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.

LD Essentials

The Fundamentals

Values

            First, you need to understand the concept of a Value. The Value is just that – Something you deem important for everyone. Our topic this semester will be Resolved: U.S. Foreign policy ought to be guided by American exceptionalism. American Exceptionalism is the theory that America has, in the scheme of things, a higher seat in the world community, due to our advanced technology, our military power, and our abundant resources. If you are arguing against this, you might value Equality. You would say all Nations deserve equal consideration in the world community, and that America holds no higher seat than any other. Why? Because it is a selfish point of view that perpetuates actions that can potentially harm weaker societies for the benefit of the United States.

           

Criteria/Criterion (Standard)

            The Criteria is the most unique part of any case. The criterion is your mechanism to achieving your value. Its your filter for arguments. When you are arguing in favor of your value, or against your opponents Value, you are either relating that argument to your Criteria, or your opponent’s criteria. For example, you are arguing your case. Your argument should be that what is happening is either good or bad because of the criterion you have, which is either maximizing or minimizing a process. You might say that your argument is right because it does what your criterion explains, or prevents what your criterion explains, and therefore it provides you with something desireable (Your value).

The Contention

            The word Contention literally means “Argument”. Contention is merely the most universal term for an argument in a case. They are also often referred to as claims. Your case, depending on whether you are Affirmative or Negative, should have multiple contentions. If you are a Negative, you have a shorter case, and generally want One long, meaty contention, possibly with a couple sub points, or two contentions. If you’re an affirmative, your case is much longer, by nearly twice the length. You want to have about 2-4 Contentions. Four is the recommended maximum, as you will have six minutes to read your case, but only four minutes to defend it, so you don’t want to make so many arguments you cannot defend them later on.

            Your Contentions are your reasons why your Criterion achieve your value, but they go into broader detail. You might include a citation from a professor, or a distinguished person such as a doctor, politician, philosopher (etc.) To back up your case with more credibility. You might also provide an example of when your argument took place in actual history, and what the effects of it were.

           

The Art of Argumentation

            Each argument ought to be formed the same way, structurally. You have a Claim, a Warrant, and an Impact.

Claim – Like you read above, a Claim is also your Contention, its what you are saying, your point.

Warrant – This is your reason why your claim, or argument, is true. Why should we accept your argument? The more claims you have for an argument, the better. 1-3 claims are generally the best. The more, the better, but don’t go in with 7, or 8, or 9…Pick your strongest ones, and leave the feeble ones behind. Why? Feeble warrants are easy ways to pick apart your argument. Everything you say is a gateway into a new argument. Think of it this way “Anything you say CAN and WILL be used against you” (If your opponent is smart enough)

Impact – What are the effects of your argument? Now that you have explained why we should accept it, explain why it is a significant argument.

            Put all three of these together, and you have an argument. Here is an example:

            Justice ought not be the preferred value in todays round because there is no static standard for what Justice is. Justice in morality, or Justice in the Rule of Law? Either way, it is inherently vague, and therefore cannot be weighed as a value.

           

            Example Two:

            John Doe is an Idiot ( (CLAIM) John Doe is an idiot because he gets bad grades in school. ( (WARRANT) John Doe will not graduate high school, and you ought not ask him for help or you will get bad grades too. ( (IMPACT)

            The Warrant and Impact are significant parts of not only your arguments for or against something, but should also be provided for your case contentions, values, criterions, and even observations.

Observations

            Observations are not really arguments, they are instead a perception of something that one debater believes ought to be recognized before the round begins. They may be refuted.

           

Extensions

            During your second speeches, you will have just listened to your opponents bash and argue your case, so this is when you come back and back your arguments and points back up. If your opponent skipped one of your main points, you will extend it. You may extend an unrefuted argument by bringing it back up, explain your opponent did not attack it, and state why that is significant in the round.

           

Voters

            These are reasons to Vote for you. This will be in your final speech, you will come forth for a short 3 or 4 minute speech and explain why, in this round, you should be the winner. You can bring up dropped arguments, parts of your case more significant than your opponents, etc…

Turns

            A Turn is a type of argument. Often times your opponent may be careless in writing their case, or you notice a flaw of their case where you can use their own argument against them. If you do find this kind of contradiction in their case, it can be the most powerful kind of argument.

Definitions

            Sort of like an observation, this is your way of clarifying the round with a perception you may have. You will use a definition to define the significant words of the resolution, which are just about all of them. It is important that you define the resolution, so that you can set the parameters in your favor.