Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Lincoln-Douglas Lecture Notes
These lecture notes are meant to aid you––the student––with the information that is taught in
class in print form. Having this at your hands helps the content of the lectures to sink-in, and
helps you refer back to the things your teacher taught for particular lessons.
That said, realize that this material is presented to you just as it is presented to your teacher. It
is not edited for the average read
Lincoln-Douglas Table of Contents
LESSON 1: INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................2
Intro to debate, crash course through logic, this year's resolution
LESSON 2: THE RESOLUTION & FLOWING ......................................................................................................7
Understanding what we are debating
LESSON 3: VALUES & CRITERIA.........................................................................................................................10
Understanding the heart of Lincoln-Douglas debate
LESSON 4: CASE CONSTRUCTION......................................................................................................................15
Writing an affirmative case and developing winning elements for the case
LESSON 5: APPLICATIONS & SUPPORT ............................................................................................................18
Building support for your arguments and cases.
LESSON 6: THE NEGATIVE & 4-POINT REFUTATION ...................................................................................22
Writing negative cases & learning about refutation
LESSON 7: CROSS-EXAMINATION......................................................................................................................25
Mastering the cross-examination techniques that get admissions
LESSON 8: REBUTTALS ..........................................................................................................................................29
Using the rebuttals to win arguments
LESSON 9: LOGICAL FALLACIES .......................................................................................................................32
Understanding common logical fallacies in debate
LESSON 10: BRIEFING ............................................................................................................................................36
Developing strategies for creating briefs against popular values
LESSON 11 & 12: SCRIMMAGE I & II ..................................................................................................................38
Students within the club run through two rounds from beginning to end
Assignments & answer keys available for download at
www.monumentpublishing.com/downloads
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 1
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Lesson 1: Introduction
Intro to debate, crash course through logic, this year's resolution
Red Book Curriculum is an introduction to Lincoln-Douglas value debate. Explain what
“Introduction to Lincoln-Douglas value debate” really means. If a whiteboard is available,
write these terms on it and discuss:
“Introduction” - This course is for beginners (though experienced debaters can definitely
pick up on a few things too, especially with the reading load and topical conversations).
“Lincoln-Douglas” - Modeled after the debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen
Douglas in 1858.
“Value” - Anything that you value (i.e., anything that you hold in high regard).
Value debate is different from “policy” debate, which deals more with domestic or foreign
laws. Consider the following statements:
Seat belts should be worn for safety. (value)
Tickets should be given to those not wearing seat belts. (policy)
Western culture should more highly value privacy. (value)
The U.S. should repeal the PATRIOT Act. (policy)
The U.S. has a moral obligation to assist other nations that are in need. (value)
The U.S. should spend $140 million in relief funds for Haiti. (policy)
“Debate” - The form of discourse where one side argues with its opposition.
Take some time to discuss the difference between value and policy debate. Explain that the
NCFCA and Stoa homeschool leagues offer both formats for home schoolers: LincolnDouglas (which is what this course is about) and Team-Policy (the policy format). Copy the
following on a whiteboard for discussion:
Team-Policy (TP)
Lincoln-Douglas (LD)
Teams of Two
Individual
Policy topics
Value topics
Asks “What should be done?”
Asks “Why should we believe
this?
Research work
Philosophical work
1.5-hour rounds
45-min. rounds
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 2
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Explain how the resources that are required for this class (Red Book and Travis Herche’s
Keys to Lincoln-Douglas Debate) will help set every debater up for success this year.
Emphasize that Red Book is much thicker than what meets the eye. Though the printed copy
is about 140 pages long, the digital resources that come with it are equally useful, making it
an unbeatable tool.
Registering Red Book at www.monumentpublishing.com/downloads (as explained in the
Publisher’s Note at the beginning of the book) will allow every student access to all this
material. Emphasize, too, that this is a revolutionary change for debaters. What they used to
pay more than $200 for, they only pay once and for less than half the price.
Keys to Lincoln-Douglas Debate is the textbook that can be used year by year. It involves
the theory of debate strategy, not much to do with the Stoa/NCFCA policy resolutions.
Students will be referring to Travis’ book to know “how” to debate, not so much “what” to
debate.
Lecture / Class Discussion
Logical Equations
Before being able to effectively persuade the powers that be to value certain ideas over
others, you need to be able to think logically. How to think must precede what to think.
Champion debaters will eventually come up with winning arguments for and against the
resolution, but it first takes deliberate study of logic and reason. You will now shift gears to
explain basic logic.
Logic is defined a number of different ways, though it is easy to view it as “mathematical
thinking.” As math brings order to the physical world, so logic brings order to our thoughts,
our beliefs and our behaviors.
A basic mathematical equation can be written out as:
1+2=3
We can substitute letters, as in algebra, and these letters can signify values other than
numerical values, such as:
a+b=c
Let's try plugging in some values:
black + white = gray
Simple enough, right? This mathematical equation becomes a logical equation when we
plug in statements of fact to lead to a conclusion. Consider this:
Christians are saved + Saved people go to heaven = Christians go to heaven
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 3
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Is this true? Most of your students would say yes. Is it valid? Validity and truth are different.
A true statement may not necessarily be valid, and vice versa. In this case, the equation is
both true (yes, Christians go to heaven) as well as valid (all the variables in the equation do
not invalidate the logic).
How about this equation:
Christians are saved + Saved people go to heaven = Unsaved people do not go to heaven
Most Christians would agree that this is true, but the equation is not valid. “Unsaved” is a
new term in the equation. Though “saved” is in the premise of the equation, the conclusion
defines “unsaved,” a totally new – and opposite – variable. This is an example of a true/
invalid equation.
Here is an example of an untrue/valid statement:
Christians are saved + Saved people go to hell = Christians go to hell
This equation is absolutely valid, but of course it is not true. How can this be? It is because
of the minor premise of the equation, “Saved people go to hell.” Because this premise is
untrue, the conclusion is untrue, and the entire equation is false.
We have been using “equation” to define this logical reasoning, but a more accurate term is
“syllogism.” A syllogism is simply a model of reasoning where a conclusion is drawn from
two premises. You know the answer is 3 because you added 1 + 2. As debaters, the better
able we are to deconstruct an argument into a syllogism, the better able we are to identify
flaws in our opponents’ reasoning.
Re-read this year’s resolution. List the syllogisms in the insert for the students and ask if
they are logical. Plug in arguments or assumptions made about the year’s resolutions.
Together, figure out whether presumptions made concerning the topics are logical or not.
Debaters can disagree with whether they are true or not, but that is beside the point. The
syllogism is logical.
Today's Logic
Can you think of syllogisms in recent news items? Consider the following:
Major premise: The U.S. should start cutting its debt
Minor premise: Foreign aid adds to our nation’s debt
Conclusion: The U.S. should start cutting foreign aid
This is certainly a strong argument, though contentious. But add in facts about the actual
percentage of our nation’s budget that is spent on foreign aid and you put the whole
conversation in perspective.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 4
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
During your class, there will likely be many current articles online that have logical
syllogisms embedded. Dig up some current articles and discuss them in class. Your students
should get passionate about the issues of the day, but they should be more passionate about
being correct in their thinking for it leads to truthful (as opposed to foolish) conclusions.
What are some other issues in the news? Let discussion flow. Ask probing questions forcing
students to validate their claims. If, say, a student makes the claim based on a questionable
news source, ask, “How do you know that to be true?” Even if that student cannot give
credit to the statement, another student may. If a student cites a source, question the source’s
credibility. Get the students thinking about their claims.
Do not be critical of the students’ argumentation (quite yet). Do not shut down healthy
debate in a debate class! Still, move onto the reason for this dialogue: The Toulmin Model. 1
British philosopher Stephen Toulmin laid out the depths of the reasons we give:
Data
Warrant
Backing
Claim
Qualifications
Conditions of Rebuttal
Without going into great detail during class, identify a few of the students’ reasons as valid
or invalid because of some of these parts of reasoning. Don't get “down” on a student for
necessarily giving an invalid argument, but encourage him or her to validate the claim he or
she made.
