Remember the 19th Ferengi Rule of Acquisition: Satisfaction is not guaranteed.
Overview:
LD debate is a value debate based upon a resolution. It emphasizes communicating with a judge, or if you're good, multiple judges, and convincing him/her/them that you are right and your opponent is wrong.
Unlike Parliamentary debate, you aren't given a different resolution each round, and unlike policy (cross examination) debate, you aren't given just one topic a year. Instead, you have the middle ground and are given a new new topic every 2 months. A sample resolution may be:
Resolved: In United States policy, the principle of equality ought to take precedence over liberty.
All resolutions begin with the word "Resolved." This seems inherently contradictory, since if the issues were resolved, we wouldn't be debating them, would we?? Most resolutions instead deal with issues that we have never been so bored to think about, and we don't have an opinion the first time we hear them.
As a debater, you must be prepared to debate both sides of the resolution. This means you have to write at least two cases. However, many debaters lack integrity so they sell or give your cases to their friends, in which case having three or four cases won't hurt.
Establishing yourself as an authority:
In order to win in LD, it is essential that you establish yourself as an authority. This doesn't mean that your judge will remember you the next day, it only means that the judge believes what you say and still remembers who you are by the time the debate is done. You must be credible. Here are three ways to establish yourself as an authority.
LD debate is named after Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, who obviously debated, otherwise it wouldn't be called Lincoln-Douglas debate, would it? Lincoln always wore formal clothing that was very subdued and never got attention. Douglas, on the other hand, wore the latest style, always having a good sense of fashion. This is not unlike a debate tournament. You could find that you are wearing the best suit out there, guaranteed by the Men's Warehouse guy, while your opponent is wearing an orange suit, and he might have Dennis Rodman-like hair. The point is, dress is important. You must establish yourself as an authority. If you look like the guy that your judge saw living in a cardboard box last night, chances are you're not going to make a good impression.
The second way you establish yourself as an authority is to use quotes. This doesn't mean that you don't write your own cases, but it does mean that you should use credible authors. You don't want to use someone like, say, Ayn Rand, who doesn't have a clue what's going on, contradicts him/herself, and writes trash novels in his/her spare time. Use someone like John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, people that the judge has heard about and are credible.
The third way you establish yourself as an authority is to not be a jerk. Although you can be a jerk (sometimes without realizing it) and still win, it won't happen often. For example, a former teammate of mine had "You are a dickhead" written clearly on his ballot, but he still won. However, being nice in cross examination and not making personal attacks will serve you better than being that nasty mean person. The key is to tell your opponent, "You're wrong, your teammates are wrong, your brother is wrong, your coach is wrong, and I question your parents' choice to even have you as a child," but to say it in a nice way. It kind of reminds me of student congress.
Prep Time
Prep time depends on the debater's individual preference. Some debaters need to use all of it; others don't. Make sure that before you go up and speak, you know exactly what you are going to say. This is what prep time is for. Also, gather evidence during prep time if you have any.
One generally accepted rule of prep time is to not use it before a cross examination. Otherwise, anything goes.
The Affirmative Case:
If you are on the affirmative side of the resolution, you obviously want to prove that it's right. So, you get a nice 6-minute speech to establish yourself, in other words, making your case (hence the term, "Affirmative case"). Generally, debaters start out with a good attention-grabbing quote that says in one paragraph or less, "I'm right, and if you don't follow what I do, Universal Armageddon will be a direct result." Find a quote that says that statement eloquently.
I'm going to digress a little for a moment. The term "debater" is often synonymous with the term "liar." Although this isn't entirely true, sometimes that term does apply. Here's where the introduction comes in. After you give that quote saying that you're right and if you weren't, Armageddon would result, you generally say, "It is because I agree with (author)'s philosophy that I must affirm today's resolution of Resolved: (rest of resolution). This is where even the best debaters lie. The reason why they are affirming the resolution is because that's what side the tournament directors assigned them to, not because they believe in that opinion. This is something that the negative should keep in mind, just in case there's nothing else to argue. It won't give you a win on the Neg, but it'll use your speech time.
