The following is from the NFL:
Lincoln-Douglas debate, one-on-one debate of value resolutions, is excellent training for developing skills in argumentation, persuasion, research, and audience analysis. In this contest students are encouraged to develop a direct and communicative style of delivery. The debater's goal is to orally persuade the judge to accept or reject an interpretation of the resolution on the basis of analytical, argumentative, and presentational criteria.
The plan presented by the affirmative must be within the parameters set by the terms of the resolution. However, the plan does not need to deal with all the possible problem areas suggested by the resolution.
The official decision-making paradigm of NFA LD is that of Stock Issues: Harm (Advantage or Goals), Inherency, and Solvency. The affirmative is required to meet three initial burdens. The affirmative must prove the following:
- the harm of the present system or that a comparative advantage or goal can be achieved over the present system;
- the inherency which prevents solving those harms or achieving those advantages or goals; and,
- the proposed plan’s ability to solve the harm or achieve the advantage or goal claimed by affirmative.
The negative may attack any of these issues, but need only win one to win the debate. The negative may also challenge the jurisdiction (topicality) of the affirmative proposal or argue that disadvantages to the proposal outweigh its benefits.
The plan need not be detailed, but should be sufficient to prove a propensity to solve the problem area. The affirmative need only prove that the resolution should be adopted. Solvency is to be a function of the plan’s ability to work after the adoption of the policy by the agent/agents of change.
The negative may present one counterproposal specific to the affirmative problem area: it must deal with the problem area defined by the affirmative, and not the form of government, economic system, or need for further study (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS A KEY ISSUE IN THE RESOLUTION). Counterproposals should be used to demonstrate that a reasonable alternative plan would be better policy than either the status quo or the affirmative plan. Counterproposals should be logically consistent with all other negative arguments constructed during the debate. If inconsistencies arise and the affirmative points them out, the judge should reject the arguments inconsistent with the counterproposal. Counterproposals must be non-topical and are subject to the same burdens of solvency as are required for affirmative plans.
Rebuttals are to be used to respond to the opposition’s lines of argument and to extend arguments made in constructive speeches. No new lines of argument may be presented in rebuttals. By new lines of argument, we mean those which are not clarifications or responses made to arguments made in constructive, but those which are completely new and unrelated to previous argumentation. New evidence to extend or clarify constructive arguments is permitted in rebuttal.
EVIDENCE IN DEBATE
Students should only use evidence that is accurate and thoroughly referenced in their speeches. (ALL EVIDENCE MUST BE FROM A PUBLISHED SOURCE, AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC, AND VERIFIABLE.)
Debaters should use evidence that is accurately and directly quoted from reliable sources. The evidence should be quoted with proper respect to the context of the original source. The first time a source is presented, the debater must state the full source when introducing the evidence. A “full source” is assumed to include author’s name, author’s qualifications (when apparent in the original), full date, and title of source. Page numbers need not be read during the debate, but should be available upon request. Once a source has been cited, evidence subsequently cited from the source need only include the author’s and/or publication’s name as well as a phrase along the lines of “previously cited.” Both speakers in a debate are required to make available to their opponent copies of any evidence used in the round, including the affirmative constructive speech. The evidence must be returned to the speaker at the end of the debate.
Previous National Resolutions:
2013-2014: Be it Resolved: The USFG should substantially reform elementary and/or secondary education in the U.S.
2012-2013: Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially increase assistance for organic and/or sustainable agriculture in the United States.
2011-2012: Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially change its trade policy and/or practices with the People’s Republic of China.
2010-2011: Be it resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially reform the provision of mental health services to the chronically mentally ill.
2009-2010: Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should substantially reform domestic transportation infrastructure.
2008-2009: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its constructive engagement with Cuba.
2007-2008: Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should substantially increase assistance to the Greater Horn of Africa in one of the following areas: economic development, human rights protection, or public health.
2006-2007: Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should adopt a policy to significantly increase the production of energy from renewable sources.
2005-2006: Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should adopt a policy to increase the protection of human rights in one or more of the following nations: Tibet, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Nepal, Myanmar, Thailand, East Timor, Indonesia, Philipines, and/or Pakistan.
2004-2005: Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should significantly reform the criminal justice system.
2003-2004: Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should substantially increase environmental regulations on industrial pollution.
2002-2003: Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should significantly increase assistance to United States residents living below the poverty line.
2001-2002: Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly alter its policy for combating international terrorism.
2000-2001: Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly increase restrictions on civil lawsuits.
1999-2000: Resolved: that the United States federal government should increase restrictions on the development, use, and/or sale of genetically modified organisms.
1998-1999: Resolved: that the US Federal Government should significantly increase its regulation of electronically mediated communication.
1997-1998: Resolved: that the United States federal government should significantly change its foreign policy toward Taiwan.
1996-1997: Resolved: that the U.S. Department of Education should require the implementation of more rigorous methods of teacher and/or student performance evaluation in secondary school systems.
1995-1996: Resolved: That participation in one or more of the six principal bodies of the United Nations should be significantly restricted by altering the U.N. charter and/or rules of procedure.
