Understand what LD (Lincoln Douglas) Is:
Lincoln Douglas Debate was originally a Value/Morals based debate, where people debated about the
moral implications of a resolution. This has changed slightly in recent years to more “progressive” forms
of Debate, however the main base is still the morality of the subject. What we value called the ‘value’ in
the round is an inherent thing that is important in society. (Justice) It can also sometimes be something
that society is stringent upon. (Locke Social Contract). LD Debate is not necessarily evidence driven. You
can have empirical evidence to support what you are saying, however, this can also be done through the
use of analytics. Both are sound, but analytics is more favored in the traditional Lincoln Douglas Style.
When Writing a Case:
First off: Define the terms of the resolution. You have to be able to narrow down the main words of the
resolution into something that can be argued. You don’t want to have definitions that contradict your
case, but your definitions also have to be accurate.
Pick the Value and Criterion.
The Value is often times called the “lens” of the round. This is what the judge should use to determine
whether or not the resolution is moral or “ought” to be done. Values are often things that are seen as
inherent in a society, but they don’t have to be.
Sample Values include:
Justice, Liberty, Freedom, Individuality, Autonomy
The Criterion is (put simply) how you achieve the value. What do we have to do to make your value
possible? What do we have to do to uphold your value? It often times isn’t seen as an important part of
the round, but ironically is. If the two values of the debaters are the same (yes, it happens) then the
argument goes to the Criterion. Criteria are often put as a Verb + Noun format. However, some criteria
don’t require a verb.
Sample Criteria include:
Maximizing Progress, Act Utilitarianism, Locke Social Contract, Minimizing Injustice
The thing with Value Criterion is that oftentimes a value can be a criteria and vice versa. It all depends
on how you frame it.
Finally: Contentions.
Contentions are the meat of the case. Basically, your value is why you affirm or negate the resolved, the
criterion is how you achieve that value and your contentions are how you get to your criterion. This is
where you have your examples and points. You start of what is called the “Claim” or “Tagline” this is
what you are stating to be true, such as “Emphasis on Community destroys creative thinking”. From
there you have either a) empirical evidence to support what you said or b) analytics to support what you
said. That is what is called your warrant. Finally, you have the impact. Why does the judge care that it
destroys creative thinking? Why is creative thinking important? The judge won’t automatically care. You
have to make them.
This is the outline of a traditional LD style case. You can run more progressive style cases, but it isn’t
recommended. The traditional LD is the easiest to swallow, and also the easiest to debate. You can run
Kritiques, Counterplans, Counter Resolutions etc, but again, it isn’t recommended. If you have any
questions, ask the LD Head. (At the moment it’s Shannon Cotts but that may change come later on)
Example Case:
I affirm resolved: When in conflict an individual's right to self-determination ought to be valued over the
public health concerns.
Definitions
Right to Self Determination: Determination of one's own fate or course of action without compulsion; free
will. Farlex Legal Dictionary
Public Health: Public health law is the study of the legal powers and duties of the state, in collaboration
with its partners eg.,health care, business, the community, the media, and academe), to assure the conditions for people to be healthy (to
identify, prevent, and ameliorate risks to health in the population) and the limitations on the power of the state to constrain the autonomy,
privacy, liberty, proprietary, or other legally protected interests of individuals for the common good.
Conflict: incompatibility or interference, as of one idea, desire, event, or activity with another:
Dictionary.com
Ought: Used to indicate desirability,
American Heritage Dictionary
Valued- to consider with respect to worth, excellence, usefulness, or importance.
Oxford dictionaries
My value for that of this debate is creativity. Creativity is defined by Robert E. Franken: from Human
Motivation, the third edition as the tendency to generate or recognize ideas, alternatives, or possibilities
that may be useful in solving problems, communicating with others, and entertaining ourselves and
others. Creativity is the prerequisite to the idea of a society, and is also a prerequisite to progress making
it the stepping stone into achieving justice, liberty, and other common aspects of a society, making it a
prerequisite to the resolution.
My criterion is maximizing individuality. Individuality is defined as the quality or character of a
particular person that distinguishes them from others of the same kind. By maximizing individuality you
are allowing the individual to have creative freedom, and therefore achieving the value.
1: Emphasis on community destroys creative thinking. This is an empirically derived contention
2: Forcing people to “think for the herd” devalues human worth. This is an analytically derived
contention
When talking about the benefits of the public health, most will turn to vaccines, due to their importance in
the society. Many will bring up the idea of the “herd immunity” which is defined as the “general
immunity to a pathogen in a population based on the acquired immunity to it by a high proportion of
members over time” The idea is that if most are vaccinated then the entire community is safe. However,
they neglect to mention the problems with this “thinking for the herd” if you will.
Thinking with the herd, or in a sense communal thinking is bad, because not only does it go against the
idea of human nature, which is to be different, or to become better, and therefore progress. That is
what makes the human individual different than an animal. An animal thinks for the herd, and because
the negative is advocating for this idea of thinking purely for the good of society, and disregarding an
individual's opinions when the “society and the human individual are in conflict.The negative cannot
maximize individuality of a person by advocating for this idea communal thinking, and therefore the
negative can not uphold the value of Creativity, and with that the neg not only diminishes the value of
the individualistic opinion, but in turn is also advocating that humans are nothing more than animals in
their mental worth, and this degrades both the moral and mental worth of a human individual.
