Tournament of Champions (debate) National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA)
69-430: Value premise In Lincoln-Douglas Debate , the value criterion ( criterion , VC , or standard ) is the means of weighing the value premise . Unlike the value premise, the value criterion is often swayed to either the affirmative or negative side. The value criterion's main purpose is to argue how the value should be achieved. Where the value is what the debater wants to achieve, the criterion argues how to uphold
138-508: A 2-1 would hit a 1-2. In "elimination rounds" after the primary four to six (or even eight) preliminary rounds, the top "seed" will "hit" the lowest "seed". Seeding is determined first by preliminary round records and then by the number of speaker points awarded by judges in preliminary rounds, with various tiebreakers (total number of opponent wins, speaker points after the highest and lowest given to each debater have been subtracted, judge variance, randomly assigned number, etc.) that follow should
207-480: A certain number of bids by the director of the TOC (Prof. Angela Reed) with the input of her advisory committee that debaters receive upon reaching a certain level in the elimination rounds. The level of elimination round at which bids are awarded is subjective, but depends chiefly on the size of the tournament, the perceived collective quality of the debaters in attendance, and the quality of the tournament itself (whether it
276-418: A counterplan, usually described in the acronym "SPLOT," which stands for "Solvency deficits, Perms, Links to the net benefit, Offense, Theory." Solvency deficits and perms explained above, "links to the net benefit" simply means that the counterplan leads to the reason that it claims is better than the plan, refutation is independent reason(s) why the counterplan is bad, and theory is explanations of comprehending
345-409: A debate competition are given a resolution (a statement). In the competition, one side (called the a ffirmative) must support the resolution, and the other side (called the negative) must show that the action does not conform to the principle or that the affirmative has not shown how it does so (there are different schools of thought as to the negative's burden). The vast majority of tournaments use
414-482: A few other prestigious national tournaments that cap the number of debaters from each school and total number of schools allowed to enter to preserve competitive integrity, and because there might simply be not enough space available. National circuit tournaments are very large events that typically draw 120-200 varsity LD competitors, in addition to LDers in the novice and jv divisions, policy debaters, public forum debaters, speech participants, judges, coaches, etc. Some of
483-515: A fundamental assumption of the resolution is flawed or offensive and thus it can't or shouldn't be debated or proven true. For example, in the January–February 2014 topic, "Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict," a kritik of the resolution would be that the resolution uses the words "resource extraction", opening itself to an anthropocentrism kritik by assuming
552-415: A harm or impact of this would be that statism justifies nuclear war or rights violations. An impact explains why the mindset is bad. In general, the alternative provides solvency for the harms proposed. Most alternatives look something like, "reject the negative," "reject statism," or something along those lines. The role of the ballot functions as framework for the kritik. A role of the ballot explains how
621-414: A means of improving discourse, but as a means of deterring competition from the uninitiated. As the debate season comes to a close, national championship tournaments (collectively referred to as the postseason) are held to bring together the best debaters from around the nation to compete against one another. These tournaments require reaching certain levels of success at a qualifying tournaments throughout
690-459: A mutual judge (i.e. a judge who is a 1 for both sides). Different debaters "pref" different judges depending on their past experiences and debating styles. The most preferred judges are usually former debaters who are now college students serving as assistant coaches, as they know the modern norms of debate well. Other regional circuits more heavily emphasize the rhetorical skills required in front of inexperienced judges, and recruit "lay" judges from
759-525: A ranking of inputted points gained throughout events, with the option of filtering out points solely earned in Lincoln-Douglas debate. There is also a system of points for Lincoln Douglas Debate known as the Dukes and Bailey cup, which takes your top 5 tournaments of the year, and assigns a point value to them. NSDA resolutions (topics to be debated) change every two months. They always propose that
SECTION 10
#1732776520947828-416: A specific policy or issue (the "resolutional policy/action") conforms to a certain principle (the "value"). The affirmative must uphold the resolution, and the negative must show that the action does not conform to the principle or that the affirmative has not shown how it does so (there are different schools of thought as to the negative's burden). Ten possible resolutions for the upcoming year are chosen by
