fossil fuels? Have there been any studies or research conducted on this topic?
3. Hypothetical question: If the government prioritizes renewable energy sources, what would prevent other countries from taking advantage of the situation and increasing their use of fossil fuels?
4. Comparison question: How does prioritizing renewable energy sources compare to other proposals for reducing carbon emissions, such as carbon taxes or cap-and-trade policies?
5. Strategy question: How do you plan to address potential concerns about the cost and reliability of renewable energy sources in your next speech? What arguments do you plan to make to counter these concerns?

C.3. The negative constructive (NC)

Next up is the negative to make the opposing argument. Again, we’ll probably start with a quote, then perhaps new definitions if for some reason negative feels that the affirmative’s definitions are inadequate or misleading, followed perhaps by more observations. Then there’s negative’s value/criterion, which may be the same or different from affirmative’s. Next negative argues against the resolution with two or three contentions, as did affirmative. When the negative is finished its contentions, negative then goes on to refute the affirmative case, point by point. In other words, now the argument begins. Negative has seven minutes altogether to present the negative side and refute the affirmative, and usually divides the time roughly half and half.

Imagine the following resolution:

“The EU countries should lower the voting age to 16″

Value premise: Responsibility. The negative debater could argue that 16-year-olds are not responsible enough to vote and that lowering the voting age could lead to negative consequences.	Value premise: Fairness. The negative debater could argue that the voting age should not be lowered to 16 because it would be unfair to other age groups who are not given the same privilege.
Value criterion: Maturity. The negative debater could use the value criterion of maturity to argue that 16-year-olds lack the maturity necessary to make informed decisions in the democratic process.	Value criterion: Equality. The negative debater could use the value criterion of equality to argue that all age groups should be treated equally in the democratic process.
Contentions: Lowering the voting age to 16 could lead to negative consequences due to the lack of responsibility of 16-year-olds.16-year-olds lack the maturity necessary to make informed decisions in the democratic process.Lowering the voting age to 16 could lead to uninformed voting and a decrease in the quality of vote choice.	Contentions: Lowering the voting age to 16 would be unfair to other age groups who are not given the same privilege. Lowering the voting age to 16 would not promote equality in the democratic process. Lowering the voting age to 16 could lead to uninformed voting and a decrease in the quality of vote choice.

Imagine the following resolution:

“The government should prioritize renewable energy sources over fossil fuels«

Value premise: Environmental Protection. The negative debater could argue that the environment is the most important value in the context of the resolution.	Value premise: Economic Feasibility. The negative debater could argue that the most important value in the context of the resolution is economic feasibility.
Value criterion: Practicality. The negative debater could use the value criterion of practicality to argue that prioritizing renewable energy sources over fossil fuels is not practical or economically feasible.	Value criterion: Cost-effectiveness. The negative debater could use the value criterion of cost-effectiveness to argue that prioritizing renewable energy sources over fossil fuels is not cost-effective.
Contentions: Renewable energy sources are not yet advanced enough to replace fossil fuels on a large scale.Prioritizing renewable energy sources over fossil fuels could lead to higher energy costs for consumers.Fossil fuels are still necessary for certain industries and applications. The negative debater could argue that prioritizing renewable energy sources over fossil fuels is not practical or economically feasible due to the limitations of renewable energy technology, the potential for higher energy costs, and the continued need for fossil fuels in certain industries and applications. The negative debater could use persuasive language and evidence to support their arguments and prepare for the next speech in the debate.	Contentions: Prioritizing renewable energy sources over fossil fuels could lead to higher energy costs for consumers.Renewable energy sources are not yet advanced enough to replace fossil fuels on a large scale.Fossil fuels are still necessary for certain industries and applications. The negative debater could argue that prioritizing renewable energy sources over fossil fuels is not cost-effective due to the potential for higher energy costs, the limitations of renewable energy technology, and the continued need for fossil fuels in certain industries and applications. The negative debater could use persuasive language and evidence to support their arguments and prepare for the next speech in the debate.

