www.monumentpublishing.com
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 reader. Understand these are lecture notes, not textbook material.
Lincoln-Douglas Table of Contents
LESSON 1: PREVIEW OF LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE ................................................................................2
LESSON 2: THE RESOLUTION & FLOWING ......................................................................................................7
LESSON 3: VALUES & CRITERIA.........................................................................................................................11
LESSON 4: APPLICATIONS & SUPPORT ............................................................................................................15
LESSON 5: CASE CONSTRUCTION......................................................................................................................20
LESSON 6: THE NEGATIVE & 4-POINT REFUTATION ...................................................................................21
LESSON 7: CROSS-EXAMINATION......................................................................................................................23
LESSON 8: REBUTTALS ..........................................................................................................................................27
LESSON 9: LOGICAL FALLACIES .......................................................................................................................29
LESSON 10: BRIEFING ............................................................................................................................................33
LESSON 11: SCRIMMAGE I....................................................................................................................................35
LESSON 12: SCRIMMAGE II ..................................................................................................................................36
www.monumentpublishing.com/downloads
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 1
www.monumentpublishing.com
Lesson 1: Preview of Lincoln-Douglas Debate
Red Book Curriculum is an introduction to Lincoln-Douglas value debate.
“Introduction” - This course is for beginners (though experienced debaters can definitely
pick up on a few things, too).
“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:
Seatbelts should be worn for safety. (value)
Tickets should be given to those not wearing seatbelts. (policy)
Western culture should more highly value privacy. (value in Stoa)
The US should repeal the PATRIOT Act. (policy in Stoa)
The US has a moral obligation to assist other nations that are in need. (value in NCFCA)
The US should spend $140 million in relief funds for Haiti. (policy in NCFCA)
“Debate” - The form of discourse where one side argues with its opposition.
There are several differences between value and policy debate. The NCFCA and Stoa,
homeschool leagues, offer both formats for home schoolers: Lincoln-Douglas (which is
what this course is about) and Team-Policy (the policy format).
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
The 2012-2013 Lincoln-Douglas resolution:
Resolved: Privacy is undervalued. (Stoa)
Resolved: That governments have a moral obligation to assist other nations in need.
(NCFCA)
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 2
www.monumentpublishing.com
Consider the following questions as you begin to study this resolution:
Stoa:
• In what ways is privacy similar or different than freedom, liberty, independence, etc?
• How has social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) changed our perception of privacy?
• What messages does our culture offer about staying informed? Is it more or less
expected that people, businesses, government, etc. be transparent?
• Can privacy be protected by law? How? Whose responsibility is it to enforce?
• Are privacy and security mutually exclusive?
NCFCA:
• When the US government “assists” another nation, what is typically involved?
• Who should decide the standard for what it means to be a nation “in need”?
• Do nations that are in need have an obligation to refuse assistance and be selfsufficient?
• What role does private charity play in international aid? In what conditions must the
government step in to ensure a safe environment for private assistance?
• Do governments have a moral obligation to assist nations that are based on opposing
values, or should aid be delivered regardless of national interests?
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.
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:
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 3
www.monumentpublishing.com
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
Is this true? Most of your students would say yes, this is true. 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. While the first may be considered a major premise by itself,
notice the syllogism behind each:
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 4
www.monumentpublishing.com
Stoa: Privacy is a value + Privacy could be valued more than it is currently = Privacy is
undervalued
NCFCA: Government action can be based on moral obligation + There is a moral
obligation to help nations in need = Governments have a moral obligation to assist other
nations in need
List the following syllogisms for the students and ask if they are logical:
Sharing information reduces privacy + Less privacy limits freedom = Sharing information
limits freedom
Needy nations have corrupt governments + Corrupt governments misuse monetary
assistance = Needy nations misuse monetary assistance
Justice is incapable of being completely upheld + Failure is defined as being incapable of
doing something = Trying to uphold justice leads to failure
These are logical. There is nothing that the first part of the equation says to invalidate the
conclusion. Debaters can disagree with whether they are true or not, point out the
generalizations and even question the link between terms within each premise, but those are
beside the point. The syllogisms are logical.