897-400: A value criterion of deterring crime, and then evidence-supported contentions that demonstrate that the death penalty uniquely fails as a deterrent. An affirmative case could have a value of justice, a criterion of respecting human life, and contentions giving evidence based arguments that all methods of execution are inhumane. The debaters would then argue whether crime deterrence or adherence to
966-413: A value criterion to weigh the round, has been criticized for several reasons. As Jason Baldwin -- the "winningest" LD debater in history -- explains, "First, it is notoriously hard to say precisely how the value premise is related to the resolution and how the criterion is related to the value premise. Debaters often speak of the value premise as "supporting" the resolution or of the criterion as "fulfilling"
1035-593: A wording committee and released at the NSDA National Tournament. Anybody can submit a resolution for consideration to the wording committee. Each coach in the country receives a ballot with a copy of the official magazine of the NSDA, the Rostrum, and votes for a topic for each two-month slot. Voting can also be done online. Until the 2007–2008 season each coach could only rank the topics on one list, with
1104-427: Is a component of high school Lincoln-Douglas Debate case structure. The value is usually a statement which one side is attempting to achieve throughout the debate. In general, the side that best upholds his or her value premise, which was adequately defended, wins the debate. The value premise is sometimes referred to as the "value" or simply "vp". The value premise is not to be confused with the value criterion , which
1173-504: Is a type of one-on-one competitive debate practiced mainly in the United States at the high school level. It is sometimes also called values debate because the format traditionally places a heavy emphasis on logic , ethical values , and philosophy . The Lincoln–Douglas debate format is named for the 1858 Lincoln–Douglas debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas , because their debates focused on slavery and
1242-626: Is run well or not). There are fluctuations in tournaments' bid levels and the tournaments that have bids in the first place, but the major tournaments have very secure bids. For example, the Dowling Catholic Paradigm held at Dowling Catholic High School in West Des Moines, Iowa is a medium-sized tournament attended by debaters of all experience levels mostly from the Midwest, and therefore receives four bids, awarded to
1311-469: Is the specific means of achieving the value premise. As Jason Baldwin explains in "Logic in LD", the value premise is "supposed to provide standards by which judges should evaluate subsequent arguments." The value structure's purpose is to provide an overarching goal for both the affirmative and the negative to achieve. The value premise is not explicitly stated in the resolution, but many debaters use terms from
1380-574: The Lincoln-Douglas Debate resolution as their value premise. For example, the National Forensic League 's November/December 2006 resolution stated: Resolved: A victim's deliberate use of deadly force is a just response to repeated domestic violence. In the instance, some debaters may use "justice" as the value premise for the round, because the resolution clearly establishes the objective of evaluating whether or not
1449-576: The National Forensic League or the Grand National Tournament of the National Catholic Forensic League is the national tournament of their sponsoring organization. Competitors qualify to these national tournaments by placing in the top spots at district-level tournaments held specifically as qualifiers. The number of competitors in each district determines the number of competitors that will qualify to
SECTION 20
#17327765209471518-491: The role of the ballot , link , impact , and alternative . In order to make a criticism, there has to be a link , or reason. A link can be a certain phrase in the resolution, something the opponent said, something conceded in cross-examination, etc. The link opens the gate to the criticism. Now that the link to the mindset being criticized has been established, there has to be a significant harm linked to that mindset, or impact . For example, if an opponent links in to statism ,
1587-492: The "a priori" or "prima facie" argument which attempt to demonstrate that the resolution is true/false outside of the typical syllogistic model, most commonly by collapsing it into a tautology or presenting some reason why it's nonsensical. "Theory" debate, which says that an opponent's argument or style of argumentation (e.g. talking too fast or interpreting the resolution in a certain way) is unfair or noneducational and explains why fairness or educational considerations supersedes