Breakdown of the typical structure of the NC

Here is a breakdown of the typical structure and content of a negative constructive (NC) speech in the LD debate format: Structure:

1. Introduction: Use the introduction to grab the audience’s attention and introduce the topic.
2. Restate the value premise: Restate the value premise that the affirmative debater presented in their affirmative constructive (AC) speech.
3. Present the value criterion: Present the value criterion that you will be using to judge the value premise.
4. Contention 1: Present your first contention, which is an argument that challenges the value premise.
5. Contention 2: Present your second contention, which is another argument that challenges the value premise.
6. Contention 3: Present your third contention, which is another argument that challenges the value premise.
7. Conclusion: Summarize your arguments and restate your value premise and value criterion.

Difference between the AC and the NC

The main difference between the affirmative constructive (AC) and the negative constructive (NC) in the LD debate format is the position that each debater takes on the resolution. Here is a breakdown of the differences:

1. Position: The affirmative debater takes the position that the resolution is true, while the negative debater takes the position that the resolution is false.
2. Value premise: The AC speech presents a value premise, which is a statement about what is important or valuable in the context of the resolution. The NC speech restates the value premise and challenges it.
3. Value criterion: The AC speech presents a value criterion, which is a standard or principle that is used to evaluate the value premise. The NC speech presents a value criterion that is used to judge the value premise.
4. Contentions: The AC speech presents contentions, which are arguments that support the value premise. The NC speech presents contentions that challenge the value premise.
5. Persuasive language: Both the AC and NC speeches use persuasive language to make their arguments more compelling. However, the AC speech uses persuasive language to support the value premise, while the NC speech uses persuasive language to challenge it.

• Cross-examination by the affirmative (CX)

At the conclusion of the NC, the affirmative debater will grill the negative, just like affirmative was grilled by negative before. Same no-rules apply.

Cross-examination (CX) is a period of time between speeches where opponents ask each other questions to clarify and better understand each other’s case

. Here are some do’s and don’ts of questioning during CX:

Do’s:	Don’ts:
Ask open-ended questions that require a detailed response.	Ask leading questions that suggest a particular answer.
Use evidence to support your questions.	Use CX to make arguments or present new evidence
Ask follow-up questions to clarify your opponent’s position	Interrupt your opponent or be disrespectful.
Use CX to set up your own arguments for the next speech.	Waste time with irrelevant or unimportant questions.

CX is an important part of the LD debate format that allows debaters to clarify their arguments and evidence. By following the do’s and don’ts of questioning, debaters can use CX effectively to set up their own arguments and challenge their opponent’s arguments.

• Rebuttal Speeches

The purpose of the rebuttal speeches in the Lincoln-Douglas debate format is to answer the arguments of the opponent and build upon the materials from the constructive speeches. The rebuttal speeches are an opportunity for debaters to address each of the opponent’s contentions and explain why they are flawed or incorrect. The debaters use evidence to support their rebuttal and persuasive language to make their arguments more compelling. The rebuttal speeches are an important part of the Lincoln-Douglas debate format because they allow debaters to respond to their opponent’s arguments and strengthen their own arguments. By addressing each of the opponent’s contentions and explaining why they are flawed or incorrect, debaters can persuade the judge that their position is correct. The rebuttal speeches require debaters to think critically and respond quickly to their opponent’s arguments, making them a challenging and exciting part of the debate.

E.1. First affirmative rebuttal (1AR)

The purpose of the 1AR is to respond to the arguments presented by the negative debater in the First Negative Constructive (1NC) speech and to strengthen the affirmative debater’s own arguments. The 1AR speech is given by the affirmative debater and is considered the hardest speech in the debate because it has to cover the long 1NC speech. Here are some ways in which the 1AR speech serves its purpose:

• The 1AR speech allows the affirmative debater to respond to the negative debater’s arguments and to address any weaknesses in their own arguments. The affirmative debater can use the 1AR speech to refute the negative debater’s arguments and to present new evidence that supports their position.
• The 1AR speech is an opportunity for the affirmative debater to build upon the materials from the Affirmative Constructive (AC) speech. The affirmative debater can use the 1AR speech to strengthen their own arguments and to present new evidence that supports their position.
• The 1AR speech requires the affirmative debater to think critically and respond quickly to the negative debater’s arguments. The affirmative debater must be able to identify the weaknesses in the negative debater’s arguments and to present persuasive rebuttals.