Today's Logic
Can you think of syllogisms in recent news items? Consider the following:
Major premise: The US should start cutting its debt
Minor premise: Foreign aid adds to our nation’s debt
Conclusion: The US should start cutting foreign aid
This is certainly a strong argument, though contentious given that different people have
different political backgrounds and beliefs. 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.
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
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 5
www.monumentpublishing.com
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). You do not want to shut down
healthy debate in a debate class! That said, 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
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.
1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulmin_model#The_Toulmin_Model_of_Argument
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 6
www.monumentpublishing.com
Lesson 2: The Resolution & Flowing
Affirmative vs. Negative
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 LincolnDouglas, 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
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
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 7
www.monumentpublishing.com
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 Cross-Examinations.
Value Debate in the 2012-2013 season
Value debate requires students to think through the reasoning, logic and philosophies behind
the way things are done in society, government and certain political and economic systems.
This year students will be tasked with the burden to value one idea over another, and prove
why their position is justified. Both leagues propose resolutions (proposed statements of
fact) that put up a value and force the affirmative to show that the ideal must be valued
more than it is currently (Stoa) or that it should be valued at all (NCFCA). The Stoa
resolution asks debaters to prove that privacy is undervalued and presumably should be
valued more than it is currently, and the NCFCA resolution asks students to prove that there
is a moral obligation to help nations in need, and that it is government’s responsibility to do
this.
Depending on which league you choose to affiliate with, you will argue one of these
resolutions. Whichever topic you debate, you will have the opportunity to take both
positions –– i.e., stand in support and in opposition to the statement of the resolution. Both
resolutions tackle important issues that it would behoove students to understand.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 8
www.monumentpublishing.com
In the Stoa resolution, debaters are asked to prove that privacy in undervalued, and show
why their own value either justifies or negates this stance. Examples such as the Patriot Act
–– signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, a month after 9/11 –– force
one to consider the merits of valuing privacy compared to values such as national security
and prevention. Other examples like data mining by businesses and campaigns through
Facebook applications and logins illustrate the necessity for a changing, comprehensive
strategy for protecting privacy in the 21st century. Since the resolution does not specify how
much privacy is being undervalued or what kind of privacy is going unprotected, debaters
have the opportunity to take the resolution in various directions, including looking at
information gathering and sharing via the Internet, cases of phone tapping and undercover
recording, identity theft, witness and child protection examples, and the issue of using
anonymous sources for news stories and national policy advising, to name a few.
Take, for example, the article in Red Book: Stoa Edition “Finding the Happy Medium.”
While it has implications for individuals in a society, it is common to think of privacy in
terms of government oversight. With examples of using executive privilege by President
Nixon during the Watergate Scandal and most recently by President Obama over the Fast
and Furious scandal, privacy comes into conflict with other values such as transparency and
accountability. Government entities and bills such as the Privacy, Governmental Liaison and
Disclosure office (PGLD) and the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA)
play an active role in how the government handles privacy on daily basis.
In the NCFCA resolution, students are given a distinct value––moral obligation. They are
asked to prove that governments have a duty to assist nations that are in need. It is key for
debaters to realize that moral obligation and national policy are two different ideas, since
every country has a unique approach to international involvement. Every argument that is
made for assisting other nations must find its roots in a comprehensive and detailed view of
morality and moral necessity. Students must show that getting involved in affairs that affect
other nations supersedes even those nations’ wishes or the desires of citizens in a particular
nation, or provide instances where the necessity to provide assistance aligned with the
acceptance of the majority of people. There will be much debate concerning the definition
of nations that are “in need,” as some will point to Iraq under Saddam Hussein as an
example of the US needing to provide “assistance” while others will look at more
humanitarian examples like aiding Indonesia and other nations affected by the 2004
earthquake and resulting tsunami in the Indian Ocean and the 2010 earthquake in Haiti.
Red Book: NCFCA Edition is chalk-full of ideas that tug at the heart of the resolution, both
from the perspective of one supporting the resolution and assisting nations in need, and
from the perspective of the opposition. Debaters will get a better understanding of moral
obligation and the reasoning behind different types of international involvement.
Consider the following questions to continue developing a thorough understanding of this
year’s resolution:
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 9
www.monumentpublishing.com
Stoa:
• Which is more fundamental, privacy or national security?
