Lincoln--Douglas DebateIn this one-on-one format, students debate a topic provided by the tournament host. Topics range from individual freedom versus the collective good to economic development versus environmental protection. Students may consult evidence gathered prior to the debate but may not use the Internet in round. An entire debate is roughly 45 minutes and consists of constructive speeches, rebuttals, and cross-examination.
|
UIL Topics
Spring 2016
RESOLVED: In the United States, wealth inequality is detrimental to democratic ideals. Informational LD Video
Made by: The Independence High School Varsity LD Team
|
NSDA Topics
NOVICE LD TOPIC AREA: Civil Disobedience
Resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified. 2016 January/February LD Topic Resolved: In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned. Potential LD Topics for 2015-16:
|
Progressive Strategies in LD (Proceed with Caution):
Over the years, the LD and Policy debate communities have began to merge As a result, many of the unorthodox and extreme arguments that are typically only seen in Policy have made their way into LD. It is strongly suggested to use the following tactics with caution, and to completely avoid them on UIL circuits. These strategies however, are commonly accepted on the TFA circuit, of course with the exception of some judges. At the least, the following information will give an understanding on the structure of each argument and how to deconstruct each of them. In all honesty, these forms of argumentation are not so much different from your traditional LD case structure, and are typically run in tandem with a more standard case.
Plans and Counterplans:
These are by far the most commonly used progressive tactic in LD. The idea is simple; as opposed to defending the resolution in a general sense, the Affirmative debater “fiats” the resolution by implementing it in a specific situation. The same goes for Negative counterplans, except they provide an alternative to the resolution.
Structure of Plans/ Counterplans:
Ways to combat counterplans:
The most common hole in counterplans, especially in local tournaments, is a lack of mutual exclusivity. If the negative provides no reason as to why their advocacy is specific to their position, the aff can “perm” (debate lingo for “permute”) their counterplan by implementing it in addition to their original advocacy. As a result, the affirmative would have garnered all of the negative's offense, and the negative debater would be left with no unique reason to negate.
Kritiks:
A kritik (“critique” in German) is exactly what it sounds like; a critique of something inherent to the negative/affirmative advocacy. Most commonly, they are referred to as “K’s”. Critiques typically link back to some form of oppression.
Examples:
1. Capitalism Kritiks argue that a capitalistic structure of society is inherent in their opponent’s advocacy. Because capitalism perpetuates class hierarchy, it must thus be rejected.
2. Feminism Kritiks argue why the opponent’s advocacy is inherently patriarchal.
3. Anti-ethics Kritiks argue that ethics and theories of morality have been created without the Black person in mind, and thus are inherently racist and should be rejected.
4. Intersectionality Kritik: This is a unique argument, and can be seen as a Kritik of many of the most common kritiks. It argues that because the aff/neg focuses all their arguments on highlighting the oppression of only one group (women, African Americans, the poor), they are merely increasing the divide between that group and the rest of society.
5. Performance/Word Kritiks: These K’s are the strangest of them all, although rather rare. They argue that a specific action performed by their opponent or a word that they said links into perpetuation of some form of oppression. As a result, this in itself is grounds to vote against them.
Structure of a Kritik:
Theory:
This should be used with extreme caution, and should honestly only be a last resort. If you truly believe that something the opponent has done within the round has been completely abusive, then this is a way to make a formal statement about it. This can be thought of as “debate about debate”.
Structure of a Theory Shell:
On the 2015 January-February topic, “Just governments ought to ensure that employers pay a living wage”, the opponent runs a plantext which parametricizes the resolution to “This small province in southern Uganda ought to give those doing manual labor for free a living wage”. In such a case, it could be argued that this sort of argument is abusive as it is way too specific for any generic evidence or argumentation to properly apply.
Over the years, the LD and Policy debate communities have began to merge As a result, many of the unorthodox and extreme arguments that are typically only seen in Policy have made their way into LD. It is strongly suggested to use the following tactics with caution, and to completely avoid them on UIL circuits. These strategies however, are commonly accepted on the TFA circuit, of course with the exception of some judges. At the least, the following information will give an understanding on the structure of each argument and how to deconstruct each of them. In all honesty, these forms of argumentation are not so much different from your traditional LD case structure, and are typically run in tandem with a more standard case.
Plans and Counterplans:
These are by far the most commonly used progressive tactic in LD. The idea is simple; as opposed to defending the resolution in a general sense, the Affirmative debater “fiats” the resolution by implementing it in a specific situation. The same goes for Negative counterplans, except they provide an alternative to the resolution.
Structure of Plans/ Counterplans:
- The framework: The standard LD framework structure.
- The text: This is where you explain exactly what your plan/counterplan proposes. For example, on the 2014 January-February topic, “Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage”, a standard plantext would be “The United States will require that employers pay a living wage of $15 per hour”. On the living wage topic, a common counterplan was the EITC tax plan, which was declared in the following fashion: “The United States will implement an Earned Income Tax credit in the United States.”