The Value and Value Criterion
LD debate centers around a value. A value is...well...something you value. For example, liberty, justice, happiness, societal welfare, etc. But if you really want to increase your chances at winning the most, you should use the superior value of the quality of life. Although some people don't like it, the quality of life is the best value. With the value argument, you want to show why your value is better and why your opponent's value will obviously lead to another 6 million Jews dying at the hands of a fascist dictator. Or you could be a nonaggressive weakling and merely point out that your opponent's value is important, but yours is just better.
Next comes the value criterion. This is simply your proposed way to weigh the two values and see which is better. Whichever value meets the value criterion best is the best value. These are things like liberty, cost-benefit analysis, justice, etc. If you use something like liberty, then the value which provides for the most liberty is the value that is the best.
You state and, if necessary, define the value/value criterion setup after your introduction.
Definitions:
Next comes the definitions, stated in your observations (see next section). Definitions are very important. A poorly defined term could lose the round for you. Every debater knows what each of the terms really means, but LDers sometimes try to pull something by making a definition that favors them and gives their opponent no chance of winning if the definition is accepted. These definitions are called "abusive." Also, debaters will try to defined a two-or-more-word phrase as separate words. For example, we'll define "civil disobedience" in this way. Civil--to be orderly or nonviolent. Disobedience--to disobey or break a rule or law. Then you put them together and get "a nonviolent way of breaking the law." However, according to Black's Law Dictionary, civil disobedience as 1 term is refusal to obey a governmental policy or law in an effort to draw attention to a certain problem. Those two definitions are quite different, aren't they? If your opponent attempts to define a two or more word term as separate words, point this out: A cherry bomb defined as two separate words is a fruit that explodes, leaving all of its juicy debris behind. That's quite a bit different from a cherry bomb defined as one word. The main idea here is to get good definitions that are fair to both sides, and don't put yourself in a hole from the start by proposing bad definitions.
Observations:
Observations are ideas that you point out as the affirmative in order to set the grounds for the debate. Definitions should be stated as observations. Some debaters point out that since the affirmative has to prove that the resolution is always or at least generally true, the negative should have to prove that the resolution is always or generally the opposite. This is thrown in to take a little credibility away from those debaters who try to run a balanced case on the negative, which I will explain later. Another observation could be a point that needs to be explained but doesn't quite fit with a contention. An example of this could be, "Civil disobedience is nonviolent in action. As such, I do not have to defend violent lawbreaking, or even lawbreaking that isn't taking place as an effort to get an unjust law changed." That description wasn't included in the definition, and it wouldn't quite work in the middle of a case, so the affirmative would state it as an observation so that it was said in the constructive.
Contentions:
Contentions are the "meat" of your case. This is where you show how you are always right and how if you vote negative, Hitler will come back from the dead and take over the world. There are usually 3 main points that you have on your side of the resolution. Each point is called a contention and is usually only one sentence. Then after you have stated a contention, or main argument, you go into subpoints. These subpoints explain how the contention relates to the resolution, how your value will be best upheld by following your contention, or merely goes into greater detail on your original contention. In order to have the most credibility, you should use 1 or 2 quotes per contention. This will make the judge know that someone else agrees with your position. Remember, the contentions are the main arguments. Pick them carefully and make sure you have more information to back up what you have to say, because these are the points that will be argued later in the debate. If your case makes sense and relates to the resolution well, you have already made a good impression and stand a greater chance of winning.
Conclusion:
In case you already haven't noticed, the case is in the general form of a five paragraph essay, where the introductory quote, value/criterion, and definitions make up the introduction, the observations and contentions make up the body, and now comes the conclusion. You probably won't have more than 30 seconds to state this conclusion, so make it brief. Many cases do not even have a conclusion. But you should quickly review what you have said. It isn't too important, but it does polish of your speech a little.
