Foundational IdeasCopy Anchor Link

In this section, we will lay out some of the foundational ideas of National Circuit Lincoln-Douglas debate. We will assume a basic level of familiarity with traditional Lincoln-Douglas debate.

ArgumentCopy Anchor Link

All arguments are composed of a claim, warrant, and impact. The claim is the statement that the argument is attempting to prove. The warrant is the evidence, or reasoning, that backs up the statement. The impact is the implication, or relevance, of that argument. For instance, suppose you are attempting to prove that pencils are better than pens. Your argument might go, "Pencils are better than pens because they allow you to erase mistakes, which can save you a lot of time when writing." Try to identify the claim, warrant, and impact within this argument.

Many arguments within LD contain a card for the warrant to the argument. A card is a piece evidence, typically taken from a website, database, or book, that supports an argument you are trying to make. As such, many arguments will start with a claim, followed by the card which contains the evidence that supports your claim. The impact is often found within the card itself, or you can explicitly write out an impact after the card. Since many sources of evidence are long, and we do not have enough time in round to read out every word of the evidence, the cards are "cut." This means debaters will read only certain words of the evidence to make their point more quickly. Note that it is against the rules of debate to only read selective word to misrepresent what the original piece of evidence is saying.

TurnsCopy Anchor Link

Now that you understand how to structure an argument, you might wonder how to go about responding to them. Luckily, your intuition might serve you well here! You respond to arguments in LD no differently than you would respond to arguments in your day-to-day life, though in this section, we will more formally introduce the two different types of ways of responding to arguments.

Link TurnsCopy Anchor Link

Suppose that your opponent argues, "Passing the resolution will cause tensions to escalate between the U.S. and China, which is bad because that has the potential to turn into war." Note that this argument has a clear claim and impact, but is missing the warrant. For this example, assume that evidence was read backing the argument's claim.

A link turn would argue the opposite of your opponent's claim, namely, that passing the resolution would cause tensions to decrease between the U.S. and China. Note that this is distinct from arguing that passing the resolution would NOT cause tensions to escalate. If you simply argued that passing the resolution would cause tensions to NOT escalate, that could mean the tensions would stay the same (which would be a defensive response). To make a link turn, you need to explicitly argue the opposite of what your opponent is saying.

Even though this example is more oriented around a political issue, you can apply the idea of a link turn to any argument in debate. To make a link turn, you simply need to argue the opposite of your opponent's claim. If your opponent is claiming that pencils are better than pens, to link turn that argument, you would argue that pens are better than pencils.

When making a link turn, your judge is faced with two opposing claims. Instead of letting them decide which side sounds more believable, it's important to warrant your turn appropriately and prove why your evidence is more compelling than your opponent's. You can do this in a variety of ways: using logic to walk through which piece of evidence makes more sense or attacking the credibility of your opponent's source compared to your own are a few ideas.

Impact TurnsCopy Anchor Link

An impact turn concedes that your opponent's claim is true but turns the impact of their argument. Let's return to the earlier example argument, "Passing the resolution will cause tensions to escalate between the U.S. and China, which is bad because that has the potential to turn into war."

To impact turn this argument you would concede that the resolution causes tensions to escalate but argue that escalating tensions is actually good! To do this, you might argue that the potential of U.S. and China war is actually good (which might be harder to do), or you could alternatively argue that escalating tensions might avoid war and cause some other beneficial impact.

Please note that you need to be careful with certain impact turns. Suppose that a debater argues that, "X policy will cause racist attitudes to increase across the country." A link turn to this argument would be that, "X policy actually will decrease racist attitudes across the country." This argument is clearly acceptable. An impact turn, however, would need to argue that "racist attitudes are actually good," which is clearly an unacceptable argument that cannot be run.

LayerCopy Anchor Link

In this section, we start to deviate more from traditional LD debate and make our way into circuit LD. In traditional LD, the role of the affirmative and negative are typically clearly defined. The affirmative must affirm the resolution by proving why it is good, and the negative must negate the resolution by proving why it is bad. There is only one way for the affirmative to win, and one way for the negative to win, that is, by proving their respective sides, substantively. Thus, "substance", or the substantive debate whether the resolution is a good or bad idea, would be considered a layer. In traditional LD debate, there is typically only one layer in the debate: substance.

