Regarding Lincoln Douglas (LD) Debate Quiz

Answer: Contention/subpoint

This syllogism represents the traditional structure for an affirmative case or negative case, I.E, the first things read in a round. A "value" is something that is just that, valued. For example, morality, justice or equality can all be said to be a value, thus are assigned the term in the case. So, if the value is morality, then I am attempting to prove that affirming the resolution is moral.

This is done through a "criterion", or, an action phrase that designates what must be done to achieve the value. For instance, a good criterion for achieving a value of equality would be "minimizing prejudices within social structures." Finally, to show how this action can be enacted, we have contentions, or, offensive reasons to show how the action will be done.

These can be either empirical or theoretical, for instance, empirical proof that we can in fact minimize prejudices by quoting a study that did just this.

Answer: Turn

A turn is an action taken that allows the opposing side to garner offense [or a round winning argument] for themselves off of their opponent's case. In this example, the negative would "turn" the affirmative's contentional offense, thus proving that they best meet the affirmative standard of minimizing harm to human life by enacting genocide.

This shows that the negative is winning on both sides of the debate.

Answer: Flow

The word flow is, in fact, derived from the act of taking notes in a flowchart format, as before LD debate became fast-paced, flows were done in two columns, similar to a chart format. The debater would then say, "Extend this argument across the flow," and the judge would delineate the extension between the columns.

Answer: Impact

This syllogism is the general way in which arguments in debate are structured. An argument cannot function if it is lacking one of the three, claim, warrant and impact, and will be quickly refuted without all three being well designed. A "claim" is an assertion, I.E, the sky is blue.

The "warrant" is why this is true; either a physical explanation or observation can be used in this case. The "impact" is what the warranted claim ultimately results in; the sky therefore is logically the color blue and this can now be used in further arguments as fact.

Answer: Theory

Theory is the term used to describe the debating of the rules of debate, and trying to prove that your opponent has violated these rules and should lose accordingly. These rules can range from topicality, to time or ground skew, to reciprocity to severance. Topicality is the argument that the opponent is not discussing the resolution and is therefore destroying the point of the debate. Time and ground skew argue that the debater's ground, being the amount of argumentation they can respond to, it skewed because of an opponent's strategy, or that they cannot respond adequately to an opponent in the alotted time. Time skew usually applies when an opponent runs up of 4 or 5 positions at once, all of which must be refuted. Reciprocity is the argument that the difficulty in meeting burdens is unequal for the two debaters, and severance argues that an opponent should not be able to disregard their entire case once it's been refuted and run something new, or use a single sentence in their case as a sort of hidden spike to win the round.

Answer: 6 3 7 3 4 6 3

In addition, each debater receives 4 minutes of prep time, however, this is not set to a specific point at which it must be used, hence, is traditionally not included in the time scheme. Other than that, the time scheme proceeds: AC [in which the affirmative reads their case, thus known as the affirmative constructive], Neg Cx [in which the negative can ask questions about the affirmative's case], NC/1NR [a speech split into two aspects, the first being that of the negative constructive, in which the negative can read a case of their own, and the 1NR in which the negative responds to the affirmative case with refutations.

However, as the negative's burden within the round is that to clash with the aff, their are no rules saying the negative has to in fact read a case, and thus the NC can be a highly varied speech depending on the round], Aff Cx [in which the affirmative can ask questions regarding the negative's case and/or responses to the affirmative case], 1 AR [when the affirmative now attempts to rebuild their case and refute the negative's], NR (or 2NR) [the negative's second chance to respond to affirmative refutations and the affirmative's case proper], 2 AR [the final speech of the round, in which the affirmative attempts to end the round with final refutations. Note that after the 1 AR, no new arguments are allowed. Thus only arguments previously made in the opening rebuttals can be used by either side of the debate.

This prevents the affirmative from simply providing new refutations in the 2 AR that the negative could never respond to.

Answer: Cx

Cx, or "cross examination," is a vital part of the debate round, in which the case of a debater can be clarified. This is useful for both the opponent, and the judge, who on occasion may have missed something important.

Answer: Violation

In the traditional theory shell (attack), first an interpretation is provided, defining the rule in question. The violation follows, showing how the opponent violates this rule in the round. Then the standards, by which the judge knows how to evaluate the round, and finally the voter, or, why the shell matters and how the judge can adjudicate the round based on theory.

Answer: Weighing analysis

For obvious reasons, the plan text is vital, while solvency proves that the plan can solve for harms or can achieve something within the resolutional text. Meanwhile, inherency proves that the plan is competitive with a traditional case, I.E, the plan isn't simply an utterly irrelevant idea designed to confuse the opponent.

While weighing analysis is useful and often necessary to win a round, it is not necessary to place it within the text of the plan. Rather, the weighing analysis can be made outside of the affirmative case or negative case.

Answer: Kritique

A kritique (spelled with a k) is a position, usually run by the negative, that does one of two things. It either kritiques the resolution itself, saying the statement doesn't make sense and therefore should be rejected, or, it kritiques the opponent's case by providing disadvantages to the case and an alternative to the affirmative's advocacy.

For example: The affirmative runs a case valuing life, achieving life by preventing genocide, and ends with empirical examples of how it is possible to stop genocide.

The negative then reads a kritique with first a link, showing how the kritique applies, in this case we'll say the link is the discussion of genocide. Following the link is a disadvantage, I.E, by discussing genocide the affirmative is reinforcing the mindset that it is a topic that can be discussed.

The alternative would then be to deconstruct the social system that allows genocide to happen. The negative would argue that this alternative not only disproves the affirmative, making it "nonunique, or, not containing advantages specific to affirming," and also that the alternative should be preferred as it is necessary before the affirmative's action can be undertaken.