This is a central element to successful debating: being able to dissect an argument down to
its minute details. A debater can totally cripple an opponent’s case if they show it to be
flawed from the beginning, just as a debater’s case can be made all the stronger if early on
any such flaws can be weeded out.
There are a number of “logical fallacies” that are so common in politics and culture that we
oftentimes do not even think about them. (Note: Logical fallacies will be addressed in a
later lesson.)
If time allows, go around the room and share the names of your favorite orators (e.g.,
Martin Luther King Jr., JFK, Churchill, Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, etc). Ask: What sets that
person apart for you? What characteristics make them a strong orator? What elements of
their speaking make them enjoyable to listen to?
Then, ask for whoever would like to participate to share the names of their favorite writers
or political thinkers. This could range from Hemingway to Martin Luther, Chaucer to Glenn
1
bit.ly/1af5MFH
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 5
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Beck. Not everyone might agree, but the point is to identify some examples as role-models
for good speaking and thinking skills. Realize that good speakers are good writers.
Communicate that writing will be an important element of this class, especially when the
students come to writing their own debate cases. It is not enough to merely think good
thoughts, one must be able to communicate them clearly. This is a huge part of debate.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 6
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Lesson 2: The Resolution & Flowing
Understanding what we are debating
Lecture: Flowing and the Resolution
Affirmative vs. Negative
After reviewing some of the material from last week, move into the different positions of
the debate round. In debate, there are two sides: the affirmative and negative. The
affirmative affirms the resolution and contends that the statement of the resolution is true.
The negative negates the resolution and refutes the affirmative, showing that the resolution
is false. While in Team-Policy debate the whole debate round centers on the affirmative
case, in Lincoln-Douglas, both the affirmative and negative debaters offer cases for/against
the resolution.
Flow of an LD round
“Flowing” in debate simply means writing down what is said. When you think of having a
“flow” of an LD round, you want to see the flow of arguments. We do this to see how
arguments progress throughout the round. Writing down your opponent’s arguments helps
you to know what you need to respond to, and writing down what you are going to say in
response to your opponent’s arguments helps you when you are at the lectern.
After today’s discussion and lecture, students should have a better understanding as to the
terms of the resolution and what the resolution is asking the debater to uphold/oppose. Copy
the following flowchart onto the white board. The five columns represent the five speeches
of the Lincoln-Douglas round. Have students copy it on their own legal pads or plain paper.
AC
NC/1NR
1AR
2NR
2AR
AC – Affirmative Constructive. This is the first speech of the round. The affirmative debater
will present a case showing why the resolution is justified/should be upheld. 6 minutes
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 7
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Although not on the flowsheet, the AC will be immediately followed by a time of CrossExamination (CX). The negative will question the affirmative on aspects of the AC, probing
for admissions. Negative may set up his/her own case through questions. 3 minutes
NC/1NR – Negative Constructive/First Negative Rebuttal. This is the first speech of the
negative. Its purpose is twofold: present a case negating the resolution (constructive) and
refute the case presented by the affirmative in the AC (rebuttal). 7 minutes
Again not on the flowsheet, the NC will be immediately followed by another CX (though
you should still take notes for the CXs). The affirmative will question the negative on
aspects of the NC, probing for admissions. Affirmative should bolster his/her own case
through questions. 3 minutes
1AR – First Affirmative Rebuttal. This is the first speech of the round dedicated solely to
rebuttal/refutation. With the exception of arguments against the negative case, no new
arguments may be presented, though new examples may be used to support original
arguments. The affirmative must refute the negative case and the arguments against his own
case. 4 minutes
2NR – Second Negative Rebuttal. This is the last speech of the round for the negative. No
new arguments may be presented, though new examples may be used to support original
arguments. Negative must address as many arguments as possible for his case and against
his opponent’s. May propose Voting Issues in this speech –– main issues the negative
believes he/she won that should result in him/her winning the round. 6 minutes
2AR – Second Affirmative Rebuttal. This is the last speech of the round for the affirmative.
No new arguments may be presented, though new examples may be used to support original
arguments. Affirmative must address as many arguments as possible for his case and against
his opponent’s. May propose Voting Issues in this speech –– main issues the affirmative
believes he/she won that should result in him/her winning the round. 3 minutes
Note: In addition to everything listed above, each debater will receive 3 minutes of total
prep time to use at any point before their respective speeches (e.g., the affirmative could use
prep time before the 1AR and/or 2AR, etc). There is one exception: Debaters are not
allowed to use prep time before CXs.
The best way to engage the class is to read up on the topic yourself and get ready. Here are
some preparatory ideas:
a) Red Book. Read through the homework readings, watching out for
supplemental readings referenced in the footnotes.
b) News articles. Print key articles that came up in the news this week relating to
the Red Book cases or the resolution itself. Highlight ahead of time some
paragraphs that could be read as support in a debate round––paragraphs that
either affirm or negate the case’s thesis.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 8
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
c) Visual aids. Use Google Images with the topic terms to print visuals of key
figures for your discussion. Images make discussions more memorable.
d) Class guest. Is there an expert in the topic that lives or works in your area?
This could include lawyers, college professors, journalists, policy wonks or
nonprofit directors, depending on the resolution. Experienced individuals are
usually very eager to come and speak on topics they know well, especially if
they are well received.
If time allows, go through a Red Book case together as a class. Students will review Red
Book cases throughout the semester. Encourage the debaters to read the Introduction and
understand how the Red Book is organized before diving into the cases. It will help make
things more understandable.
Point out that cases are approximately 2-3 pages long, to be read in 6 minutes if it is an
affirmative case or between 3-4 minutes if it is a negative case. Students should be able to
read to this proficiency. It is not uncommon to have students who are lacking in reading
skill. No worries; encourage these students as much as possible. Do explain, though, that the
activity of debate will require them to read well, and it will also teach them to read well.
Optional Activity: Read the first first case aloud. Keep a timer or stopwatch running. Have
students read along in their Red Book and underline words that (a) they are unfamiliar with,
or (b) they do not know how to pronounce. You may spend some time discussing the words.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 9
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Lesson 3: Values & Criteria
Understanding the heart of Lincoln-Douglas debate
Lecture: Values & Criteria
This lecture will discuss values and criteria, the two most vital components of LincolnDouglas debate. In this lesson, students will better understand the two types of values
(intrinsic and instrumental) as well as the three types of criteria (means, measuring, and
limiting). You will explain each, as well as field questions students may have. First, values.
Values
Draw the parallel between the exercise that you began this lesson with and the word “value”
in Lincoln-Douglas Value Debate. Values in Lincoln-Douglas debate are exactly what they
sound like: anything that you value. In LD, values serve as the justification for or against
the resolution. Before we jump into the specific values in this year’s resolution, examine
some of the differences in what people can and do value. Realize that there are different
types of values: family, friends, and associates, compared to food, shelter and clothing.
Maybe you value relationships or some friendships over others. Your personality –– are you
rational or emotional? It will depend on what you value, either emotions or reason.
As such, values can be both tangible and abstract. For example:
Steak is food for the stomach (tangible)
The Bible is food for the soul (abstract)
A car is a mode of transportation (abstract)
My car gets me to work (tangible)
Good friends are priceless (abstract)
Psychiatrists charge $__/hr (tangible)
Life, love, and pain are abstract concepts, though breathing, hugging and crying are tangible
ways of communicating them. As already mentioned, values in LD serve as the justification
for or against the resolution. That said, there are two specific functions of values: they can
be intrinsic (good in and of themselves) or instrumental (good because they get you
something). We will examine both more thoroughly.
Start by drawing a word picture on the white board (or ask for a volunteer to do it); this will
illustrate the function of the two different types of values. In one corner of the board, draw
an object. This could be a box, a circle, a line––anything. This object signifies a foreign
destination –– Hawaii, Canada, Russia, Africa, etc. (Be sure to pick a destination that most
are familiar with in terms of geography. As a Coloradan, I like to use Kansas as the
destination, as everyone knows it lies directly east of Colorado.) Now, in the opposite corner
of the white board, draw an object of transportation. This could be a car, an airplane, a train,
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 10
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
a boat, a scooter––anything that could be used as a way to transport you to your foreign
destination. Pick one that makes sense –– if you live in Colorado and are shooting for
Kansas, you can’t use a boat; if you are in Florida shooting for Cuba, you wouldn’t be able
to travel by train.