In circuit LD, however, there are more ways to win the round, and as such, more layers are introduced. One way to win a circuit LD round is to prove that your opponent is engaging in unfair practices in the round and should lose for doing so. These types of arguments are called shells(/theory). If the debater reading theory successfully proves the abuse, they would win the round, causing their opponent to lose. Theory is considered a different layer than substance, since, it provides debaters a path to win the round that is not reliant on substantively winning the debate. That is, even if a debater is losing the debate on the substance layer but winning the debate on the theory layer, they could still win the round; this is because theory is typically considered to be a "higher layer" than substance.

This illustrates the important point that all layers are not created equal. Suppose that the affirmative debater is winning their case that "States ought to ban lethal autonomous weapons." But further suppose that the negative is winning that the affirmative was unfair in the round because they violated prep time by taking 6 minutes of prep (a silly example). Since theory is considered to be a "higher layer" than substance, the negative debater would win the round, even though they are losing on the substance level. A large component about progressive debate is arguing about which layers in the round should be evaluated first. See below for a table of common layers in debate.

"Offs"Copy Anchor Link

Related to layers is the concept of an "off." An "off" is a grouping of similar debate arguments that provide a path to win the round. While layers are used to generally categorize types of arguments in debate, an "off" is used to refer to a specific argument in a specific round. For example, if a debater is running a position that says "the affirmative's position will cause economic collapse, leading to nuclear war," all of the cards and evidence that support this overarching claim would be grouped together as an "off". This distinction may seem confusing, but remember that an "off" is used to refer to a specific grouping of arguments in the round, whereas layers are used to categorize arguments generally across all debate rounds. See below for a table of common "offs" that are read in debate.

Also, debate "offs" are typically used to refer to the negative's positions, since the affirmative typically only reads one "off", the AC itself.

Role of the BallotCopy Anchor Link

The role of the ballot establishes the conditions under which the judge ought to vote for you. In traditional LD, although not explicitly stated, the role of the ballot might be to vote for the debater who proves whether the resolution is morally desirable or not. In circuit LD, however, there are many more potential roles of the ballots which extend beyond substantively proving the resolution true or false.

To start, however, two of the most common role of the ballots are testing(/truth-testing) and worlds(/comparative-worlds). Under truth testing, for instance, the role of the ballot is to vote for the debater who proves the truth or falsity of the resolution. If the text of the resolution is proven true you affirm, or if it is proven false, you negate. For instance, if the resolution is, "Resolved: States ought to ban lethal autonomous weapons," the affirmative would have to prove that statement true. Since the word "ought" is defined as having a moral obligation, the affirmative would need to prove that it is true that we have a moral obligation to ban lethal autonomous weapons. This necessitates justifying and winning a framework, too.

This illustrates the important note that role of the ballots and frameworks are not the same concept. A role of the ballot establishes the conditions under which the judge should vote for you, whereas a framework establishes what actions are moral. In substantive debates, both the affirmative and negative will concede to a role of the ballot such as truth testing, and focus on the framework debate.

Returning to the previous point, however, role of the ballots need not be entirely substantive. Meaning, debaters may argue that judges should vote for them for reasons other than directly affirming or negating the resolution. One clear example of this might be a role of the ballot of "deconstructing oppression in the debate space." Under this role of the ballot, the debater who best fights against discrimination in the debate space should win the round. Potentially, one debater could argue why certain groups are discriminated against in debate, raising more awareness and brining attention to the issue. Then, they would argue why they deserve the ballot for doing so, even if they didn't directly debate the resolution.

Offense vs DefenseCopy Anchor Link

In circuit LD, there is an important distinction between offensive and defensive arguments. Offensive arguments are a proactive reason why your argument is correct over your opponent's argument. Defensive arguments are just a reason why your opponent's argument is incorrect. Importantly, a defensive argument doesn't prove why your arguments are correct; they simply weaken your opponent's argument.

Suppose the resolution is, "Resolved: Circuit Debater Library is a useful educational resource." An offensive argument for the affirmative would give a reason why Circuit Debater Library is educational; for example, it makes it easy for people to learn about new arguments. An offensive argument for the negative would give a reason why Circuit Debater Library is detrimental to one's education as a debater; for example it makes debaters lazy so they won't research their own arguments. A defensive argument for the negative, on the other hand, would argue why Circuit Debater Library is not educational; for example, Circuit Debater Library's website crashes all the time so debaters are never able to access its resources. Importantly, note that the defensive argument is not proving that Circuit Debater Library is actively uneducational; rather, it proves why Circuit Debater Library fails to provide education.