1656-500: The 2006–2007 season, when it decided on four. Some tournaments, most notably the TOC, choose to give debaters 5 minutes. Some tournaments also allow the use of flex prep, which melds the cross-examination time and prep time together to create a 6-8 minute block that can be used for questions and/or prep. Asking cross-examination questions during prep time is generally accepted on the national circuit. Most speeches start with an order often called an "offtime roadmap" because it's given before
1725-407: The 2‑0 with the lowest speaks, second-highest hits second-lowest, etc.) After the third round, the debaters' cumulative records and speaks (rather than the results of their last round) place them in their brackets. Local tournaments sometimes use randomized brackets throughout their whole duration. Other tournaments use a "power protected" system during prelim rounds, in which a 3-0 would hit an 0-3 and
1794-1029: The California Invitational at UC Berkeley , the Greenhill Fall Classic hosted by Greenhill School in Addison, Texas; the Heart of Texas Invitational at St. Mark's School in Dallas, Texas; The Harvard-Westlake Debates, held at Harvard-Westlake School in Los Angeles; the Mid-America Cup at Valley High School in West Des Moines, Iowa; and the Minneapple at Apple Valley High School in Minnesota. There are
1863-551: The January/February 2015 Topic (Resolved: Just governments ought to require that employers pay a living wage) a plan could have been to bring the Asia Floor Wage to a living wage level. These arguments are often countered by theory (see below) or topicality . Plans originated from policy debate. Despite the growing popularity of affirmative plans, they are unacceptable in certain debate districts. In some states,
1932-533: The Novice division, while the Junior Varsity and Varsity divisions enjoy more experienced judges. Judges are assigned to a specific division based on their experience and some other criteria, and are only eligible to judge debaters within that division (a judge assigned to judge novices cannot judge varsity). This is known as a pool; each division has its own pool of judges. At most national circuit tournaments,
2001-567: The Value Criterion, or the way of achieving or best maximizing the value. The value premise is intended to be a non-biased statement, which the arguments within the affirmative or negative constructive should support. The value premise may or may not be agreed upon throughout the entire debate by the affirmative and negative sides. Because the resolution does not explicitly state that a certain value premise must be used, debaters often must debate which value premise should be used to evaluate
2070-408: The argument, at least one warrant, which is a reason the claim is true, and an impact, which explains the importance of the argument—or specifically why the argument meets the value criterium. In addition, contentions often include sub-points. For example, a negative case for the resolution "Resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty as a form of punishment" could have a value of justice,
2139-478: The ballots used by judges instruct them to disregard affirmative plans. The only type of case that is virtually universally accepted is the value/value criterion/contention structure, and even that has its detractors. Recently, methods of winning the round have become prominent that cannot be classified as true cases, because they are used as a semi-independent part of or in addition to the case proper, and do not advocate an extensively developed position. These include
Value criterion - Misplaced Pages Continue
2208-424: The biggest attract near a thousand total participants. Regionally significant tournaments often also draw over a hundred participants. National circuit debate is generally characterized by its extremely fast manner of speaking (300 wpm is not considered an uncommon speed to read a case at), use of jargon, and emphasis on strength/depth of argumentation rather than rhetoric. However, some debaters have been successful on
2277-412: The community. These judges are typically concerned citizens or parents of debaters from the school hosting the tournament or a participating school. Some circuits require all LD judges for rounds above the novice level to meet training requirements. Another option is to use lay judges for the rounds, but offer them a brief training session or tutorial beforehand to prepare and inform them about the nature of
2346-400: The conditions for discussing the resolution, and contentions , which are the arguments. The most essential part of the criterium is the value consideration , which is composed of a value (often called the value premise) that the case attempts to demonstrate the resolution action achieves/is in accordance with, and a value criterion . The value criterion is a way to attain, achieve and quantify
2415-788: The country to tournaments on the "national circuit". The current nine largest and most prestigious/competitive national circuit tournaments are (in no particular order) the Glenbrooks, held at Glenbrook North and Glenbrook South High Schools in the Chicago suburbs; the New York City Invitational at the Bronx High School of Science ; the Harvard Invitational at Harvard University in Boston, Mass;