Cross examination:
Being cross examined:
Right after your affirmative constructive speech, the negative has the privilege to cross examine you. Don't get yourself into a hole here. One key here is to not do any "yes--but...'s." Often, the debater will move on to the next question immediately after you say the "yes" part of the answer. For example, if your opponent asks, "Haven't the Atlanta Braves lost multiple World Series?" Don't answer, "Yes--but they're still a good team." A better answer would be, "In the regular season before those losses, the Atlanta Braves compiled records that were near the top of the majors. Thus, we cannot reach the conclusion that the Atlanta Braves aren't a good team solely on the basis of them losing a 4-out-of-7 series. See what happened. With the second answer, not only did we have a better answer, but the answer was longer, took away the opponent's entire premise, and wasted some valuable CX time in the process.
The second thing you need to do is to go off on tangents when your opponent gives you the chance. This happens on questions that are not "yes or no" or "one or the other" questions. If your opponent asks how your value relates to your case, don't make a simple statement. Make a paragraph speech if you can. But do be careful when you go off on tangents. Some debaters will start joy riding through tangent land, not realizing what they are saying, and they will dig themselves a nice big hole.
The third thing you need to do is to keep calm and don't display lost confidence, even if you don't have a shred of confidence left. After getting beaten around in a good cross examination, some debaters will give up or they'll get mad. Either way, you're in a lot of trouble. Those who come off cross examination calm and confident no matter how bad the CX went, have a good chance at keeping their position firm.
The fourth thing is to be smart. Don't say something that you will regret saying. And don't discredit yourself by going against the painfully obvious unless you have some excellent reasoning or a really good source to back yourself up. Don't talk yourself into a hole. There is a fine line between saying too little and not wasting your opponent's time, and saying too much and hurting your own case. If you can't think up an answer quickly, take a moment to think about it, or ask your opponent to repeat or rephrase the question so that you have some time to come up with a good answer. Often times, you will say something too quickly and then realize that you could have had a much better answer.
Cross examining your opponent:
Many people think that the debate is won and lost through argumentation. Since this is true, cross examination is the most important part of the debate, since your good arguments will come straight from your cross examination. If you are good at cross examination (CX), you stand a good chance of winning every debate round.
In CX, don't ask "why" questions. This allows your opponent to go off on a tangent, explaining why he is the immortal always right person. Yes or no questions are advisable, as they force your opponent to give you a straight answer and not beat around the bushes. If your opponent refuses to answer a yes or no question, then over time the judge will think less of him or her.
If at all possible, ask questions that you already know the answer to. On a resolution that dealt with our obligation to ourselves versus our obligation to the community, I used the question, "If your house was on fire and you were trapped in the house, would you expect a fireman to come rescue you?" There is an obvious answer. That question and others like it that I used did two things: First, it gave me good ammunition to use in later speeches. Second, it gave me a sense of confidence, that I was winning, and my opponents' confidence was generally diminished. So a good cross examination can make all the difference both in the mental attitude and in the arguments themselves.
Know where you're going with a line of questioning. Don't just ask a question to use all 3 minutes of your time, ask a question that is going somewhere. Know where your destination is, and w ork to achieve it. If you meet some setbacks along the way, reword the questioning or go about it in a different way. If you know where you're going and have a good idea of how you're going to get there, chances are you're cross examination will be a better success.
The first affirmative rebuttal
This is where you put the rubber stamp on the round. 75% of all LD ballots are decided right after this rebuttal. It is a very high pressured speech. This is what you have t o tackle: First off, the value and value criterion of each side. Second, the 4-6 contentions, each having their own subpoints. It's a lot to cover in 4 minutes, but when done right, you can make an effective 1AR speech.
Defending & attacking the value/criterion in the 1AR
This part of the speech should take between 40 and 50 seconds. Since LD is centered around the value, make sure that the values and criteria are covered fully. With the value, say how yours is better and defend the attacks that your opponent made on your value. On the criterion, use both criteria to show how your value meets the criteria no matter which criterion you use, and how your opponent's value isn't achieved through his own criterion. Be quick but thorough.