One might wonder, what is the point of defensive arguments, anyway? It seems like offensive arguments are always better! Defensive arguments do have utility, though. Suppose that you and your opponent have two arguments that are directly contradicting each other. You could read a defensive argument against your opponent, thus weakening their argument. Then, your argument would win. For example, suppose you argue, "Umbrellas are better than raincoats because they block more water." Your opponent argues, "Raincoats are better than umbrellas because they don't get swept away by the wind." Without any other arguments, there would be no way to determine who is winning! However, you could make the defensive argument that, "Umbrellas don't get swept away by the wind that often, only on windy days!" In this case, you could win this debate.

WeighingCopy Anchor Link

Weighing is the process in which you compare two arguments and attempt to show that one is stronger than the other. In debate, there are often contradicting arguments, and without weighing, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for the judge to know which argument to prioritize.

There are many different ways to compare, or weigh between two different arguments. You can use as many weighing mechanisms as you would like when comparing two arguments, as an argument might outweigh another on several criterion. The most common weighing mechanisms are outlined in the table below. Weighing Mechanisms

Meta-WeighingCopy Anchor Link

Sometimes, Argument A might outweigh Argument B under one weighing criterion, but Argument B might outweigh Argument A under a different criterion. For example, "Nuclear war outweighs conventional war on magnitude, but conventional war outweighs nuclear war on probability." In this case, you will need to weigh between different weighing mechanisms. That is, you will need to prove why magnitude outweighs probability (or vice-versa). This is done in the same manner as the previous weighing examples. For example, "magnitude outweighs probability since even if an impact is unprovable but could be extremely destructive, we should prepare against it." As from before, this example is extremely general, and you should contextualize your meta-weighing to the specific arguments being made in your rounds.

CollapsingCopy Anchor Link

Oftentimes when you reach the later stages of a round, so much has been said that it is physically impossible to address everything. No matter how fast you are speaking, there will simply not be enough time to properly break down every argument and every refutation. This is where collapsing comes in. Collapsing is a strategy of knowing what not to go for in a round. It is when you narrow down the debate to the specific area that you are winning and are the strongest in. Rather than extending all your contentions, you will pick one and crystallize it, and instead of breaking down your opponent's entire case, you will address one portion of it and explain to the judge why it wins you the round.

Many debaters are fearful that this strategy will paint them as just simply dropping their opponents' cases, and that extending fewer arguments is weaker. However, extending and refuting 6 arguments for 30 seconds each is much less persuasive to the judge then tackling one and proving why that wins you the round. Remember, you are extending your strongest contention or argument that your opponent has struggled to rebuttal against, meaning it should be easy to tell the judge why you win. Additionally, if you are scared of the judge thinking you dropped an argument, just group a bunch of them together rather than going line-by-line for every tagline your opponent throws out there.

Remember, an effective collapse works hand in hand with weighing. You need to explain yourself why this one argument wins the round, and the others were not necessary. Also explain how the fact that your opponent lost their contentions makes you the winner.

FlowingCopy Anchor Link

Flowing is one of the simplest tasks you will do during the debate round, yet it often can decide the winner, along with giving a weaker debater the edge against a tougher opponent. The whole point of a flow during the round is to keep track of all the main points you and your opponent say. This allows you to focus on forming rebuttals rather than trying to remember what your opponents arguments were in the first place. In many cases, one dropped argument can be the difference between a win and a loss, and oftentimes that will be the difference between breaking to day two or packing your bags and going home.

There are many different ways you can flow during the round. If you prefer typing and being online, a spreadsheet like excel or a word doc with boxes may be preferable for organizing the round. For whatever platform you decide to use, first set up columns for each speech of the round, and then fill in the columns with useful information brought up that you would like to address.  If you prefer to write your flow by hand, a paper flow may be preferable for you. You would set up the columns the same way, however you first will create five columns on one side of the paper and four on the other. This is because one side is the affirmative flow which needs the extra column for the extra speech.

