Lincoln/Douglas Debate (LD): The Values Debate
Affirmative Constructive
(AC) 6 min
_______________
Reads a pre-written case.
_________________________________
The typical (though not mandated) case
is divided into a framework, which
outlines the conditions for discussing the
resolution, and contentions. The most
essential part of the framework is the
value structure, which is composed of an
ultimate value (often called the value
premise) that the case attempts to
demonstrate the resolutional action
achieves/is in accordance with, and a
value criterion (also called the standard),
which is a way to attain or quantify the
nebulous value.
The framework also may contain
definitions for purposes of clarity and/or
excluding certain lines of argumentation,
and preemptions/"spikes" that attempt
to preclude certain arguments that one's
opponent is expected to make. A narrow
definition can be a spike.
The contention(s), of which this type of
case must have at least one, links the
resolution to the value structure. A
proper contention necessarily has a
claim, which summarizes the argument,
at least one warrant, which is a reason
the claim is true, and an impact, which
explains the importance of the argument
-- or specifically why this argument
meets the value criterion.
__________________
CX: Cross Examination
The Negative asks the
Affirmative questions. (3 min)
Negative Constructive
(NC/1NR) 7 min
__________________
The Negative reads a prewritten case and then moves
on to address the
Affirmative’s case
1st Affirmative Rebuttal
(1AR) 4 min
____________________
The Affirmative addresses
both his/her opponent’s case
and then his/her own.
_________________________________
*This speech is considered by
many debaters to be the most
difficult.
_________________________
For example, a negative case for the
resolution "Resolved: A just society
ought not use the death penalty as form
of punishment" could have a value of
justice, a value criterion of crime
deterrence, and then contentions that
demonstrate that the death penalty
serves as a uniquely powerful deterrent
(which would require statistical and
possibly psychological evidence.) An
affirmative case could have a value of
justice, a criterion of respecting human
worth, and contentions arguing that
killing human beings is inhumane for any
reason regardless of their actions. It
could also argue that all presently
available methods of execution are
inhumane (lethal injection is believed to
be physically painful and psychologically
traumatizing, while hanging,
electrocution, and gassing certainly are).
The debaters would then argue whether
practical crime deterrence or adherence
to the principle of human worth is more
important to justice, and if each other's
contentions sufficiently meet even their
own value criterion. (The value is not
usually contested anymore, since both
debaters generally share similar ones.)
__________________
CX: Cross Examination
The Affirmative asks the
Negative questions. (3 min)
As Jason Baldwin explains in "Logic in
LD", the value premise is supposed to
provide standards by which judges
should evaluate subsequent arguments.
The value structure's purpose is to
provide an overarching goal for both the
affirmative and the negative to achieve.
The value premise is not explicitly stated
in the resolution, but many debaters use
terms from the Lincoln-Douglas Debate
resolution as their value premise. For
example, the National Forensic League's
November/December 2006 resolution
stated: Resolved: A victim's deliberate
use of deadly force is a just response to
repeated domestic violence. In the
instance, some debaters may use
"justice" as the value premise for the
round, because the resolution clearly
establishes the objective of evaluating
whether or not the use of deliberate
force is just when facing domestic
violence. Others tend to pick more
uncommon values, mainly because
commonly used value premises or value
premises obtained from the resolution
will be prepared for by other opponents,
however, due to many resolutions
question the morality or justice of
certain actions, the value premise is
most commonly agreed to be justice or
some variant. The debate then centers
on the Value Criterion, or the way of
achieving or best maximizing the value.
The value premise is intended to be a
non-biased statement, which the
arguments within the affirmative or
negative constructive should support.
Each side is allowed 4 minutes of prep time to be used at their discretion (NFL)
(2nd) Negative Rebuttal
(NR/2NR) 6 min
____________________
The Negative addresses the
arguments of the previous
speech and summarizes the
round for the judge.
_________________________
In regards to strategy, the value premise
may or may not be agreed upon
throughout the entire debate by the
affirmative and negative sides. Because
the resolution does not explicitly state
that a certain value premise must be
used, debaters often must debate which
value premise should be used to
evaluate the round. In order to support
the affirmative or negative side's value
premise, debaters attempt to prove why
their value premise is more relevant to
the resolution, or why their opponent's
value premise is inferior to their own. In
some cases, debaters who have chosen
common value premises may agree after
presenting each side's constructive on
what the value premise should be.
Subsequently, both sides will try to
uphold the same goal by way of their
arguments, despite the fact they conflict.
On the other hand, a debater may
strategically drop or choose not to
defend his or her value premise if the
other debater's value premise still may
be achieved, or proven better, under the
debater's own side.
2nd Affirmative Rebuttal
(2AR) 3 min
____________________
The Affirmative addresses the
arguments of the previous
speech and summarizes the
round for the judge.
_________________________
The value criterion's main purpose is to
weigh the value premise; otherwise, the
impacts of the arguments in the round
are left hanging. Any argument in a
Lincoln-Douglas Debate must contain an
impact or the effect of that argument
(why it matters). This necessitates an
objective order to determine which
impacts are more important. The value
criterion provides this objective order
and the round reduces to whichever side
achieves the value criterion better.
Whether this is done quantifiably or
qualitatively is left up to the debaters to
decide.
Many times it becomes the vantage
point of the debate because the values
are, many times, the same in a round.
Since each side has impacts that best
pertain to their own value criterion, each
side must try to convince the judge to
weigh the round according to their value
criterion.
Example: Resolved: In matters of U. S.
immigration policy, restrictions on the
rights of non-citizens are consistent with
democratic ideals.""
Because "democratic ideals" is what is
trying to be achieved in the resolution,
most debaters would find it best and
effective to use it as a value premise.
Therefore, the debate turns to the value
criterion. The affirmative, in this case,
may use "preservation of procedure"
which explains how their value premise
is weighed. While the negative may opt
to choose "preservation of autonomy".
In both instances, both value criteria are
attainable by both sides and therefore
fair to weigh the round. It would be left
up to the debate to determine which
value criterion should be used to weigh
the round.