2484-601: The debate. Nevertheless, lay judges tend to incline more towards the side they personally prefer. Many tournaments offer two or three divisions of competition in LD: novice, junior varsity, and varsity. Novice is exclusively for new debaters in their first year of competition, junior varsity is for talented novices or debaters in their second year of competition, and varsity is for experienced debaters. A typical one-day tournament holds three or four rounds. Each debater advocates each side an equal number of times or one side once more than
2553-472: The debaters who reach the semifinal round of the tournament. The Glenbrooks tournament, considered among the most competitive regular season tournaments in the country, is attended by approximately 200 experienced debaters and has for many years had 16 bids to hand out to competitors who reach the octofinal round. For non-national circuit debaters, either the National Speech and Debate Tournament of
2622-416: The first two rounds (often referred to as presets, as they are randomly paired beforehand), the pairings for the third round are decided on the basis that people with the same record (known as being in the same bracket) debate. For example, a 2‑0 would hit another 2‑0, a 1‑1 would hit another 1‑1, etc. Speaker points determine who hits who within each bracket (the 2‑0 with the highest speaks of any 2‑0 would hit
2691-403: The high school circuits. A theory shell consists of four parts: the interpretation, violation, standards and the voters. A theory shell most often uses fairness and education to weigh the round, but many other standards and values are used when debating on them. Sometimes, the affirmative advocates for a plan, which is a certain specified action which falls under the resolution. For example, with
2760-481: The judge should view the debate round. If a kritik criticizes the ethics of the round, then an acceptable alternative would propose another type of ethic that should be used for reasons like better discourse. A theory shell proposes rules to follow in a debate. The negative can do this by criticizing something the affirmative does that does not follow their vision of the debate. Shells include arguments such as that of disclosure theory and have become increasing popular in
2829-399: The judge to weigh the round according to their value criterion. Example: Resolved: In matters of U. S. immigration policy, restrictions on the rights of non-citizens are consistent with democratic ideals. Because "democratic ideals" is what is trying to be achieved in the resolution, most debaters would find it best and effective to use it as a value premise. Therefore, the debate turns to
Value criterion - Misplaced Pages Continue
2898-441: The judges within the varsity pool are often ranked beforehand from 1 to 5 by the debaters and their coaches as part of "mutual judge preferences" (MJP). A 1 is the best possible ranking, a 5 is a judge with a conflict of interest regarding the debater, and a 6 is a "strike", who may never judge the debater, teams are usually allowed 4-5 "strikes" per tournament. During the tournament, the tabulation staff will attempt to give each round
2967-760: The morals, values, and logic behind it. LD debates are used by the National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA) competitions, and also widely used in related debate leagues such as the National Christian Forensics and Communication Association , the National Catholic Forensic League , the National Educational Debate Association , the Texas University Interscholastic League , Texas Forensic Association , Stoa USA and their affiliated regional organizations. Teams in
3036-852: The national circuit without conforming to these conventions. The national circuit is mostly composed of traditional "power schools" with historically strong programs (e.g. Valley High School in Iowa, Lexington High School in Massachusetts, Scarsdale High School in New York, Greenhill School in Texas, or Walt Whitman High School in Maryland). The national circuit and its accompanying style of debate are sometimes criticized for being exclusionary. In particular, critics argue that national circuit "power" programs encourage jargon and esoteric norms not as
3105-499: The national tournament. Most NSDA districts have two to four, but some NCFL districts have six. There have been several attempts in the past to create a cohesive national ranking system. One was Fantasy Debate, which ran from 2010 to 2012 but is now closed. Other defunct ranking systems include the Briefly ELO rankings, which aren't actively acknowledged or updated any longer. The National Speech & Debate Association provides
3174-405: The nebulous value. In most modern NSDA resolutions, a value is often stated in the resolution. For example, "Resolved: Just governments ought to ensure food security for citizens." Because Justice is used in the resolution, it is an appealing value for many debaters. Morals is a common value due to its inclusion in many resolutions, followed by justice , social welfare, or other values depending on