In the end you are the one that is flowing, which means you can decide in the moment what to jot down for each of your opponents speeches. The faster you can type or write the more information you will be able to get down, which can be helpful. However if you struggle with speed, at a minimum write down the taglines of all your opponents contentions or subpoints, along with the gist of their rebuttals. Also try to jot down specific warrants so you can reference specific cards later in the round. Your notes should not be full sentences, rather they must be abbreviations or symbols, as when you go up against debaters that spread, you may be writing down an argument while your opponent already said two more.

In the end, good concise flowing comes with time and practice. If you want to improve your skills, you can watch a variety of rounds on youtube where you can practice flowing. This will also allow you to recognize how each debater responds to the arguments placed in their path.

Cross ExaminationCopy Anchor Link

Asking Cross Examination QuestionsCopy Anchor Link

Cross examination goes extremely underutilized in the current debate meta. However, it is the only chance you have to speak face to face with your opponent, and your only chance to directly attempt to catch them off guard in the moment. For novice debaters on a traditional circuit, parent judges value cross examination very highly, and oftentimes the debater who appears to have the most control ends up winning the round.

Thus, asking questions specifically designed to trip up your opponent while preemptively extending your arguments can give you that edge before your speech even starts. Your questions should be either directly related to your opponents arguments, directly related to your own arguments, or directed at questioning your opponent as to how they can even call themselves moral for debating the position they stand behind.

While yes or no questions could be helpful for locking your opponent down to a specific position, open ended questions can be strategic as they force your opponent to explain themselves further, oftentimes revealing inconsistencies or false assumptions. Also remember, your opponent likely does not want to reveal information that gives you the upper hand, so don’t worry if you don’t get the answer you want to hear immediately, it will probably take multiple follow-ups. Also be sure to always be respectful, even if your opponent is giving you a hard time, be the bigger person and be professional, it will go a long way with the judge.

Answering Cross Examination QuestionsCopy Anchor Link

On the other hand, if you want to win a cross examination you must also be a master at responding to questions that come your way. It is necessary not to just slip by the questions you face, but to answer them strongly while reinforcing your own arguments and credibility.

Whenever you are answering questions, always try to keep your answers as concise as possible, as that gives you the smallest opportunity to slip up and say something that you didn’t mean to. If you don’t know a specific statistic or answer to a question, don’t be afraid to ask for a rephrase, or simply say you don’t know that stat. However you can’t say this everytime as it will lose your credibility and reduce your speaker points.

Your opponent will also try to pin you in places that you don’t want to be, like forcing you to admit something immoral or by insinuating an emotional response. You must avoid being defensive, and instead stay calm and composed, and address the situation in any way you see fit that doesn’t cost you the round.

Tech over TruthCopy Anchor Link

One large distinction between traditional and circuit LD is the concept of "tech over truth." In traditional LD, many judges vote for the debater who they are most convinced by the end of the debate. Though many traditional LD judges flow, they take into account the ethos of arguments and the extent to which they believe them. Traditional LD judges might reject arguments that they deem silly even if there is no explicit rebuttal to these arguments. Traditional LD judges are said to vote on the "truth" value of arguments, since they take into account how "true" their beliefs are for the arguments they are voting for.

In circuit LD, in contrast, judges are often trained to evaluate the round solely based on the technical interactions between all of the arguments on their flow. You might view a circuit LD judge more like a computer algorithm that processes each and every argument on the flow, ultimately voting for the debater whose arguments are strongest. This often means that circuit judges will evaluate arguments that might seem silly or unpersuasive if they are conceded by the opponent. Circuit LD judges are said to value the technical aspects of the debate ("tech") over the "truth" value of the arguments.

This concept adoption of a "tech over truth" mindset has widely shaped argumentative practices in debate. On the one hand, it has allowed more diverse arguments to proliferate since judges are forced to consider all positions and be as open-minded as possible. Likely, much theory, philosophy, and literature(/kritiks), would not be in debate if judges were not willing to expand their willingness to vote on different types of arguments. On the other hand, this mindset has also allowed for many more silly arguments to proliferate. Much of tricks debate hinges on the fact that judges are willing to vote on arguments, no matter how silly they are, if conceded. Even many theory arguments, especially theory(/frivolous-theory), exploit the tech over truth aspect of debate.

With all of this said, judges are ultimately human beings. Most judges will not vote for arguments they deem discriminatory, even if conceded. And most judges will also be more comfortable evaluating certain styles of argumentation than others and may even implicitly prefer certain arguments. For these reasons, it is important to always read your judge's paradigm before the round and make sure you adapt your debating accordingly.