Lincoln-Douglas LD
One-on-one philosophical debate. Value and criterion. NSDA-standard but circuit LD has its own kritik-heavy register.
Lincoln-Douglas is one-on-one value debate. Each topic resolution turns on a normative claim — "a just society ought…", "is morally permissible…" — and the debate is framed by a value (the larger ethical concept being protected) and a criterion (the standard for weighing competing claims under that value).
Traditional LD is philosophical. Affirmative reads a case grounded in a moral framework — Rawls, Kant, Mill, sometimes contemporary ethicists — defends a value and criterion, and shows the resolution upholds that value. Negative either contests the framework or argues the resolution undermines the affirmative's own value.
Circuit LD (the competitive national circuit) has evolved into a denser, faster format heavily influenced by Policy. Kritiks (philosophical objections to the resolution's assumptions), theory arguments, and tricks (paradoxes used to short-circuit the round) are all common. Some judges welcome this; many do not. Read paradigms.
Speech structure
| Speech | Time | Side |
|---|---|---|
| AC Affirmative Constructive | 6 min | Aff |
| CX1 Cross-Examination (Neg asks) | 3 min | Both |
| NC Negative Constructive + 1NR | 7 min | Neg |
| CX2 Cross-Examination (Aff asks) | 3 min | Both |
| 1AR First Affirmative Rebuttal | 4 min | Aff |
| 2NR Second Negative Rebuttal | 6 min | Neg |
| 2AR Second Affirmative Rebuttal | 3 min | Aff |
How judges score it
- Value-criterion framework is the most common ballot anchor.
- Kritiks and theory are accepted on the national circuit, less so locally.
- Cross-examination is evaluated — not flowed for arguments but for skill.
- Time-skewed 1AR is the structural challenge; collapse early.
- Judges vary widely — read every paradigm.
What wins this format
- A value-criterion pair that does actual work, not just opens the case.
- 1AR collapse — pick the strongest 2-3 arguments and weigh them.
- Kritik responses that engage the philosophy, not just the link.
- CX questions that set up a 1AR weighing argument three speeches later.
What loses this format
- Value-criterion that the rest of the case ignores.
- Card-dumping in NC without framework defense.
- Tricks against a lay judge who has not seen them before.
- Failing to extend offense in 1AR.
Sample motions
- Resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty.
- Resolved: Individual rights ought to be valued above the collective good.
- Resolved: A just government ought to prioritize liberty over equality.
- Resolved: It is morally permissible to break an unjust law.
Try a LD round against the AI.
The AI knows the structure, the judging criteria, and the moves that win this format specifically. Pick a side, give a speech, get a judge ballot.
Start a LD round →