Lincoln Douglas Debate Instructions



Individual Debate

Lincoln Douglas Debate
Lincoln Douglas Debate is "one on one" argumentation in which the debaters attempt to convince the judge of their side of the proposition of value. 

Debating a Proposition of Value 
Lincoln Douglas debaters do not advocate establishing any new policy or advocate changes in existing policy.

Format Each speaker has an equal amount of time to persuade the judge.


Speech Type	Time Allotted
Affirmative Constructive	Six Minutes
Cross-Examination by the Negative speaker	Three Minutes
Neg. Constructive	Seven Minutes
Cross-Examination by the Aff. Speaker	Three Minutes
Aff. Rebuttal	Four Minutes
Neg. Rebuttal	Six Minutes
Second Aff. Rebuttal	Three Minutes



Duties of the Speakers 
The affirmative speaker is required to support the resolution. 
The negative speaker must oppose the resolution. The negative may or may not present a negative case. 
Both speakers bear the burden of clash in rebuttals. Each must speak to their opponent's position in the debate. 
All arguments a speaker intends to stand on must be introduced in the first speech each makes. 



Making a Decision
Lincoln Douglas debate is a debate over values. Since it is impossible to prove a value, the decision should go to the debater who best upholds their side of the resolution through effective analysis, evidence reasoning, refutation, and delivery. In LD debate, logic and persuasion are stressed. None of this relieves the LD debater from the need to use evidence in supporting assertions of fact.





Preparation Time
 Each debater has three minutes of preparation time, which they may use as they please before speeches. They may not use preparation time before cross-examination time. Cross-examination may not be waived and used as preparation time or vice versa. Preparation time should be called out at one-minute intervals by the timekeeper unless otherwise specified. 



Constructive/Rebuttals
 All arguments a debater intends to stand on during the debate must be raised in constructives. Rebuttals are used to expand and extend issues which the speaker has already raised. No new arguments are to be introduced in rebuttals. New arguments issued in rebuttals are to be disregarded. New evidence and analysis are allowed in rebuttals as long as they are being used to buttress positions which were introduced in constructives. 



Team Debates





Sides
 Teams have been assigned to debate affirmative or negative. 
The affirmative must uphold the resolution. 
The negative must oppose the resolution either by defending the present system or by presenting an alternative to the resolution (known as counter-plan). 

Speech Time
Speech time is limited and must occur in the following order:

Speech Type	Time Allotted
First Affirmative Constructive	Eight Minutes
Cross-Examination by a Negative Speaker	Three Minutes
First Negative Constructive	Eight Minutes
Cross-Examination by an Affirmative Speaker	Three Minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive	Eight Minutes
Cross-Examination by the other Negative Speaker	Three Minutes
Second Negative Constructive	Eight Minutes
Cross-Examination by the other Affirmative Speaker	Three Minutes
First Negative Rebuttal	Five Minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal	Five Minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal	Five Minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal	Five Minutes






Preparation Time


Each team has eight minutes of preparation time, which they may use as long as they please before speeches. They may not use preparation time before cross-examination time. Cross-examination time may not be waived and used as preparation time. Preparation time should be called out at one-minute intervals by the timekeeper unless otherwise specified.



Oral Prompting


Oral prompting by the partner of the person speaking is expressly prohibited. This is in effect during speeches and during cross-examination. No oral time signals may be given by contestants. Oral prompting shall be penalized by the loss of the debate by the offending team. If evidence is requested during cross-examination, the seated partner may assist the witness in finding it. 



Constructive/Rebuttals


All arguments a team intends to stand on during the debate must be raised in constructive. Rebuttals are to expand and extend issues which the speaker has already raised. No new arguments are allowed to be introduced in rebuttals except during the first affirmative rebuttal when responses to second negative constructive arguments are permitted. New arguments issued in rebuttals should be disregarded. 
New evidence and analyses are allowed in rebuttals as long as they are being used to buttress positions that were introduced in constructives.





Evidence 


Should a serious challenge to the legality of evidence used in the round be issued during the debate, the judges should allow the round to finish and then return to the judges' room for further direction. Judges may only request evidence from debaters if and only if its legality has been questioned. Judges may not call in evidence at the end of a debate to reread it. 
During cross-examination, the questioner may request to see evidence read by their opponents. All evidence must be returned to the team which owns at the end of cross-examination.





Full Citations


The first time evidence is read in a debate round, the debater must read the full citations on that piece of evidence. Full citations include: author, full source title, date, and page number. Full citations are not necessary if the same source is cited a second time. Failure to read full citations shall void the impact of that evidence in the debate. 



Note Taking
 Judges are encouraged to take notes during the round. Only contestants and judges are allowed to take notes during the round. Observers may not flow the debate. 



Making a Decision
There are many models for judging debate. Two of the most popular are called "Stock Issues" and "Policy Maker". 
Stock Issues Judging Criterion
 This criterion claims that there are five main voting issues in debate. 
Topicality: Does the affirmative plan reasonably adhere to the limitation of the resolution?
 Significance: Is there justification to change from the present system.
Inherency: Is there a clear barrier which prevents the present system from solving the problem better than the present system? 
Solvency: Can the proposed plan solve the problem better than the present system? 
Disadvantages: Do the advantages claimed by the affirmative outweigh the disadvantages claimed by the negative? 

Policy Maker Judging Criterion
This criterion claims that the winning team is the one that presents the superior policy option. 
The Affirmative should win the round if its policy option meets the resolution and gains advantages that outweigh the disadvantages presented by the Negative team. 
The Negative team should win the round if it proves that the affirmative team's plan is not topical or if the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. 
Regardless of the model used to judge the debate, please allow the debaters to resolve the issues themselves. Sides were assigned, the teams did not choose to debate the side of the resolution they are defending. Try not to allow your own personal feelings about an issue to influence the outcome of the debate. 

Please Make an Independent Decision
Please do not discuss your decision with other judges until after the ballots have been turned in.