Defending your own case
Next, you should defend your own case. Speakers here in Wyoming (including me) generally attack the negative's case first and then find that they have to rush through defending their own case because they don't have enough time left. To change that problem, it's a good idea to go over your own case first, since it will have at least 3 contentions and will take longer to cover than your opponent's. Judges usually think that the affirmative's case is more important, because if the affirmative can't prove the resolution true, it must be false and the Neg should win. In order to keep the time short, spend about 1:30 to 2:00 on your case (that's minutes and seconds, not hours).
Refuting your opponent's case
This segment should take up 1:15 to 1:30 of your time. Make sure you cover all of the contentions, otherwise your opponent will pull something and say, "Well . . . my opponent attacked one contention, but he/she didn't attack the important one." This is a blatant lie, but you still should try and cover all the main arguments. Remember, in a rebuttal, evidence is nice. It makes you look well researched and Establishes yourself as an authority.
Extras
Things like observations, definitions, are extra things and only should be argued if they are going to hurt your case. This should be done at the beginning of your speech.
Other little extra things that are in the "would be nice, but aren't absolutely imperative" category are things like crystallization, showing how your arguments impact your opponent's case, pointing out contradictions, and misuse/falsifying of evidence. If your opponent does falsify evidence, make sure you bring that up both in cross examination and here. All these little "extras" should be fit in when you have the time. Good debaters can include all of these things as they go down the flow.
The second Affirmative Rebuttal
Crystallization, crystallization, crystallization. Oops, did I forget to mention crystallization? This is where you weave all of the extra yarns into one all-encompassing speech. Here you are confronted with the immense challenge of tying the entire round together and making sure you have covered all the main arguments. You only get three minutes, so don't go down the flow line by line trying to cover all the arguments. Make sure you cover the value/criteria and the contentions. You need to give voting issues; in other words, tell the judge exactly why you won and how you came to that determination. Be careful though, don't just say you've won an issue if you really haven't, and don't make an unimportant issue out to be important just because you've won it. Most judges will pick up these lies and you probably won't win. Just make sure that you cover everything that was damaging to you and everything that was damaging to your opponent. Show the impact that your arguments had on your opponent's case. Don't bring up too many specifics unless they are important arguments that you feel that you have to refute.
The Negative Case (or lack thereof)
When you first looked down at the times and saw that you had only 7 minutes to establish your case and refute your opponent's, you probably thought that you got the shaft on the negative side because of time constraints. Well, that's why you should give up thinking. Seven minutes is ample time, and the negative often has the advantaged, as he/she can spend a lot of time on a lot of arguments.
I won't waste my time telling you a lot about the negative case; most of what you need to know about the general structure has been discussed in the Affirmative Case section. You still need an intro (although it has to be shorter than on the affirmative), observations, definitions, contentions, oh yeah, and a value & a value criterion usually help. But only 99% of the time. There are significant differences, though, so without further adieu, here they are:
Definitions
Don't bring up your own definitions unless you see something wrong with the affirmative's definitions. Otherwise you're dispensing with valuable time. If you do see something unfair or wrong with the Aff's definitions, state your own definitions and why yours are better, more logical, etc. It's better to battle with definitions using logic rather than "my source is better than yours." Yes-no-I'm right-You're wrong debates become really old really quick. The main thing is to have good arguments if your definitions conflict.
Contentions
Keep your case down to two quick contentions. Some debaters try to fit in 3, or occasionally even more, but two is good. If you have a two contention Neg case, you should have around 4 minutes to refute the affirmative's case, which is plenty of time to cite evidence and make good arguments against the Aff case. Again, having two subpoints is a good idea, but if you need more, use more. Keep them brief enough so that you don't waste time, but make sure your ideas are crystal clear.
Conclusion
This is quite simple: Don't have one, unless it is at the very end of your speech. If you conclude your thoughts after your case when your speech is only half over, the judge might think that you have the intellectual capacity of a parsnip. And you don't want that. A premature conclusion also makes for a worse presentation.
The Straight Refutation Case
Don't even think about using this unless you have practiced it and are comfortable with it. For those of you who can't figure out what straight refutation is, it's simply refuting each and every affirmative point without presenting your own case. Under the rules of LD debate, this is totally kosher. In practice, in might not quite be so good.