In two corners of the board, you have two different objects. In one you have your final
destination, in the other you have your mode of transportation. Here is where you draw the
parallel (so to speak) to the two different types of values. Your “final destination”
exemplifies an intrinsic value, something you want to get to because it is worthwhile. Your
“mode of transportation” exemplifies an instrumental value, something that gets you to the
intrinsic value. If I am in Colorado, maybe my final destination (or intrinsic value) is
Kansas, and my mode of transportation to get me there is a car (instrumental value). To
some extent, this shows the distinction between your means and ends.
Let us get into the details of the two most common value functions in LD:
Intrinsic
An intrinsic value is a value that is good “in and of itself.” It is good because it is good; a
value that has inherent worth. For example, life could be an intrinsic value. Most would
agree that life is inherently worth valuing. Kings and princes should not refrain from
murdering peasants just because the peasants can pay them taxes and further their wealth,
but because not murdering innocent peasants would be the right thing to do. Freedom––
action without restraint, the absence of slavery––is intrinsically good. Good is intrinsically
good, while evil is intrinsically bad. In the above application, the intrinsic value is your final
destination, your end goal.
Instrumental
An instrumental value, also referred to as a “pragmatic” value, is the means by which you
can achieve some type of ends. The ends are your final destination, while your instrumental
value is the way to get you there. Freedom could be viewed as an intrinsic value (the
absence of slavery is, of course, a great thing), but it could also be viewed as an
instrumental tool for a higher good (i.e., is freedom itself good, or do you value it because
of all the things that you can do while you are free?).
Lincoln-Douglas debate is often referred to as “value debate.” Values are necessary
components of LD, and understanding the function of values is critical to your success in
running them. Do the ends justify the means, or, to paraphrase Mark Twain, is success a
journey, not a destination? Instrumental values are often viewed as the means to get you to
an intrinsic value, as viewpoint is basic enough for beginning students to grasp. That said,
realize that the above characterization of “instrumental” and “intrinsic” values is relatively
basic. Further research will reveal and help distinguish between intrinsic, final,
instrumental, pragmatic, extrinsic, and other value types. A common strategy is to view
intrinsic values compared to extrinsic values, and instrumental values to final ends values.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 11
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
We won’t get into those here. (If you are interested in learning more about the unique
properties of different types of values, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy2 is a good
resource.)
Practice your understanding of the two types of values, intrinsic and instrumental. Write the
following words on the board and discuss the classification of each. Include your reasons as
to why you believe them to be intrinsic or instrumental, and note that some may have
elements of both:
Life
(either, though mainly intrinsic)
Property
(either, though mainly instrumental)
Justice
(intrinsic)
Accountability
(instrumental)
Freedom
(either)
Societal wellbeing
(either)
As mentioned, students can value anything that they believe supports or opposes the
resolution.
Criteria
After values, the next biggest part of Lincoln-Douglas debate is the criteria (plural of
“criterion”). Perhaps you have heard this term in other settings. Job applicants have to meet
a certain criteria; buildings have certain safety criteria; when rating a movie or album, you
have your own criteria.
Values function in relation to the resolution, while criteria function in relation to the value.
In Lincoln-Douglas debate, criteria function in a rather specific way. Just like values have
different functions, criteria have different functions.
2
stanford.io/14XevW5
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 12
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
There are three specific types of criteria in Lincoln-Douglas debate:
Means Criterion
A Means Criterion is simply a means to an end (i.e., a means to achieving your
value). Similar to how an instrumental value gets you to an even higher goal, a Means
Criterion gets you to your value. For example, “I use money to pay for gas.” Money is
the criterion that gets me gas, something I value for my car so that I can get to work.
Measuring-Stick Criterion
A Measuring-Stick Criterion is a way to measure your success in upholding a
particular value. “Was the movie a success? That depends. How many awards did it
receive?” Success was the end goal, and it is measured by the awards it receives.
Limiting Criterion
A Limiting Criterion limits the extent to which you will uphold a particular value.
Take all-you-can-eat buffets: “Billy, feel free to eat as much as you want, just stop
when you’re full.” You value being fed and the thriftiness of all-you-can-eat buffets,
but you limit the amount of food you will consume so that you do not get sick.
It is important to always remember that criteria function in relation to the value. In other
words, a criterion is used as a standard for a value. Imagine the value as your “goal” for
either affirming or negating the resolution; the criterion can function as either a means to
achieve your value, a way to measure your success in upholding your value, or a way to
limit to what extent you would like to uphold that particular value.
To understand each of these three functions of criteria, we will look at a particular value ––
freedom. Freedom is a great value. The absence of externally imposed restraints has fueled
wars and conflict since the beginning of time. People want to have freedom, and some are
intent on keeping that from happening. From Lincoln to Wilberforce, child armies in Africa
to sex-trafficking in Nepal, freedom continues to be sought worldwide. Now let us look at
this value through the eyes of three different criteria:
1. Freedom through the means of Life
Value: Freedom
Criterion: Life
Function: Means Criterion
In this context, our end goal (value) is Freedom, but in order to be free one must be alive.
Thus, the criterion of Life functions as the means to help us reach our value of Freedom. It
is the means to which we reach our ends.
2. Freedom as measured by the Bill of Rights
Value: Freedom
Criterion: Bill of Rights
Function: Measuring-Stick Criterion
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 13
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Here, our end goal or value is still Freedom, but we are saying that we are measuring our
success at upholding the value through the criterion of the Bill of Rights. So, we are
upholding freedom as measured or by the standard of the Bill of Rights, which carries clout
under rule of law since the Constitution is the law of the land.
3. Freedom as limited by Equality
Value: Freedom
Criterion: Equality
Function: Limiting Criterion
In this last example, Freedom is still our value, but we are limiting how far we will uphold it
through the criterion of Equality. Ask yourself this: Is complete freedom always a good
thing? With an emphasis on “complete,” the answer is no. Having Equality as our criterion
helps limit the value of Freedom so that we can still achieve Freedom, but equally.
Values and criteria are the “stock issues” of Lincoln-Douglas debate. Understanding the
unique functions of each is vital to a successful season. Voting for a value means voting for
that side of the debate and that side of the resolution. A strong value, coupled with a strong
criterion, is the difference between a win and a loss.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 14
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Lesson 4: Case Construction
Writing an affirmative case and developing winning elements for the case
Lecture: Elements of a Traditional Case
Students should be feeling comfortable with talking about the resolution. In fact, those
students who may have been dragging their feet through the study will start admitting, “You
know, this debate stuff is kinda fun.” Students will be talking about values, criteria,
applications and support and how certain case elements relate to the resolution. You, as
teacher and coach, should be very conscious of encouraging student conversation about
topic-related issues. Lively discussions that center around the resolution are always good.
You will be encouraged to note that now––a month into the curriculum––you are acting
more and more like a club. Discussion in January (when tournament season should be
vamping up) will be extremely rich. Your students right now should be showing the signs of
understanding the resolution and the rules of the game.
Take time to discuss the two cases from the previous assignment. As the teacher, read up
ahead of time on the two cases from the assignment. Discuss the elements of each case,
noting things that stood out. In each case, identify the position (affirmative/negative), value,
criterion, contentions and applications.
Draw a flowsheet on the board (refer to Lesson 2). Point out the AC. Today students will be
writing cases for this speech. While the cases students will write today will be slightly less
formal, understand and share with the class the logistics of the an Affirmative Constructive:
• first speech of the round
• 2-3 pages, typed, single-spaced
• 6 minutes
Creating a Case
After reading the two cases and getting an idea as to how a case looks, it is time to start
writing cases. Use the following outline:
Introduction. Start with an attention-getter (quote, historical example, etc.). Tie the
attention-getter to the topic at hand (what you will be discussing today). State the
resolution.
Definitions. Define key words in the resolution, stating the source for each definition.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 15
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Value. Offer a value that supports your side of the resolution. A common approach is
to say, “Today I will be valuing __________.” Discuss why it is your value and how
it ties to the resolution. Give a quote or example that supports the value.