3243-727: The one receiving the overall highest ranking becoming the National Tournament topic, the second highest becoming the March–April topic, the third highest Jan/Feb topic, etc. However, because of the prominence of the Jan-Feb slot (the TOC and several other tournaments not actually in January or February elect to use this topic, resulting in it being jokingly referred to as the "six-month topic"), coaches now select their three highest choices for each two-month slot. The resolutions of
3312-486: The other, depending on whether the number of rounds is even or odd. Multi-day tournaments have five to eight preliminary rounds in which all debaters participate. The debaters with the best win–loss record from this set of rounds then advance (called "breaking" or "clearing") to a single-elimination stage of "outrounds" that determines the eventual champion. All debaters present have the hypothetical potential to "hit", or square off against, any other competitor in their field at
3381-491: The participators are marked by speaker points (0-30 is the speaker point range, however debaters are rarely assigned beneath a 26 and some states utilize a different points system—out of 40, for instance, in Idaho) and by a win or loss. Comments tend to be given by the judge to the debaters at the conclusion of the round. Comments are also written on the ballot, which is the document that the judge writes their decision on, as well as
3450-422: The principle of essentialist humanity is more effective at encouraging justice based on the evidence in their cases. Lincoln–Douglas debate format borrows from Policy format debate in order to create plans and counter-plans. A counterplan (also called a CP) allows the negative side to defend an advocacy separate from the status quo . A counterplan must: There are various ways that an affirmative could defeat
3519-400: The resolution. An example of a common discourse kritik is a gendered language kritik, which could be used if an opponent's case has been written exclusively containing the male pronoun. Another example is if the opponent uses a slur (such as a derogatory term for homosexuals) in or out of the round, which opens the way to a "bad discourse" kritik. A kritik is generally composed of four parts:
SECTION 50
#17327765209473588-399: The resolutional evaluation, has also proliferated. Like atypical cases, the merit of these types of arguments is heatedly contested, although both are common on the national circuit. Judges fall under many categories, the most common of which are: Experienced and qualified students are usually allowed to judge in the novice division. There are usually four or five elimination rounds in which
3657-404: The resolutions distributed by the NSDA, which is changed once every two months. The debate format is known for spreading , a practice in which debaters speak quickly to squeeze as much argument as possible into a short time limit. The resulting speech sounds like a cattle auctioneer. The following is the basic debate format. Each side has 4 minutes of preparation time they can distribute among
3726-418: The round. The criterion is debated more heavily with a round because, many times, the value premises of both debaters are the same or very similar in a round. Where commonality can easily be found between values, criterions are set up to strategically include or exclude certain arguments from being weighed. Since each side has impacts that best pertain to their own value criterion, each side must try to convince
3795-425: The round. In order to support the affirmative or negative side's value premise, debaters attempt to prove why their value premise is more relevant to the resolution, or why their opponent's value premise is inferior to their own. In some cases, debaters who have chosen common value premises may agree after presenting each side's constructive on what the value premise should be. Subsequently, both sides will try to uphold
3864-419: The same goal by way of their arguments, despite the fact they conflict. On the other hand, a debater may strategically purposely drop or choose not to defend his or her value premise if the other debater's value premise still may be achieved, or proven better, under the debater's own side. The current structure of Lincoln-Douglas Debate , under which both sides are expected to present a value premise as well as
3933-565: The season. The unofficial national circuit championship is the Tournament of Champions (LD) (TOC) held at the University of Kentucky . To be eligible for the TOC, debaters must collect at least two bids at various designated tournaments held throughout the year. (They cannot be considered qualifying tournaments because they technically exist independent of TOC authority and are significant in their own right.) These tournaments are granted
4002-488: The speaker points awarded to each debater. Judges are often told before the tournament whether or not they are allowed to disclose to the participators, who won the round immediately following the decision (speaker points are never disclosed). However, that being said, some judges will never disclose and others will regardless of what the instructions were. In some regional or national circuit tournaments with multiple divisions, less experienced judges are most commonly placed in