If you want a detailed analysis on using the straight ref case, go to James Scott's debate page. Here are my thoughts. It is wonderful to have 7 minutes to refute the affirmative's case. That gives you ample time to cover each point fully and to make multiple arguments on each point. However, in the back of my mind when I tried this style, I always knew that I had a lot of time. Therefore, I slowed down my delivery and had no smoothness whatsoever. Another roadblock that you have to break through is the fact that your judges will generally be expecting a case. When judges, especially lay judges, don't see that case, they are confused and think there is something missing. Personally, I debate better under pressure, and time constraints put that needed pressure on me. I have found that if you present your own case, the judge knows exactly where you stand on the issues, and the affirmative has much more to worry about in his/her 4 minute 1AR. Also, you meet the expectations of the judge. Like Communism, the straight ref case looks good on paper, but it fails in practice, at least for me.
The Balanced Negative Case
Four letters: Y-U-C-K. Note: That was a "Y," not an "F." Also called "chickening out," or "being a weenie," establishing a balanced case is something that I just don't like. People who use it are like a leader who can't decide on an issue. If someone is indecisive, he/she isn't going to be voted in as President. A balanced case basically says that neither one side should supersede the other. Instead, the two values/ideals/ideas/terms being discussed should be implemented equally.
There are some points that I make about this being against the rules of LD, but I won't discuss them here. I already gave away a secret about which value to use; I won't give away another free top secret point of information. One big problem with the balanced case is that it takes away from the overall quality of the debate. Rather than having two sides at odds, completely opposite of one another, we have one person that is standing his ground and another person that is running around in circles but isn't really confronting the issue. It makes for a better debate to have two people opposed to one another, than having one of the debaters say, "Yeah, you're right, equality is good. But you have to have liberty distributed equally with equality."
The First Negative Constructive
The negative case, if used, is the first part of the constructive. Ideally, it is only 3 minutes long, leaving you with 4 minutes to refute your opponent's case. You want to establish all the arguments here, making absolutely certain that you have covered the value/criterion, the contentions, and detrimental observations & definitions. You want to establish your case, showing again why you are right and your opponent is wrong. There is ample time to do this; just make sure you are conscious of how much time you have remaining so that you budget your time as you need it. You shouldn't have to rush to finish up your attacks, and you should be able to show how your arguments impact the aff's case.
The First (and only) Negative Rebuttal
Again, you're thinking that you got the shaft, only getting one rebuttal. But then you realize it's twice as long as the affirmative's next speech. So, you have 6 minutes to go over 5+ contentions, 2 values, 2 criteria, and crystallization. That means that you can spend an average of
Essentially, you want to attack things in the same manner that you do on the 1AR, making sure that you hit every point. But realize that you have a lot of time. Remember you can bring in new evidence in a rebuttal, just not new arguments. So it would be advisable to impress the judge by introducing new evidence to tighten up your case.
You have a lot of time, so use it all, even if it requires reattacking every little subpoint. You don't have to crystallize the entire speech like you might want to in the 2AR, so make sure that you go down line by line and then crystallize at the end. You want to make it clear that you have won, and introduce new evidence that could cripple the aff in his/her 2AR.
Proper end-of-debate etiquette
It is customary to shake your opponent's hand after the round and say "Good job," "Nice debate," or some other nice words even if you don't mean them. If you're mad, make sure that you still say the words in a nice way. Grumbling, "Good job," isn't going to make a good impact on your judge.
NEVER pack up your debate stuff before your opponent is done speaking. This is rude and many judges will notice it, especially if you are loud. You want to give your opponent respect, even if he/she doesn't deserve it.
Be professional, but don't be a suck up. Sometimes shaking your judge's hand can be taken as brown nosing rather than being professional. It probably won't win you any brownie points with the judge, and it might annoy other debaters. If you want to, that's your decision. But if you do, make sure that you don't do it in a brown nosing sort of way.