Criterion. Think about your value. Remembering the three functions of a criterion,
ask yourself what kind of criterion you need for your value. Do you need to limit your
value, do you need a means to achieve your value, or do you need to provide a
measure of your success in upholding the value? Pick a function for your criterion,
then transition from your value to your criterion by saying, “In order to achieve/limit/
measure the success of upholding this value, I offer ___________ as my criterion.”
Discuss the criterion’s function in relation to your value. Give a quote or example that
supports the criterion.
Contention 1. Usually dedicated to establishing your value as the dominant, most
important value in the round. For example, with a value of Liberty, “Contention 1:
Liberty is paramount.”
Contention 2. Usually connects value to criterion. For example, with a value of
Liberty and criterion of Life, “Contention 2: Liberty is achieved when Life is
upheld.”
Contention 3. Usually used to tie value/criterion to resolution. For example,
“Contention 3: International aid helps protect Life, therefore advances Liberty.”
Conclusion. Brief paragraph summarizing your stance on the resolution, your value
and criterion, and your reasoning as to why you believe the justification is true/false
in light of your applications and support.
Note: “Contentions” are just arguments that show why a case/value/position is
justified. Some debaters may opt to refer to them as “Main Points” or “Arguments.”
As the teacher, a good approach is to facilitate writing it to have them write each section as
you go point-by-point teaching. For example, after describing the Introduction, give the
students a few minutes to write their own introductions. After Definitions, give them a few
minutes to put down their own definitions, etc.
Have the students pull out their completed assignments from previous weeks to help guide
their case construction. After students have used as much of their own research and
assignment material for their cases, have them page through Red Book, searching for
additional support.
This is a good time to practice public speaking. If time allows, have each student come to
the front of the room and read his or her affirmative case to the class. Be encouraging
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 16
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Whipping up a case like this may seem impossible, but it can be done. I have coached
students to write decent 4-5 minute cases in under an hour. Understand each of the parts of
the case so you are ready to encourage the students to push through to the end.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 17
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Lesson 5: Applications & Support
Building support for your arguments and cases.
Google Alerts
In Lincoln-Douglas, it is helpful to make sure you know of any headlines that deal with the
LD resolution. An easy way to do this, and have relevant headlines delivered right to your
inbox, is to register for Google News Alerts. This is a great tool for students to be notified
of current events that happen surrounding the topic for the year. Think about which key
terms you need to stay current with. If you think of specific applications or examples for
this year’s resolution, you can make alerts for those terms, too.
After thinking up key search terms about the topic, follow these steps:
a) Make sure you are logged into your Google account.
b) Go to www.google.com/alerts.
c) Type in search terms that are appropriate to the year’s topic.
d) Select your preferences on how you would like to receive email notifications.
With this set up, you will receive emails with the latest news on resolution-specific
situations around the world. While Lincoln-Douglas does not require students to have the
most recent headlines on the topic (which will be discussed later), it is always a good idea to
see how the topic is being played out in current events.
Start the class by discussing how you are seeing the resolution in practice in recent events.
Discuss the different point of views on the issues, and think of historical examples that
highlight the same issues.
Lecture: Applications & Support
You will often hear the word “Applications” in an LD round. Applications are merely
examples––current events, examples from history, etc.––that support and illustrate specific
arguments. Debaters use applications to show the impact of their arguments and the
consequences of their philosophies, applied to the real world.
Applications fall under a bigger category called Support. Go to any Team-Policy class or
debate round, and you will likely hear a particular buzzword: evidence evidence evidence.
For policy debate, evidence is crucial. Debaters are asked to propose or negate specific
policies, and having technical evidence from PhDs, congressmen, economists, and policy
wonks is crucial. But that is Team-Policy.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 18
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
In Lincoln-Douglas debate, “evidence” is more generic. In LD, instead of evidence, debaters
are required to offered support. Support in LD can come in a variety of ways. Write each of
the following terms on the white board and discuss them, asking the debaters to throw-out a
specific illustration for each:
Philosophy. From Plato and Aristotle to Hume, Hobbes and Locke, philosophy plays
an important role in Lincoln-Douglas debate. Since the resolutions deal with issues
that have been around for centuries, it is never a bad idea to quote the ideas of those
from previous years, especially if their philosophies are still relevant to present-day
issues. For example, if you are discussing a privacy resolution, a lot of the
philosophies guiding issues of privacy occur toward the turn of the 20th century,
though earlier roots going back to Aristotle point out the distinction between political
activity in the public sphere and familial/relational dynamics in the private realm. If
discussing nations in need, it is important to point out the economic structure of
developed, developing, and third-world nations. Economic philosophies from
Friedrich Hayek, John Maynard Keynes and Frédéric Bastiat would be worth
researching. Heard of Capitalism? Socialism? Both are examples of specific
philosophies. To illustrate difficult concepts such as Natural Law and freedom of the
individual within a society, it would be helpful to reference a philosophy, if nothing
else to bring in another perspective.
Logic. Briefly discussed for the first week’s lecture, logic plays an important role in
academic debate. Debaters should be logical, both in their argumentation and
presentation, though they can use logic itself to support their arguments or dissuade
the judge from believing their opponent’s arguments. Setting up the major and minor
premises in a clear manner can often lead to a persuasive conclusion that supports
their claims. For example, look at the following claim and the logic that is used to
support that claim:
Claim: Justice, my opponent’s value, should not be valued (though mine should).
1. Justice is incapable of being completely upheld
2. Failure is defined as being incapable of doing something, a lack of success
3. Trying to uphold justice leads to failure
4. Humans Rights, my value, is capable of being upheld successfully
Analogies. Comparing two different ideas and drawing a word picture can often be a
powerful way of communicating your message. As a violin teacher who has had to
teach students as young as 4 and 5 years old, analogies are useful for conveying your
point. In debate, analogies can be equally powerful. Since the resolution requires
students to study and argue difficult topics, having the ability to offer an analogy to
explain those topics is key. I remember my first year in LD, using the analogy of a
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 19
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
house to describe democracy in America. The house, with rooms such as the Freedom
of Press and the right to vote, rested on a bedrock of morality –– brought to the table
by our Founding Fathers. Morality was my value, and I demonstrated how the system
of democracy (the house) is valued more than its foundation (morals). This painted a
clear picture for judges, making it a successful case.
Hypothetical situations. These are great to support your arguments as they, done
correctly, bring the topic and difficult issues to your judge in a personal,
understandable manner. Instead of ranting off unemployment numbers and statistics
concerning our trade deficit with China, a student can offer the judge a hypothetical
situation:
“Judge, imagine you’re in Walmart. Look around. Pick up a toy. Find the sticker on
the bottom. Where was the toy made? Likely in China. Pick up another product. And
another. Still seeing the China sticker? That is because __% of the products we use on
a daily basis are imported from China. This is how it harms our economic security...”
Or: “Judge, if you’re one of the 800 million active users on Facebook, chances are
that you’ve posted a status update or two. Maybe you’ve posted about why you
dislike a certain type of laundry detergent or grocery store, or how the service at a
particular fast-food restaurant wasn’t up to par. Then immediately you refresh the
page and find an ad or two on Facebook for that product or similar store. What you
post online is far from private. Today your ‘friends’ include thousands of companies.”
Creating a hypothetical situation can help support your argument in an informal yet
genuinely valid way. Speaking in terms of logic, hypotheticals say “if A, then B.” If
you go to Walmart, chances are you will find goods made in China. If you go to
McDonald’s, you will find a $1 menu. If you commit murder you will go to jail.
Quotes. Maybe one of the single greatest tools for forming an all-inclusive perception
of a particular topic, quotes are incredibly helpful in supporting your arguments.
Instead of merely talking about the price of Liberty, quote Patrick Henry. Do not just
talk about victims of identity fraud, quote victims of identity fraud. What was Chief
Justice Roberts thinking in the Obamacare ruling? We can only know if we quote
him. What are some of the main principles discussed in Frédéric Bastiat’s The Law?
Read and quote them.