• What are some examples of privacy and security conflicting? Being interdependent?
o Patriot Act, CISPA, executive privilege, identity theft, etc.
• Historically, have Americans valued one over the other? Why? Give examples.
• In what ways do you have privacy? What sets America apart from nations like China?
• Does individual privacy ever conflict with societal demands? Give examples.
• How has privacy become a big issue in recent years? Think current events.
• Why is it even important to have privacy? Why is not all information shared?
NCFCA:
• Given the context of the resolution, how should “assist” and “in need” be defined?
• Do governments ever have a moral obligation to not get involved? In what instances?
• Can “moral obligation” alone be justification for providing assistance?
• What role does morality play in a government’s foundation and rule of law?
• Which one is more important: morals or human rights? How are they different?
• In what nations have we assisted where we should not have? Where we should have?
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 10
www.monumentpublishing.com
Lesson 3: 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).
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. Maybe you value 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 X dollars/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.
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.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 11
www.monumentpublishing.com
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.
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.)
As mentioned, students can value anything that they believe supports or opposes the
resolution. Put the following resolutions on the white board and have the students identify
the values within each statement and the function of each:
Resolved: Privacy is undervalued. (Stoa)
Privacy
(either, though mainly instrumental)
Resolved: That governments have a moral obligation to assist other nations in need
(NCFCA)
2
Moral obligation
(intrinsic)
Assist/assistance
(either, though intrinsic in light of “moral obligation”)
Nations in need
(either)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-intrinsic-extrinsic/#WhaHasIntVal
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 12
www.monumentpublishing.com
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. 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 sextrafficking 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
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 13
www.monumentpublishing.com
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
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
www.monumentpublishing.com
Lesson 4: Applications & Support
1. News Discussion
You should be keeping up with the news on the topic. 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. For Stoa, possible terms include “privacy settings” and “privacy laws,” even
“PATRIOT Act.” For NCFCA, “foreign aid” and “aid + countries + need” or a combination
therein. The more generic your search terms, the more results you will have. If you think of
specific applications or examples for this year’s resolution, you can make alerts for those
terms, too. For example, in the NCFCA resolution, you may want one for “USAID” and
“international relief fund,” since both tie into aiding nations in need.
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 http://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.
Think about the different point of views on the issues, and also of historical examples that
highlight the same issues. Ideas to get you started:
Stoa
Should Facebook and Google be more vocal about changes to their privacy settings?
Why were wiretappings used in the UK and what were the consequences?
Is China’s cyber-security attack on the US hurting our privacy or security, or both?
In making news reports or through lawsuits, is it OK to interview a child? What if he/
she is the only witness?
Should “anonymous” sources ever be used?
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 15
www.monumentpublishing.com
How would successful companies like Apple and Google be impacted if the federal
government imposed tougher regulations on privacy laws and information sharing?
Is it OK for the federal government to access peoples’ GPS location through their
phone without a warrant?
Could the Sandusky-Penn State fiasco been averted with more transparency?
NCFCA
Did other nations come to the aid of the US after Hurricane Katrina/FEMA response?
Which had a bigger impact in Haiti following the earthquake: government assistance
or individual donations/contributions? What about for Joplin, MO? Japan?
Should alliances and international coalitions like NATO and the UN play a larger role
in the US response toward nations in need?
Is the Euro crisis an argument against financial aid packages?
Was getting involved in Iraq more important than following proper channels of law?
What would/should govern the US’s decision to get involved in Syria: Popularity of
intervention among citizens, national policy, international charters, or something else?
Is foreign aid like food and water of the same consequence as military aid? Should
nations be limited in what they can trade (food, weapons, etc.) with nations like Iran?
Would assisting nations that hold a different set of values help or hurt the mission of
“Spreading Democracy”?
2. 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.
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
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 16
www.monumentpublishing.com
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 Stoa’s 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. For
NCFCA, when 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
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
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 17
www.monumentpublishing.com
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 kind of way. Instead of ranting off unemployment numbers and
statistics concerning our trade deficit with China, a student can offer the judge a
hypothetical situation:
“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. That’s because what you
post online is far from private. Today your ‘friends’ include thousands of companies.”