For example,

• If the negative debater argued that fossil fuels are still necessary for certain industries and applications, the affirmative debater could use the rebuttal speech to present evidence that renewable energy sources can be used in these industries and applications.
• If the negative debater argued that prioritizing renewable energy sources over fossil fuels could lead to higher energy costs for consumers, the affirmative debater could use the 1AR speech to present evidence that renewable energy sources are becoming more cost-effective and that they will ultimately lead to lower energy costs.
• If the negative debater argued that renewable energy sources are not yet advanced enough to replace fossil fuels on a large scale, the affirmative debater could use the rebuttal speech to present evidence that renewable energy technology is advancing rapidly and that it is already being used on a large scale in some countries.

Breakdown of the typical structure and content of the 1AR speech:

1. Introduction: The introduction is used to grab the audience’s attention and introduce the topic.
2. Restate the value premise: Restate the value premise that presented in the AC speech.
3. Rebuttal: The rebuttal is a response to the negative debater’s contentions. The debater should address each of the negative debater’s contentions and explain why they are flawed or incorrect. Evidence must be used to support the rebuttal and persuasive language to make arguments more compelling.
4. Rebuild: The rebuild is an opportunity to strengthen the arguments presented in the AC and present new evidence. The rebuild must be used to address any weaknesses in the AC speech and to present new evidence that supports the position.
5. Conclusion: The conclusion should summarize the rebuttal and rebuild and restate the value premise. Persuasive language is recommended to make the conclusion more memorable.

E.2. Negative rebuttal (NR)

The NR speech is an opportunity for the negative debater to respond to the affirmative debater’s arguments and to strengthen their own arguments. The 1NR speech typically includes a rebuttal of the affirmative debater’s arguments and a rebuild of the negative debater’s own arguments. The negative debater should address each of the affirmative debater’s contentions and explain why they are flawed or incorrect. The negative debater should also present new evidence that supports their position and strengthens their own arguments.

Here are some tips and steps to follow to prepare a good NR speech:

1. Introduction: The introduction must be used to grab the audience’s attention and introduce the topic. Restate the value premise that the affirmative debater presented in their AC speech.
2. Rebuttal: The rebuttal is a response to the affirmative debater’s contentions. Address each of the affirmative debater’s contentions and explain why they are flawed or incorrect. Use evidence to support the rebuttal and persuasive language to make arguments more compelling.
3. Rebuild: The rebuild is an opportunity to strengthen the arguments presented in the NC and present new evidence. The rebuild must be used to address any weaknesses in the NC speech and to present new evidence that supports the position.
4. Conclusion: The conclusion should summarize the rebuttal and rebuild and restate the value premise. The use of persuasive language is recommended to make conclusion more memorable.

E3. The second affirmative rebuttal (2AR)

To make up for the apparent time imbalance, affirmative gets the last word in the 2AR. This is only three minutes, and affirmative is not allowed to bring up any new arguments (it wouldn’t be fair, since negative can’t respond to them). Affirmative usually uses the time to summarize the round, crystallizing the key voting points and, of course, urging an affirmative ballot.

Here are some tips and steps to follow to prepare a good 2AR speech:

1. Introduction: the introduction must be used to grab the audience’s attention and introduce the topic. Restate the value premise that you presented in the Affirmative Constructive (AC) speech.
2. Summary: The summary is a brief overview of the affirmative debater’s arguments. Summarize the main points of the AC speech and the 1AR speech.
3. Refutation: The refutation is a response to any remaining arguments made by the negative debater. Each of the negative debater’s contentions must be addressed and the reasons why they are flawed or incorrect. Evidence must be used to support the refutation and persuasive language to make arguments more compelling.
4. Conclusion: The conclusion should summarize the summary and refutation and restate the value premise. Persuasive language must be used to make conclusion more memorable.