Since many of the terms in LD resolutions are ideas based on general principles that
have been around for centuries, chances are someone already knows about them and
has something solid to say. If nothing else, quotes help students to get a better
understanding on the difficult topics in order to form educated opinions and
arguments. As Spanish philosopher George Santayana said, “Those who cannot
remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” In LD, students can quote anyone;
from Founding Fathers, JFK and Reagan, to Wilberforce, Churchill, Voltaire, Plato
and van Goethe. No person if off limits if the quote is relevant to the arguments and
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 20
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
topic at hand. If you are discussing technical topics, quoting someone specialized in
the field is a must, though a simple maxim can work wonders too.
Personal stories. Resolutions are often very topical, so students should have a
treasure trove of personal stories that directly relate, whether they know it yet or not.
Never underestimate the power of a personal story. Perhaps a family member or
someone you know has been personally impacted by what you are discussing. What
was it like? Why did it happen? What emotions were they feeling? Have others
expressed similar stories? What makes it unique? What makes it powerful? Whatever
the example, a short, relevant personal story can support your arguments and help you
connect with your judge.
Current events. While Lincoln-Douglas debate does not rely as heavily on current
events as Team-Policy, tying current events into the topic at hand is a great way to
keep the issues fresh and to support your arguments with real-world applications. As
mentioned earlier, subscribing to Google Alerts helps find specific current events that
affirm or negate the topic and particular arguments. That said, read the news every
day. Develop a healthy media diet. Know what is going on locally, regionally,
nationally and internationally, and how the same topic can bring up different issues
around the world.
If you have not already, go through the above terms again, having the students think of
specific examples that could be relevant to this year’s resolution.
Debaters who rely on their own ideas as support in argumentation often fail at convincing a
judge to their side. Why? Because middle- and high-school debaters are not the most
developed sources for ideas. Debaters who back up their thoughts with philosophy, logic,
analogies, hypothetical situations, quotes, personal stories and current events bring validity
to their claims. It is proven: Support makes your ideas stronger. Hugs and high fives aside,
just as support groups exist to prop-up individuals, support in LD serves to prop-up your
arguments.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 21
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Lesson 6: The Negative & 4-Point Refutation
Writing negative cases & learning about refutation
Lecture: The Negative Constructive & 4-Pt Refutation
This is the first speech of the negative. Last week students wrote affirmative cases, to be
delivered in the Affirmative Constructive (AC). Now it is time to write the Negative
Constructive (NC). Remember from “Lesson 2: Flowing” that the entire NC is 7 minutes
long. Before getting into the writing, start by explaining the responsibilities of the negative
in the first negative speech:
1. Present your own negative case
3-4 min.
2. Refute the affirmative case (AC) 3-4 min.
Let us go through both separately...
Presenting your own case
While the cases students will write today will be slightly less formal, understand and share
with the class logistics of the a Negative Constructive case:
• second speech of the round
• 1.5-2 pages, typed, single-spaced
• 3-4 minutes
After reading the two cases and getting an idea as to how a negative case looks, it is time to
start writing negative cases. Use the following outline:
Introduction. Start with an attention-getter (quote, historical example, etc.). Tie the
attention-getter to the topic at hand (what you will be discussing today). State the
resolution and why you stand opposed to it.
Definitions. Define key words in the resolution, stating the source for each definition.
This is only needed if a) the AC did not define key terms in the resolution or b) you
would like to add/clarify the terms with your own definitions.
Value. Offer a value that supports your side of the resolution. A common approach is
to say, “Today I will be valuing __________.” Discuss why it is your value and how
it ties to the resolution. Show why your value is a justification for voting against the
resolution. Give a quote or example that supports the value.
Criterion. Think about your value. Remembering the three functions of a criterion,
ask yourself what kind of criterion you need for your value. Do you need to limit your
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 22
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
value, do you need a means to achieve your value, or do you need to provide a
measure of your success in upholding the value? Pick a function for your criterion,
then transition from your value to your criterion by saying, “In order to achieve/limit/
measure the success of upholding this value, I offer ___________ as my criterion.”
Discuss the criterion’s function in relation to your value. Give a quote or example that
supports the criterion.
Contention 1. Usually dedicated to establishing your value as the dominant, most
important value in the round. For example, with a value of Liberty, “Contention 1:
Liberty is paramount.”
Contention 2. Usually connects value to criterion. For example, with a value of
Liberty and criterion of Life, “Contention 2: Liberty is achieved when Life is
upheld.”
Contention 3. Usually used to tie value/criterion to resolution. For example,
“Contention 3: International intervention harms Life, therefore denies Liberty.”
Conclusion. Brief paragraph summarizing your stance on the resolution, your value
and criterion, and your reasoning as to why you believe the justification is true/false
in light of your applications and support.
Note: “Contentions” are just arguments that show why a case/value/position is
justified. Some debaters may opt to refer to them as “Main Points” or “Arguments.”
Again, facilitate writing by having them write each section as you go point-by-point
teaching. After describing the Introduction, give the students a few minutes to write their
own introductions. After Definitions, give them a few minutes to put down their own
definitions, etc.
Have the students pull out their completed assignments from previous weeks to get support
for their cases. If you think ahead, you can come up with a few of your own that you can be
willing to share. After students have used as much of their own research and assignment
material for their cases, have them page through Red Book, searching for additional support.
Refuting the affirmative case
Remember that this is the second component of the Negative Constructive. After presenting
his/her own case as to why the resolution is false, the NC must then refute the affirmative
claims made in the Affirmative Constructive. This is best learned through something called
4-Point Refutation –– an organized way to respond to and refute individual arguments in a
debate round. (This technique will also come in handy in the later lesson on Rebuttals.)
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 23
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
4-Point Refutation
1. Identify. Identify the argument you are addressing. For example, “My opponent’s first
argument was that Privacy is undervalued in our society.”
2. Respond. Respond to the argument with your own argument. For example, “I believe
that Privacy is being value correctly in our society.” (Note how this point is “respond”
not “refute.” Sometimes you will come across arguments that you will actually agree
with. In responding to these arguments, say that you agree and then show how it helps
your case.)
3. Support. Support your argument. For example, “An example of Privacy being valued
correctly in our society can be seen with lawsuits against wiretapping.” (Refer back to
Lesson 5 to remind the students of the different forms of support in LD.)
4. Impact. Impact your argument by showing how it affects your case, your opponent’s
case, or the resolution itself. For example, “Since Justice is valued correctly in our
society, my opponent’s case lacks justification, and I should win.”
4-point refutation is used for individual arguments, so for every argument you will
1. Identify 2. Respond 3. Support and 4. Impact. Because of this, it is important to practice.
Set aside 10-15 min. (depending on class size) and have each student practice using 4-Point
Refutation. To do this, come up with an argument (either for or against the resolution) for
the first student and write it on the board. Give them 30 seconds to think of a response to the
argument. While they are preparing, write a different argument on the board for the next
student, and so on. Have each student provide a 10-20 sec. response to their argument on the
board, using the steps outlined in 4-Point Refutation.
Realize that since they are not in a complete round, the fourth step (Impact) might not
become a big issue. That is fine. Keep it simple –– for example, “The first argument on the
white board is that... 2. My response is... 3. An example to prove this is... 4. This shows that
the argument on the board is true/false.”
Tip: Have each student put the points of 4-Point Refutation on an index card and
attach the index card to their flowsheets with a paperclip. Then, as the student
looks at his or her flow, they can refer to the points one-by-one in their refutation
of the Affirmative Constructive.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 24
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Lesson 7: Cross-Examination
Mastering the cross-examination techniques that get admissions
Lecture: Cross-examination
One of the hardest parts of debate to master––and, consequently, the most enjoyable––is
Cross-Examination. Ultimately, your case can be as polished as possible and your debate
binder stuffed with applications, but you can still lose a round. Think like a judge for a
moment. The best judges still find it difficult to follow every detail and every argument. You
are responsible to bring up the arguments that will lead a judge to confirm a winning ballot.