4071-403: The speech starts. The roadmap states which order the arguments and flows will be addressed in before the time starts (i.e. "The order will be Topicality, K, CP, DA, then case."). Cases are logical syllogisms that attempt to prove the resolution morally obligatory (affirmative) or morally prohibited (negative). The typical (though not mandated) case is divided into a criterium , which outlines
4140-434: The statistics remain even. Most high school debaters participate in local tournaments in their city or school district, and travel to other areas of the state occasionally. Hundreds of such tournaments are held each weekend at high schools throughout the United States during the debate season. A relatively small subset (perhaps a few hundred) of high school debaters, mostly from elite public and private schools, travel around
4209-424: The topic. The criterium also may contain definitions for purposes of clarity and/or excluding certain lines of argumentation, and preemptions/"spikes" that attempt to preclude certain arguments that one's opponent should not attempt. A narrow definition can be a spike. The contentions, of which a case must have at least one, links the resolution to the value. A proper contention necessarily has a claim, which summarizes
SECTION 60
#17327765209474278-599: The tournament, though if at all possible debaters are prohibited from hitting members of their own team and hitting someone they have previously hit earlier at the same tournament again. Similarly, judges who have already judged a debater are not supposed to judge them again in preliminaries. In contrast, a tournament in which each competitor must debate every other competitor is called a " round robin ". These tend to be very small, and specific participants are invited to attend. Most LD tournaments are "power matched" (also called "power paired" or just "powered"). In this system, after
4347-417: The two prep time periods assigned to them. Each debater gets thirteen minutes of total speaking time, and three minutes of question time. The rounds take approximately 45 minutes in total. Each debater receives four to five minutes of preparation time to use between speeches however they like. While the amount of prep time is at the tournament's discretion, the NSDA advocated three minutes until midway through
4416-426: The use of deliberate force is just when facing domestic violence. Others tend to pick more uncommon values, mainly because commonly used value premises or value premises obtained from the resolution will be prepared for by other opponents, however, due to many resolutions question the morality or justice of certain actions, the value premise is most commonly agreed to be justice or some variant. The debate then centers on
4485-578: The value criterion. The affirmative, in this case, may use "preservation of procedure" which explains how their value premise is weighed, while the negative may opt to choose "preservation of autonomy". In both instances, the value criteria are attainable by their respective sides and therefore, it is fair to weigh the round. It would be left up to the debaters to determine which value criterion should be used to weigh. Value premise Tournament of Champions (debate) National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA) Value premise A Value Premise
4554-468: The value of the debate. Although the kritik (Sometimes called a K) originated in policy debate, its use in Lincoln–Douglas debate is becoming increasingly accepted as a legitimate argument in some debate districts and states. A kritik seeks to challenge an underlying mindset, usually from the perspective of critical theory. There are a few different types of kritiks. The resolutional kritik argues that
4623-645: The value premise, but it is hard to know just what these descriptions mean." Additionally, many debaters who provide a kritik constructive choose to not uphold a value, but rather, criticize the resolution, the opposing side's rhetoric, or another part of the debate in order to affirm or negate the resolution. Subsequently, the "value" debate which Lincoln-Douglas is usually characterized as is altered. Lincoln%E2%80%93Douglas debate format Tournament of Champions (debate) National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA) Value premise Lincoln–Douglas debate (commonly abbreviated as LD Debate , or simply LD )
4692-431: The value. An argument in a Lincoln-Douglas Debate generally contains an impact or the effect of that argument (why it matters). This necessitates an objective order to determine which impacts are more important. The value criterion provides this objective order and the round reduces to whichever side achieves the value criterion better. The validity of any criterion is left up to the debaters to determine and argue within
4761-418: The world to be a resource for human use and degrading the moral character of nature. This kritik would further argue that an anthropocentric mindset would justify major harms, which, in order to avoid, would require the win go to the side presenting the criticism. The discourse kritik argues that the effects of an action one's opponent has taken during or in relation to the round should outweigh consideration of
#946053