1994-1995: Resolved: That the FG should significantly reform the US public welfare system
1993-1994: Resolved: That the USFG should significantly alter laws for immigration into the US.
1992-1993: Resolved: That the terms of federal legislators should be limited to a specific duration.
The debate itself is a series of speeches on both sides. In order they are:
1) The affirmative constructive (AC -- 6 minutes). First up is the affirmative side, for a six minute speech. Often the aff will begin with a quotation or summary statement, then perhaps some definitions of key terms in the resolution, and per- haps an observation or two setting some boundaries to the discussion. The aff will then usually declare the value that he or she is going to defend, and perhaps a criterion through which to measure that value (we’ll explain that later). Then the aff will then go into its contentions, which are the meat of the argument: these are usually two or three areas of analysis explaining the affirmative position detail.
2) Cross-examination by negative (CX -- 3 minutes). At the conclusion of the AC, the negative debater will directly question the affirmative for three minutes. There are no boundaries on CX, short of abusing your opponent; any question can and will be asked. In CX, the best debaters both chisel away at the flaws in their opponent's case and set the framework for their own case.
3) The negative constructive (NC -- 7 minutes). Next up (after a couple of minutes preparation time) is the neg to make the opposing argument. Again, we'll probably start with a quote or summary statement, then perhaps new definitions if for some reason neg feels that the aff's definitions are inadequate or mislead- ing, followed perhaps by more observations. Then there's neg's value, which may be the same or different from aff's. Next neg argues, as did aff, with two or three contentions, this time against the resolution (contentions, by the way, are also sometimes referred to as lines of analysis). When the neg is finished its conten- tions, neg then goes on to refute the aff case, point by point. In other words, now the debating begins as neg attacks aff’s contentions.
4) Cross-examination by the affirmative (CX -- 3 minutes). At the conclusion of the NC, the aff debater will grill the negative, just like aff was grilled by nega- tive before. Same no-rules apply.
5) First affirmative rebuttal (1AR -- 6 minutes). From now on, it's all argument. Both sides have made their cases. Now they defend their side and attack their opponent's. The first affirmative rebuttal is a four-minute speech by aff, and it's not much time to cover everything, but covering everything is the order of the day. Usually aff begins by going point by point refuting the neg case, thenaff de- fends against the neg's previous refutations of the aff case. It can get hectic, but it's one of the high points of the debate.
6) Negative rebuttal (NR -- 6 minutes). Neg is up again, to defend the neg case and once again refute the aff. But neg has six minutes, plenty of time to go into deep analysis of the issues. Usually neg will attempt to sum up or "crystallize" the round at the conclusion of the NR, urging you to deliver a negative ballot.
7) The second affirmative rebuttal (2AR --3 minutes). To make up for the ap- parent time imbalance, aff gets the last word in the 2AR. Aff usually uses the time to summarize the round, crystallizing the key voting points and, of course, urging an affirmative ballot.
--Note that both sides do have an allotment of preparation time, usually a total of four minutes, which they will usually use prior to making their rebuttal speeches (although once in a blue moon a kid uses prep before a cx).
A.Case and Analysis
1.Defining the Values: Did the arguments presented focus on the values implicit in the resolution?
2. Establishing Criteria for Evaluating the Resolution: On what basis (universal, moral, social, political,historical, legal, etc.) is one value proven by the debater to be more important than another?
3. Weighing Importance: Are the values advocated in support of the resolution more important than the values diminished by the resolution, or are alternative values supported by the negative enhanced by theresolution?
4. Application of Values and Criteria: Did the debaters apply their cases by filtering appropriate argumentsthrough the value and criteria?
B. Argumentation
1. Proof:
Did the evidence orally presented pragmatically justify the affirmative or negative stance? Did the reasoning orally presented philosophically justify the affirmative or negative stance?
2.Organization: Are the ideas presented clearly, in a logical sequence, and with appropriate emphasis?
3.Extension, Clash, and Rebuttal:
Did the debaters fulfill their obligation to extend their own arguments? Did they appropriately refute the contentions of their opponents by exposing weaknesses or inconsistencies?
C. Presentation
1.Expression: Were language, tone, and emphasis appropriate to persuasive communication?
2. Delivery: Were gestures, movement, and eye contact audience oriented and natural components ofpersuasive communication?
3.Rate: Was rate of delivery conducive to audience understanding?
Affirmative Cross-examination by Negative Negative Cross-examination by Affirmative Affirmative Rebuttal Negative Rebuttal Affirmative Rebuttal
6 minutes 3 minutes 7 minutes 3 minutes 4 minutes 6 minutes 3 minutes
III. Selecting the Winner: Putting aside personal biases and based on the analysis, argumentation, and oral presentation of the debaters, which debater was the most persuasive?
An opponent may ask you to present your evidence. Be prepared. Do not just have a list of numbers/statistics
- Never roll your eyes, sneer, sigh, or make any indication that you disagree or are frustrated. You WILL lose points if not the case.
Be certain the evidence is from qualified sources! Just because something is on the internet or uses statistics does not mean it is a valid study. A good debater will know why the study was performed as well as evidence used/found and blind information
Learn to take notes quickly but fully. Your questions and possible win will come from questioning items that you must discover