There is no better opportunity in the round to address these arguments up than during crossexamination. CX gives you, the debater, the opportunity to show the judge that…
…you are confident
…you understand the resolution
…you understand the rules of debate
…you understand your opponents’ case
…you deserve to win the debate round
That said, remember that CX is one of the toughest debate strategies to master. You need to
improvise and be quick and challenging, something most are not comfortable with at first.
But you are not alone! Debaters often cite CX as the most challenging practice, though the
same debaters will attest that once CX is mastered, victory is much easier to attain.
What is Cross-Examination?
Cross-examination (CX) is a lively exchange between an examiner and an examinee
(witness) in a question-and-answer format. The examiner will ask questions, and the witness
will offer answers. Examinees are not able to ask questions, though both debaters get an
opportunity to cross-examine their opponent (there are 2 CXs in an LD round).
Cross-examination is the only time during the debate where the two debaters interact. Think
of it as somewhere in-between the interaction of two candidates in a presidential debate and
the interaction of a prosecutor and his witness in a courtroom.
Purposes of Cross-Ex
There are two main purposes for cross-ex:
a. Set-up your case (primary questions)
b. Expose flaws in opponent’s case through admissions (secondary questions)
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 25
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Primary questions bring up new issues and examples and are useful for setting-up your
next speech. Secondary questions are useful for developing the issues and examples that
have already been introduced. On a basic level, realize this: you want to use cross-ex to both
negate your opponent’s arguments and further your own arguments. Your main purpose for
CX should be to show the judge why you should win the round.
Types of Questions
Debaters often look at Cross-Examination as merely a time to ask questions. While this is
true, there are several different types of questions, each serving a different function.
Examples are in italics:
• Clarification. This type of question makes a request for your opponent to clarify
one of his points or examples. This is the most basic type of question, yet the most
common for novice debaters. The reason? It is easy.
“Could you repeat your first contention?”
“What was your definition for your value?”
• Elaboration. This type of question asks your opponent to elaborate on a point or
example in order to make it clear. This can be tricky since most questions of this
type are open-ended (discussed later) and the witness can take the CX wherever
he would like to go. On the other hand, this is useful when you suspect your
opponent does not really know what they are talking about.
“What do you mean when you say Human Rights?”
“Why do you define Justice as that which is fair and right?”
• Probing. This type of question probes into the details of your opponent’s
arguments. It forces your opponent to provide further analysis and support to back
their original claims.
“Your quote on Freedom was from Machiavelli. What were his personal beliefs on
the issue of freedom?”
“Your definition of ‘international intervention’ was from the 18th century,
correct?”
• Directed. Directed questions have the end-answer in mind. Directed questions can
be either leading or loaded questions. A leading question results in your opponent
giving a unique response because of the wording of the question, and the loaded
question carries implications past the question itself. Both force your opponent to
give a directed response based on the cues within the question itself.
“Your first contention was that Life is paramount, correct?” (leading)
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 26
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
“Since you value Life, you stand against abortion, right?” (loaded)
• Lines of Questioning. This strategy is very effective when done correctly. This
type of questioning employs the use of logical links (between ideas) and rapid-fire
questioning. Some students write pre-scripted lines of questioning that they can
use for generic arguments. For now, think of several simple questions that take
you from a generic question to a pointed question (which gets you an admission).
Most lines of questioning rely solely on the closed form of questions (discussed in
the next section) where each response leads to the next question. For example,
with Q = question and A = answer, lines of questioning go: Q - A - Q - A - Q - A.
Example: “What is ‘Life’?” (Response) “Would you agree Life is a good
thing?” (Y/N) (If N: “But compared to death, Life is good, right?”) “Would you
agree that good things should be valued?” (Y/N) “And my value is Life, correct?”
Forming Questions
Realize that regardless of which type of question is being asked, questions themselves take
on two basic forms: open-ended and closed. Open-ended questions allow for the witness to
respond however they would like. Questions like “How are you?” is open-ended, as one
could use that as an opportunity to talk about anything from his daily mood-swings to the
weather on Mars. Open-ended questions are highly discouraged in debate since a good
examinee can use the question as a way to elaborate on their arguments, essentially
furthering their speaking time. Closed questions are questions that are narrow enough for a
Yes/No or short response. Look at the following illustrations. Discuss with the class: how
does forming the questions differently allow for more or less possibilities for responses?
What color is the sky? (open-ended)
Is the sky blue? (more narrow, still open)
Would you agree that the sky is blue? (more narrow, pretty closed)
Yes or no, would you agree the sky is blue? (closed)
Answering Questions
Answering cross-examination questions as the witness can be challenging at first, but there
are a few things to help with this:
Smile. The examiner is not questioning you but your arguments. Do not take anything
personally. Since you will be facing the judge in CX, smiling helps you seem confident.
Keep your answers simple. Oftentimes question are directed or closed in order to
elicit a simple reply. If you can provide a sufficient answer in a sentence or two, do it.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 27
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Know when to expound. If your opponent asks an open-ended question or asks you to
elaborate, do it. That said, understand you only have a short time to further your case.
Prioritize your points, and come across as both knowledgable and succinct.
Refer back to your case/flow. If you are unsure about the question, or want to know
what to say, refer back to your case or flow and see where on the flow your opponent is
asking a question. This helps you keep track.
Turn questions. Should be used sparingly, but turning questions back on your
opponent or turning the point of the questions around on your opponent can expose
flaws in their question, analysis, argument, etc.
Be honest. If you do not know the answer to a question, it is okay to admit it.
Principles of Etiquette
There are some principles debaters must keep in mind. Simply going through the motions
will not convince a judge you deserve to win. Basic things to do:
1) Face the judge. Do not lose eye contact with him or her. Some debaters will
make eye contact with the back wall, but this loses the psychological
engagement that can persuade the judge.
2) Do not look at your opponent. Some judges find this offensive. You should be
standing nearly shoulder-to-shoulder during CX.
3) Avoid annoying mannerisms. Shuffling papers, swaying, clicking your paper––
avoid it all. Stand straight, hold your flow in your hand, and use your other hand
to maintain your demeanor.
4) Speak clearly and confidently. Even if you are not confident, look confident.
5) Mock your nervousness. Engage the high anxiety—it is a rush!
How to Champion Cross-Ex
CX is one of the most difficult skills to hone in academic debate, but there are three simple
keys to doing it successfully. Put the following terms on the board. Make it your club motto:
1. Listen. Make sure you know what your opponent actually says.
2. Flow. Accurately jot down your opponent’s arguments. Think of questions against them.
3. Be in control. Regardless of whether you are the examiner or the witness, be in control.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 28
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Lesson 8: Rebuttals
Using the rebuttals to win arguments
Lecture: Rebuttals
The last three speeches go faster than the first two. Why? They are short (or at least the
affirmative rebuttals). Altogether, they are only 13 minutes long, and they do not have 3minute cross-examinations in between them. They bring the round down to the essential
arguments and crystallize the voting issues.
Take the time to draw a large flowsheet on half of the whiteboard. Pay particular attention to
the last three speeches. The last three speeches have yet to be fully covered. These are the
“rebuttals.” Go over the descriptions of each of the three rebuttals. Students should be clear
on this.
AC
NC/1NR
1AR
2NR
2AR
1AR – First Affirmative Rebuttal. This is the first speech of the round dedicated solely to
rebuttal/refutation. With the exception of arguments against the negative case, no new
arguments may be presented, though new examples may be used to support original
arguments. The affirmative must refute the negative case and the arguments against his own
case. 4 minutes
2NR – Second Negative Rebuttal. This is the last speech of the round for the negative. No
new arguments may be presented, though new examples may be used to support original
arguments. The negative must address as many arguments as possible for his case and
against his opponent’s. Debaters may propose Voting Issues in this speech –– main issues
the negative believes they won that should result in them winning the round. 6 minutes
2AR – Second Affirmative Rebuttal. This is the last speech of the round for the affirmative.
