Lincoln-Douglas Debate: The Complete Guide

The value is the goal the resolution should be judged against. The criterion is the measuring stick that tells the judge how to know whether that goal has been reached. If your value is justice and your criterion is protecting rights, you are telling the judge that whichever side better protects rights has achieved justice and should win. Every contention you read then has to show your side protects rights better. A framework that nothing in the case connects to is decoration, and experienced judges notice.

You do not need a philosophy degree, but you do need to understand the handful of ethical theories that most frameworks come from, well enough to defend them under cross-ex. Read a summary from a reliable reference such as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, then read the primary text for the argument you plan to run.

When the two debaters bring different criteria, the judge has to decide which one to use before deciding anything else. You have three options, and good debaters prepare all three for every case they expect.

The AC is the only speech you can write word for word before the round, so it should be polished. A traditional AC runs about 6 minutes read at a clear, conversational pace, and follows a predictable structure so the judge can flow it.

The NC does two jobs in 7 minutes: present the negative's own case and begin attacking the affirmative. A common split is about 4 minutes of negative case and 3 minutes of refutation, but adjust it to the round. Your negative case should be pre-written; your attack on the AC is partly pre-written blocks and partly responses you build during the AC and cross-ex.

Under the NSDA's evidence rules for debate, a card should carry a full citation, including author qualifications where available, and should begin at the start of the paragraph you are quoting from and end at the end of the paragraph. Ellipses are not used, because the point is to keep the full context of the quotation available. If you paraphrase a source, you must be able to produce the original if your opponent or the judge asks.

Frontlines are prepared answers defending your own case against the attacks you expect. Blocks are prepared answers to arguments your opponent is likely to read. Writing both before a tournament is what lets you give a 4-minute 1AR that answers 7 minutes of offense.

Each debater gets one 3-minute cross-examination, right after the opponent's constructive. The questioner controls the time and asks; the respondent answers. Cross-ex is not a speech and new arguments made in it do not count until they are put into a speech. Its real purposes are to clarify what your opponent said, expose weak warrants, and set up the arguments you will make next.

The 1AR must answer the negative's full case and the attacks on the affirmative in 4 minutes, after a 7-minute NC. It cannot cover everything at the same depth, so it has to be efficient. Anything the 1AR drops is usually treated as conceded, and the 2AR generally cannot bring it back.

The NR is 6 minutes, longer than the 1AR, and it is the negative's last speech. Its job is to choose the arguments that win the round, explain them fully, and weigh them against what is left of the affirmative. Covering everything shallowly is the most common NR mistake.

The 2AR has 3 minutes and the last word. It cannot answer everything the NR said, and it should not try. Its job is to tell the judge a clear story of why the affirmative wins, using arguments that were already in the 1AR.

Flowing is taking structured notes so you can see every argument and every answer across the round. In LD most debaters use two sheets: one for the affirmative case and one for the negative case, with a column for each speech. Arguments in the same row answer each other, so a blank space next to an argument is a drop.

LD has two broad styles that can feel like different events. Traditional LD, common at local and state tournaments and in rounds judged by parents and community members, is delivered at a conversational pace and built around the value, criterion and contentions described in this guide. Progressive LD, often called circuit or national circuit LD, is common at invitational tournaments that award qualifying bids to the Tournament of Champions at the University of Kentucky. It is usually much faster and borrows argument forms from Policy debate.

LD judges range from parents judging their first round to former national-circuit competitors, and each decides differently. A judge's paradigm is their stated approach to deciding rounds. At many tournaments, judges publish paradigms on Tabroom, and in-round you can politely ask 'Do you have any preferences we should know about?' before the round starts. Judges must leave written comments on the ballot, so read yours after each tournament.

A new LD topic is announced before each cycle begins, which usually gives you a few weeks before the first tournament. The debaters who do best on a new topic are rarely the ones who read the most; they are the ones who understand the core conflict early and build both sides around it.

Model Diplomat can help you get from a new resolution to a researched case faster: finding the strongest arguments on both sides, explaining a philosopher's position in plain language, and surfacing sources you can read and cut cards from. It is a research assistant, not a card file. Always open the original source, read it in context, and cite that source, not the AI summary, in your case.