Or: “Judge, imagine you’re in Walmart. Look around. Pick up a toy. Find the sticker
on the bottom. Where was the toy made? Chances are, it was made 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, something we need to provide aid to countries in need...”
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 are accused of a crime, you are innocent
until proven guilty.
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 discussed in this year’s resolution 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
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 18
www.monumentpublishing.com
and topic at hand. If you are discussing technical topics, quoting someone specialized
in the field is always a good idea.
Personal stories. Both resolutions are 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 the victim of identity theft. How was the value of privacy
weighted –– very important or not as much? For assistance to nations in need, how
many natural disasters have we seen in the last few years that have forced us to
determine the appropriate amount of aid? How many stories of tragedy and triumph
have we experienced? Fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, power
outages –– disasters happen every day. 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 19
www.monumentpublishing.com
Lesson 5: Case Construction
After reading the two cases and getting an idea as to how a case looks, it is time to write a
case of your own. 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.
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, with the
NCFCA resolution, “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.”
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 20
www.monumentpublishing.com
Lesson 6: The Negative & 4-Point Refutation
This is the first speech of the negative. Last week you wrote an affirmative case, 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. Remember the responsibilities of the negative:
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
Logistics of the a Negative Constructive case:
• second speech of the round
• 1.5-2 pages, typed, single-spaced
• 3-4 min.
After reading the two cases and getting an idea as to how a negative case looks, it is time to
write a negative case of your own. 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
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.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 21
www.monumentpublishing.com
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, with the
NCFCA resolution, “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.”
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.)
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 4 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.”
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 22
www.monumentpublishing.com
Lesson 7: 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)
We will look at how to accomplish both. 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,
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 23
www.monumentpublishing.com
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)
“Since you value Life, you stand against abortion, right?” (loaded)
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 24
www.monumentpublishing.com
• 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.
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 knowledgable.
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 25
www.monumentpublishing.com
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
I started this section by describing CX as one of the most difficult skills to hone in academic
debate. That said, there are three simple things to do to be successful at cross-examination.
Put the following terms on the board. Make it your club motto for cross-ex:
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 26
www.monumentpublishing.com
Lesson 8: 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. The last three speeches have yet to be fully
covered. These are the “rebuttals.”
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
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
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 27
www.monumentpublishing.com
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 effect 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 such an issue.
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
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 28
www.monumentpublishing.com
Lesson 9: Logical Fallacies
1. Review
Review some of the things that were taught at the beginning of the semester in Lesson 1:
• Logic - mathematical thinking. Like 1 + 2 = 3, logical syllogism states that A + B = C.
• Black + white = gray.
• I am a man, James Dean was a man, therefore I am James Dean.
• Difference between arguments that are true and arguments that are valid
Remember that A + B = C refers to the parts of a syllogism: a Major Premise (A) + Minor
Premise (B) = Conclusion (C).
2. 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
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 29
www.monumentpublishing.com
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
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 US 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
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 30
www.monumentpublishing.com
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
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
is rocky, Colorado is a state, therefore all states are rocky.” 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
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 31
www.monumentpublishing.com
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 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 this
weekend 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
US 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 US 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 out when a student says something that is
illogical. 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 32
www.monumentpublishing.com
Lesson 10: 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.
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,
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 33
www.monumentpublishing.com
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. Clubs should utilize a Research Ring
(discussed in Lesson 5) 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. Each student must make an effort in the Research Ring.
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 34
www.monumentpublishing.com
Lesson 11: Scrimmage I
Prepare for debates. Make sure both affirmative and negative cases are up to date. Arrive
early to help set up and make sure the rounds start off smoothly. Bring pens, your flowpad
and all of your notes and briefs. Be prepared to give it your best and take any and all advice
and critiques that your coach and club parents have to offer. Have fun!
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 35
www.monumentpublishing.com
Lesson 12: Scrimmage II
Like last week, prepare for debates. Make sure both affirmative and negative cases are up to
date. Arrive early to help set up and make sure the rounds start off smoothly. Bring pens,
your flowpad and all of your notes and briefs. Be prepared to give it your best and take any
and all advice and critiques that your coach and club parents have to offer. Have fun!
Section 2 – Lincoln-Douglas – Page 36