No new arguments may be presented, though new examples may be used to support original
arguments. The affirmative must address as many arguments as possible for his case and
against his opponent’s. Debaters may propose Voting Issues in this speech –– main issues
the affirmative believes they won that should result in them winning the round. 3 minutes
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 29
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
One of the most important aspects of the rebuttals is that the debaters cannot bring up any
new arguments. Rebuttals are meant solely to “wrap up” arguments from the constructive
speeches. The idea of “bringing up new arguments” is a big deal in the rebuttals. It is not
allowed because doing so would not technically be a “rebuttal.” This can sometimes be a
voting issue for judges. A new argument is one that addresses an issue that has not been
discussed in the round. A judge can typically recognize a new argument when they go to put
it on the flow, especially if the debater offering the claim does not tie it to an earlier
assertion.
Organizational Methods
Since the rebuttal speeches are so stressed for time, it is helpful to employ a few strategies
for refutation and organization. Write the following terms on the other half of the white
board.
• Grouping. Since you have to respond to a lot of content in little time, kill several
birds with one stone by grouping your opponent’s arguments together and responding
with a single argument. This works if several of your opponent’s arguments are
similar, or if responding to one argument results in the rest of the arguments in that
area falling.
• Cross-applying. Similar to grouping, this is effective for tackling several arguments
at once. After giving an argument, you can say “And you can cross-apply that to XYZ
arguments.” This does not depend on the arguments being similar, necessarily. For
example, you may have an argument that your opponent lacks applications for all
three of his contentions. You can cross-apply that one argument to all three
contentions showing that he lacks support for each.
• Simplifying. Though it may seem obvious, simplifying arguments helps make things
go more quickly. Use fewer illustrations and maximize word economy to get the
biggest kick for your buck. Make your responses sound-bites (5-10 seconds).
• Direct refutation. This is the last organizational method. Direct refutation means you
directly respond to your opponent’s arguments with arguments of your own. For
example, “His argument was X, my argument is Y.” While it is the easiest method to
use, it is burdensome to go point-by-point in the rebuttals since time is so precious.
Refer back to 4-Point Refutation discussed in Lesson 6. While it is closest to direct
refutation, 4-Point Refutation can be used with any of the above organizational methods.
Voting Issues
This is a huge aspect of Lincoln-Douglas debate. In the last speech of each side (the 2NR
for the negative and 2AR for affirmative), both sides will propose Voting Issues (or
“voters”) which are just reasons they believe they should win the round. Voting issues can
hit the main sections of the debate (values, criteria, applications and contentions) or center
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 30
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
around the main issues in the round (most argued points, applications, etc). Some debaters
make their voters into alliterations, rhymes, and other memorable patterns so that the judge
remembers them. Whatever strategy is employed, debaters will deliver voting issues in one
of two ways: they can dedicate their entire speech to their voters, spending a third of their
speech on each and tying all the arguments from the previous speech to points under those
three voters, or they can present their voters in the last couple minutes of the speech.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 31
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Lesson 9: Logical Fallacies
Understanding common logical fallacies in debate
Lecture: Common Logical Fallacies
There are quite a few logical fallacies that come up often in debate. But before we jump into
them, let us first understand what a logical fallacy includes.
Princeton University defines a logical fallacy as “a fallacy in logical argumentation.”
Helpful. (We will see later how this is a Circular fallacy.) In logic, a fallacy is a failure in
one’s analysis and reasoning, leading to an argument that is unsound and invalid. On this
note, understanding the difference between truth and validity, realize that some arguments,
while true, are invalid because of their reliance on one or several logical fallacies. Take the
following example.
I own an iPhone and iPad.
Apple (iOS) users are cooler than Android users.
I am cooler than Android users.
Although the above statement could be considered true (pardon a moment of selfaggrandizing humor), it is illogical as “Apple (iOS) users are cooler than Android users” is a
hasty generalization –– a fallacy (we will look at that fallacy soon). Try another:
Going to Starbucks every day will make you poor.
Some people go to Starbucks every day.
Some people are poor. Every day.
While the conclusion is true, that “some people are poor,” the statement itself is illogical.
There is a disconnect in reasoning. Some people are poor, but how many are poor because
they go to Starbucks every day? It may seem silly, but this happens all the time: someone
presents X argument, similarities between X and Y are drawn, then Z (the real argument,
with similarities to Y) is given. Z may have nothing to do with X, but because of a semicerebral first two points, it comes across as logical, if only momentarily.
With the above examples it is clear, though there are common logical fallacies in debate that
are much more subtle. Clear the white board and go through each of the following fallacies.
Think of examples ahead of time for each, and have the students offer examples too.
Ad hominem. (“to the man.”) This is an attack on the man (or debater) rather than the
argument itself. For example, in responding to the argument “Justice is worth
pursuing,” a debater may respond “my opponent is heartless and has no justifiable
idea of what is worth pursuing.” Instead of attacking the argument, the debater
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 32
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
himself is attacked. Hopefully this will not happen in a round, but if it does, point it
out. Show why your opponent’s perception of you has no bearing on the round, and
how your original claim still stands. Often in debate, you will see a debater attack a
source rather than the source’s content. Instead of responding to the argument
“President Obama has accomplished much in office,” a debater may reply, “President
Obama lacks the experience necessary to qualify him as a good president.”
Appeal to Authority. Appeal to authority says that an argument is true or valid simply
because an authority (sometimes not even in the specific field) says so. For example,
“This marine biologist said that this particular algae is dying away, therefore it must
be dying away” or “The president of the United States said that the nation was headed
in the right direction, therefore it must be headed in the right direction.”
Appeal to Fear. Appeal to fear relies on the “unknowns” of doing or not doing
something, saying that unless X is done, Y will occur; or unless X is done, something
bad will happen. For example, “Unless the U.S. raises the debt ceiling, the nation will
default” or “Unless you pass this health bill, people will die.”
Appeal to Pity. Appeal to pity tugs at the emotions of the audience/judge as opposed
to their reasoning, saying that unless X is done, horribly inhumane Y will occur. For
example, “Unless they give aid, people will starve” or “Unless you donate money,
this bunny will die.”
Appeal to Popularity. Appeal to popularity says that something is true or valid simply
because it is a popular idea. For example, “Most people believe in evolution,
therefore it must be true,” or “The president was elected with the majority of the vote,
therefore he is the best fit for the presidency.”
Biased Sample. Biased sample tries to prove something to be true, but relies on a
biased source for its information. For example, “The poll of homeschoolers revealed
that the vast majority of people in America believe homeschooling to be the best
option for education.” Similar to appeal to authority, biased sample takes evidence
from those in the specific field of study or particular issue to try and prove something
true about that field of study or particular issue. “The teachers’ union reached
consensus that teachers are underpaid” or “This quote from Pol Pot (a horrible
Cambodian dictator) proves that not all dictators are horrible.”
Circular Reasoning. Circular reasoning tries to establish causation or provide a
definition and meaning for an event or term by using that event or term in the process.
It either says that A causes B, which causes C, which causes A, or that A is defined as
B which is defined as C which is defined as A. For example, “I am a man, some men
are nice, I am nice, therefore I am a man.” In the definition for logical fallacy from
Princeton discussed earlier, a logical fallacy is defined as “a fallacy in logical
argumentation.” It taken alone does not define “fallacy” or “logical,” but merely uses
the terms to try and define itself. In debate, having outside sources helps to break
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 33
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
circular reasoning, providing credibility and third-party facts for the argument or
application.
Composition. Fallacy of composition says that the whole is defined by a
characteristic of an individual part (a part-to-whole fallacy). For example, “Colorado
has part of the Rocky Mountains, Colorado is a state, therefore all states have part of
the Rocky Mountains.” This fallacy is also known as a hasty generalization.
Division. Fallacy of division (a whole-to-part fallacy) is the exact opposite of the
fallacy of composition. It says that individual parts are defined by a characteristic of
the whole. For example, “The United Nations (UN) is corrupt, the United States is a
member in the UN, therefore the United States is corrupt.”
Equivocation. Equivocation changes the meaning of a word in the middle of an
argument. For example, say you argue that “Freedom, the absence of slavery, is
good.” Your opponent then argus that “Freedom, the ability to do what you want, is
definitely not a good thing.” The meaning of “freedom” was changed. This is similar
to straw-man arguments, though equivocation deals more with the definition of words
and their contextual meaning. Another example: in response to “hot dogs are tasty
when they’re cooked on the grill,” one might equivocate, “Why would you want to
grill hot dogs? They’re pets!”