- Net Benefits/ Mutual exclusivity: This is specific to counterplans only. Here you will explain not only why your alternative is superior to the affirmative advocacy, but why it is mutually exclusive. For two things to be mutually exclusive, they must not be able to simultaneously be applied. For example, on the 2016 January-February handguns topic, if the negative suggests a counterplan to “ban all guns, not just handguns”, this would fail due to a lack of mutual exclusivity.
- Contentions/Advantages: The standard defining of key points that give your side an edge.
Ways to combat counterplans:
The most common hole in counterplans, especially in local tournaments, is a lack of mutual exclusivity. If the negative provides no reason as to why their advocacy is specific to their position, the aff can “perm” (debate lingo for “permute”) their counterplan by implementing it in addition to their original advocacy. As a result, the affirmative would have garnered all of the negative's offense, and the negative debater would be left with no unique reason to negate.
Kritiks:
A kritik (“critique” in German) is exactly what it sounds like; a critique of something inherent to the negative/affirmative advocacy. Most commonly, they are referred to as “K’s”. Critiques typically link back to some form of oppression.
Examples:
1. Capitalism Kritiks argue that a capitalistic structure of society is inherent in their opponent’s advocacy. Because capitalism perpetuates class hierarchy, it must thus be rejected.
2. Feminism Kritiks argue why the opponent’s advocacy is inherently patriarchal.
3. Anti-ethics Kritiks argue that ethics and theories of morality have been created without the Black person in mind, and thus are inherently racist and should be rejected.
4. Intersectionality Kritik: This is a unique argument, and can be seen as a Kritik of many of the most common kritiks. It argues that because the aff/neg focuses all their arguments on highlighting the oppression of only one group (women, African Americans, the poor), they are merely increasing the divide between that group and the rest of society.
5. Performance/Word Kritiks: These K’s are the strangest of them all, although rather rare. They argue that a specific action performed by their opponent or a word that they said links into perpetuation of some form of oppression. As a result, this in itself is grounds to vote against them.
Structure of a Kritik:
- The Role of the Ballot: This is a unique stance on a framework which argues that the judge has an obligation as an educator to vote based on some criteria because of some X,Y,Z. This often makes a strong claim about in-round discourse and its effects, and often tries to argue that the very fact that the abolition of oppression of a certain group is being advocated for in the round is an independent reason to vote in that direction.
- The Link: This explains exactly what about the opponent’s advocacy links into, or triggers the kritik.
- The Impact: What the effect of the opponent linking into the kritik is
- The Alternative (optional): Provides an alternative advocacy that does not link into, or "trigger" the critique.
Theory:
This should be used with extreme caution, and should honestly only be a last resort. If you truly believe that something the opponent has done within the round has been completely abusive, then this is a way to make a formal statement about it. This can be thought of as “debate about debate”.
Structure of a Theory Shell:
- Interpretation: Here, you will explain your interpretation of what should be considered standard practice in LD argumentation.
- Violation: This explains what exactly the opponent did to violate the previously said rule.
- Standards: Reasoning as to why to reject the opponent’s actions/arguments. These are usually rather generic, such as reciprocity (are both sides able to access this kind of argument), availability of topic literature (does this argument have a reasonable amount of topic literature out there)
- Voters: This can be thought of as the “sentence” that you propose as a result of the opponent violating this theory shell. It can range from the mild “drop this argument made by them” to the severe “drop the opponent”.
On the 2015 January-February topic, “Just governments ought to ensure that employers pay a living wage”, the opponent runs a plantext which parametricizes the resolution to “This small province in southern Uganda ought to give those doing manual labor for free a living wage”. In such a case, it could be argued that this sort of argument is abusive as it is way too specific for any generic evidence or argumentation to properly apply.
LD Resources
Login to the NSDA page for access to premium LD resources.
ld story time:
Rittika Pandey is a senior debater at Independence High School. Her amazing journey as a debater began when her interest sparked to take the class as an elective. Rittika considered herself a complete introvert who would never be able to speak in public, much less become the great debater she is now. Last year was not so much a year of winning trophies, yet a learning experience for Rittika. She was able to experiment a little with several different events such as Lincoln-Douglas debate, Public Forum, and Extemporaneous speaking. What caught her attention the most was Lincoln-Douglas and International Extemp. Hence, her senior year she was more than ready to take on the challenge. She will be graduating with several trophies and medals, many of which held first place at tournaments.
Debate has created so many great experiences for Rittika and has taught her speaking skills that will aid her for the rest of her career. The team is very proud to recognize her as part of our team and wish that her career is filled with succesful adventures after graduation.
Debate has created so many great experiences for Rittika and has taught her speaking skills that will aid her for the rest of her career. The team is very proud to recognize her as part of our team and wish that her career is filled with succesful adventures after graduation.