top of page

1. Introduction to LD

  • Focuses on morality and debating; specifically, how debating can be upheld by morality.

  • The difference between LD and many other debate formats is that you are essentially driving two debates at the same time:

1. Framework Debate

  • You and your opponent argue which value/criterion is superior.

  • Prove your value is better through:

    • Logical hierarchy/relationship

      • Showing your value is a predecessor or end goal compared to your opponent’s.

      • Example: “Since my value is the end goal/the predecessor to my opponents, it is the highest priority in this round.”

    • Practical examples

      • Give real-world, relatable examples to illustrate your point.

      • Example: In a real round, my opponent used a candy analogy to illustrate the difference between utilitarianism and quality of life. They asked the judge to imagine giving one piece of candy to everyone in the world versus giving multiple pieces to a smaller group who would benefit the most — a simple, relatable way to show magnitude, scope, and impact.

      • Takeaway: Judges get tired; simple, interesting analogies keep attention.

    • Scope & magnitude

      • Demonstrate how broadly or significantly your value/criterion impacts outcomes compared to the opponent’s.
         

2. Contention-Level Debate

  • Hit each contention using one of three techniques:

    • Arguments supported by evidence

      • Use “blocks” from prep or your own research.

      • Show why your contention outweighs the opponent’s. (Great!)

    • Cross-application

      • Apply your own contentions to the opponent’s arguments to show they support your value/framework. (Amazing)

    • Counterarguments with no evidence

      • Directly refute your opponent’s contention with logic or practical examples. (Good; better than dropping an argument in the first rebuttal [whether it is the 1AR or the 1NR] as at least addressing an argument prevents the extension of the argument into the following speeches)
         

  • 2. Round Structure

  • A. Affirmative Constructive (AC) – 6 min

  • Present Value/Criterion and definitions.

    • Always provide definitions as affirmative.

    • If the negative provides definitions first, their definitions may be prioritized by the judge.

  • Typically 2–3 contentions are read directly from your page.

  • Cross-Examination (CX1) – 3 min

    • Have your cases and all evidence ready.

    • Do not look at your opponent; your goal is to convince the judge.

    • Avoid saying: “I’m not sure.”

      • If unsure, “That is a good answer” is safer than admitting uncertainty.

    • Refrain from agreeing with opponent statements (“sure”), even if they seem pointless at first — they can use this against you. (Believe me, this is a very strong and clever tactic.)

    • Bring up evidence you didn’t include in 1AC; answering questions shows confidence and builds credibility.

    • Time on your own — easier to manage and prevents rushing.

  • B. Negative Constructive (NC) – 7 min

  • Present Value/Criterion, definitions, and 3–4 min case.

  • Attack your opponent’s case.

  • Cross-Examination (CX2) – 3 min

    • Same rules as CX1.

    • Do not make arguments when ASKING during CX; only ask questions.

    • When you are the question asker, focus on eliciting information:

      • Ask questions strategically to test the opponent's case or get clarifying info.

      • Try to prevent your opponent from understanding what direction your rebuttal may be going in, so keep questions general.

      • This ensures fairness and strengthens your credibility with the judge.

  • C. First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) – 4 min

  • Stick with an order you prefer; inform the judge:

    • “I will go to my case first, then attack on my opponent’s case” (or vice versa).

    • From experience: The MOST impactful change I made was creating an “outline” for myself that would structure my speech for me pre-round.

  • Ensure all evidence is organized and visible.

    • Refer to flowing strategies (see "Flowing" page).

  • End with crystallization**: (VERY IMPORTANT)

    • Highlight ~3 main reasons you are winning:

      • Magnitude – How big/significant the impact is as opposed to your opponent.

      • Scope – How widespread the impact is as opposed to your opponent.

      • Probability – How likely the impact is to occur as opposed to your opponent.

      • Time frame – How soon or long-term the impact is as opposed to your opponent.

    • Can be done at the end of 1AR if time allows (do not rush contention-level debate for this; this can also be done in 2AR).

  • D. Negative Rebuttal (1NR) – 6 min

  • Follow all guidance from 1AR:

    • Stick with an order you prefer; tell the judge which to go first (attacks on my case vs attacks on opp’s case).

    • Keep all evidence organized and visible.

    • Refer to flowing strategies.

    • End with crystallization: highlight 3–4 main reasons why you are winning (magnitude, scope, probability, time frame).

 

**I mentioned this before, but I cannot stress this enough. Picture a judge that has likely judged 4-5 rounds on the same topic, heard the same arguments, the same evidence, and the same questions all day. At some point, the judge may zone out and only pay attention at the surface level. This is when crystallization comes in, as it sums up the whole round for the judge in the best light for YOUR side. Outweighing is key.

​

  • No new arguments: Only extend arguments already made; if new arguments appear, notify the judge, as that can be considered as in-round abuse.

  • E. Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) – 3 min

  • Focus on crystallizing the debate:

    • Your case

    • Opponent’s case

    • Key arguments

  • Always end respectfully.

  • 3. Prep Time

  • Set limits for yourself.

  • Typically, 2 min each before every impromptu speech.

  • Helps replicate tournament pacing and prevents loss of prep when most needed.

bottom of page