Straw Man. A straw-man argument twists the original claim and then attacks the
twisted claim. For example, in responding to the argument “Liberty is essential for
Economic Security,” one might reply “Liberty is not essential for National Security.”
Instead of responding to the original argument concerning Economic Security, the
debater twisted the argument and instead addressed National Security, a completely
different idea. Often this occurs when a debater jumbles-up the words in his
opponent’s argument or is not sure how to respond directly to the original claim, so he
instead responds to a similar or twisted version of it.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. (“After this, therefore because of this.”) A post hoc
argument (also known as false cause) says that because something occurred after a
particular event, it must have been caused by that event. For example, “His father was
abusive, so he became abusive” or “After being fired from his job, he committed
suicide.” Post hoc ignores other possible causes, and oftentimes confuses correlation
with causation. This is common in the news: “Americans are not driving as much this
week because gas prices went up last week.”
Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. (“With this, therefore because of this.”) A cum hoc
argument (another false cause fallacy) says that because two things occurred at the
same time, one caused the other or they were both caused by the same event. Like
post hoc, it confuses correlation with causation. For example, “Burger King and
McDonald’s raised their hamburger prices in the same day, so the price for beef must
have risen for both” or “The economy is doing poorly, so the policies in place must be
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 34
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
bad.” This fallacy is also common in news; for example, “Stocks fell again today
amid concerns over the unrest in the Middle East” or “Roads will be busy starting
Friday because it is Memorial Day weekend.”
Slippery slope. This fallacy says that if something occurs, it will cause something else
to occur, which will cause something else, and so on. For example, “If inflation in the
U.S. continues to rise at a rapid rate, people will be unable to afford food, starvation
will increase, people will die, and the American population will cease to exist.”
Similar to the appeal to fear, it dictates that a chain of events will happen if something
is or is not done. “Unless the U.S. gives a bailout to the auto industry, car
manufacturers will have to downsize, factories will shut down, thousands of workers
will be left jobless, and our economy will shrink.” Debaters often use this fallacy in
the opposite sense by trying to show the positive effects of voting for their value: “If
we protect life, liberty can be achieved, which will lead to the preservation of justice
for all, thereby validating the resolution.”
Understand that logical fallacies can be used unintentionally. As is often the case with new
students, a debater may not even realize he is being illogical or using a logical fallacy until
it is pointed out to him. If it happens, point it out. Be encouraging, helping them to get
around the use of logical fallacies.
Again, an argument might be illogical, but could still be true. The best strategy is to at least
be aware of logical fallacies that you might be using, and try to make arguments that are
both logical and truthful.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 35
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Lesson 10: Briefing
Developing strategies for creating briefs against popular values
Lecture: Briefing
Briefing simply means preparing material for a debate in advance. Briefing in LincolnDouglas debate can mean a few different things, though in general in means that you are
preparing arguments, analysis and applications of your own to combat specific cases,
arguments and applications of an opponent. Just like lawyers create case files and briefs for
different lawsuits, debaters create briefs that they can use come tournament time.
There are a few ways to go about briefing:
Value Briefs
These are specific arguments against specific values. For example, say a student creates a
brief on the value of “Freedom.” They may have a few different definitions for freedom,
arguments against freedom (showing why it might be a bad thing, especially compared to
your own value), and applications that show the propensity of freedom to be a bad thing.
Then, if that debater hits the value of freedom in a round, he already has his arguments,
applications, and analysis laid out for him. He merely needs to organize his material against
the specific points of his opponent.
Creating value briefs may seem difficult at first. You may ask “How can I come up with
arguments against the value of Freedom, or against values like Life, Justice, Prosperity?!” It
is possible. Ask yourself: is your opponent’s value the most important value to strive
toward? Why not? Is your opponent’s value intrinsic or instrumental? How does it compare
to your value? Does it have a criterion? Why does it need a criterion? What are some
examples of where valuing that idea led to something bad?
For a specific value brief, you may have a handful of definitions that paint the value in a
less than desirable light, a list of arguments against the generic value, and examples in
history that show the negative (bad) aspects of that value.
Application Briefs
Application briefs include specific arguments and analysis against specific applications. For
example, with the application of the French Revolution leading to widespread death, you
might create an application brief that outlines the history leading up to the French
Revolution, the real factors that caused the widespread massacres, and quotes from those in
the period of history that disprove the argument of the original application.
The best way to approach application briefs is through research. Know the application
better than your opponent. Get different ideas on the issues, quotes from a variety of
sources, and think of how the application impacts (or fails to impact) the resolution.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 36
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Case Briefs
These are briefs created against specific cases that you have encountered in scrimmages or
competition. They include specific arguments against the definitions, value, criterion,
contentions and applications of a particular case. Analyze the value and criterion and how
they interact. Think of ways the contentions contradict each other or the stance of the
resolution. Look for weaknesses in logic, possible logical fallacies, and general holes
throughout.
Writing a case brief helps so that when you hit that particular case again come the next
tournament, you are better equipped in the rebuttals to destroy their arguments. Case briefs
should be extensive, but do not go overboard. Come up with just enough content to fill a
speech. A few arguments against the value/criterion, and one or two arguments against each
contention and application. Include quotes that undermine their position and support your
side.
Club reliance
It is best to try and do all of the above types of briefing, but put this into perspective: even
in an area with little competition, debaters are likely to encounter a dozen different values, a
few dozen different cases, and several dozen different applications. Trying to brief all of the
above is a daunting task for a single student. Emphasize the need for the club to rely on a
Research Ring (discussed in Lesson 4) to brief specific values, applications and cases. As
mentioned in that lesson, Google Docs is a great way to pool research and resources when it
comes to briefing. Establish a Briefs Folder and share it with the entire club. Make each
student a contributor and give each student editing privileges.
As the season progresses, students can update, modify and bolster their shared briefs.
Before each tournament, each student can print off a copy of the document. You can also
have a few different documents –– one for values, one for applications, one for specific
cases.
As iron sharpens iron, debaters who rely on each other for briefing as the competitive
season rolls around will be better equipped for winning rounds. That said, a chain is only as
strong as its weakest link. Emphasize the need for each student to make an effort in the
Research Ring. Establish requirements for the amount of content/number of briefs a student
must submit per week. Make it a competition –– offering awards for the number of briefs
made per week per student can encourage the debaters to give it their best.
Tip: Put specific briefs on 3x5 index cards, and keep all of the cards in an index
card box. While it takes more time, it is a great way for students to personalize
their briefs and make them more accessible for rounds. Also, students can attach
their index card briefs to their flows with a paperclip, allowing them to refer to
their flows with ease while using the content from their briefs.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 37
Ironman Curriculum © 2013 Monument Publishing
Lesson 11 & 12: Scrimmage I & II
Students within the club run through two rounds from beginning to end
Scrimmage
Since a single LD round lasts about 45 minutes, think about fitting in two rounds if your
class lasts at least 1.5 hours. Depending on class size and number of volunteer parents/
judges, you may decide to have everyone debate one round to allow for a time for critiques.
If you run two rounds, have those that went Affirmative the first round go Negative the
next, and vise versa.
There are a number of things to consider when setting up your club’s scrimmage.
1. Numbers. If you have a lot of teams, you will need extra rooms, tables and chairs,
podiums, etc.
2. Judges. Recruit participating parents to judge the rounds. If at all possible, recruit
helpful parents who will judge and help the students through the round.
3. Coaching. When you judge a round, feel free to stop the round to get struggling
debaters on track. This may be the first debate round ever for some of these debaters.
4. Whiteboard flowing. Here is a signature of our Training Minds Ministry camps:
have students face the whiteboard while you flow in front of them. This is a fantastic
way to lead them through the round, and they can see exactly what you flow on the
board.
5. Audience. If there are visitors (parents who are not judging), this can lead to healthy
discussion after the round.
6. Ballot. If you are not doing the whiteboard flowing, fill out a ballot just like a real
tournament round. Have some printed and ready for the class.
You’ll be doing the same thing next week. Homework: prepare for next week’s scrimmage!
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 38