Learning to Debate

            Understanding the basics is fundamental in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. Novice debaters may find it excruciatingly hard to write a detailed case at first, so now that you know the basics of the terminology, here is how your case should be structured to prevent easy losses in round.

            Under your value, you want to be extra sure to have a link to the resolution. In many cases, it is not needed, but I cannot say how many times I have seen good cases lose because of the 'no link to the resolution' argument. If you have ever debated in Cross-Examination aka Policy Debate, this would be known as your Topicality argument. Your link to the resolution needs to prove why your position is either helped or harmed through each side of the debate. So you need to show why your value is something that cannot be experienced if your opponent wins, and how your side of the debate gives you something inherently more valuable. That is the basics of the Value. However, you also want to have a "Spike" in your value. The Spike is essentially an underlying argument that is hiding, sort of like a land mine. Its a secret attack to be activated in the round, its a ready made response. Its easy to place, as well. For example, your value is Economic Stability, it is valuable because it brings higher incomes, standards of living, and prosperity to a nation. You would want to make the spike that Economic Stability also leads to a better Quality of Life, increases National Security, or brings Economic Growth. This way, if your opponent happens to come along with such a value, you have already explained in your case that by achieving your value, you can gain access to many other acceptable values in the debate. You will then be able to show how your case can solve for their 'harms' and it can bring about the same advantages.

             Your criterion needs to be a little more precise, however. While it is theory debate, the best explanation of "Theory" I have heard off hand is one from a freshman debater I helped train. He said it like this: "Theory is tested and proven, it is logic that has a background of experimentation." That is exactly true, which means that while we try to keep Classical LD Debate away from Policy Debate, the use of evidence is almost always needed, unless such a debater is inclined to write an entire case based on his own theory, which could be very hard. Your criterion ought to be a theory of its own, such as Robert Nozicks Theory of Minimal State, or Immanuel Kant's Theory of the Categorical Imperative. Whilst I urge against using it as a source to cite from, Wikipedia is most certainly going to be your best friend.