Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

Good Example of an LD Debate

Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 4:44:27 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
To give me a better understanding of the LD debate format, could someone post a link to a debate where this format was used well? Thanks.
alto2osu
Posts: 277
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2010 6:25:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
1) That example isn't LD debate at all. :|

http://www.debate.org...

I realize it's one of mine, but it was handy. Nails also does LD, and I know others do it here. Some of Charlie_Danger's really old stuff would work, as well.

2) LDV (Lincoln-Douglas Value) does not have a super rigid set format, and will vary depending on your state. However, national's level competitive LD will generally take on similar formats.

First of all, the resolutions are not policy-based. Each debater is striving to maximize a given "value" in the round, or general good thing, like Justice (very common value). Furthermore, the topics are *usually* universal. In other words, since they tend to be based off of obligations and ethical concerns of a nation or group of nations, the actor is not specified. Your advocacy has to be applicable to any old "just" nation, rather than just the U.S., for example. (Note: there are some US-specific topics, like the current NFL topic on jury nullification).

Second of all, a weighing mechanism of some sort is required to give us an idea of how each debater will achieve that maximization. In the linked debate, for example, Pro is affirming that vigilantism is justified when the government fails to enforce laws. Pro is, through his case, attempting to maximize his value of justice. Weighing mechanism (criterion) is "maximizing government efficacy." In other words, through his case, he will prove that whoever can make government "restore or improve" the efficacy of the government is going to maximize justice, and therefore win the debate. In this case, he will argue that vigilantism is the route to increased government efficacy.

After that, it's a matter of making sure that your case flows through those standards, specifically the criterion. If you read the example debate, you'll see that happen pretty well. Falafel was a good opponent, and I coach LDV. If you want to see some sample cases, etc., PM me.