Can anyone help with Lincoln Douglas Debate?

[JeanM]

My ds joined the public school debate team and has been to two tournaments so far. He hasn't done badly, but he'd really like to improve.

 

His debate coach has not been very helpful. He has a few weeks before his next tournament, He's gotten some suggestions to work on logical fallacies and to read more philosophy, but those are very vague. It seems like reading philosophy is a very long term way of improving, which is not bad, but I think it will take a while to have any effect.

 

Does anyone have any short-term (or long-term) suggestions for him?

[Tree Frog]

My dd doesn't do LD; she does PF and Extemp, but she said she'd be glad to take a look at your son's arguments and offer suggestions if that would help. She says philosophies are very helpful because you need to be able to defend your value and criterion based upon your philosophy (sometimes your value or criterion are a specific philosophy.) Because those are going to be under attack, your ds needs to know his philosophy inside and out. However, he'll also need to attack the opponents’ argument using other philosophies, which is why it's so important to know many different philosophies. 

 

One thing she suggests is for him to have different cards (evidence) for different philosophies that he can easily access during his round to negate the opposition's arguments. In compiling the cards, he'll become more familiar with the philosophies. Even if he only knows the basic ideas of the philosophies, he can use those to attack. Philosophy is a big portion of LD debate.

 

Practice his flow (notetaking). If he takes good notes, he can respond better during rounds. Practice cross-examination (CX) by having a varsity debater question him directly about his case so he gets used to defending his case. Also, practice cross examining someone else.  Listen to someone else's case, flow it, and then CX them; this will give him practice thinking up arguments quickly and figuring out ways to attack an opponent during CX (this, of course, must be done with respect).  Additionally, CXing the opponent also will give him time to clarify some of their arguments that he missed while flowing; the better he is at flowing, the less time he needs to spend clarifying and the more time he can attack.  This last couple items are best done with another LD debater, as the two people can simultaneously refine their cases and practice a round.  Having a varsity member CX your ds will give him experience for some of the tougher rounds, where the teams are only out to win and can be quite mean. The more practice he can have under stress will strengthen his response during round, which will give him more credibility with the judge.  

 

My dd hasn't looked recently, but her thoughts for sites were NFL (National Forensic League) and planet debate.  Even if your ds can only look at a couple of sample cases, he will have a better idea of what to expect and how to better proceed.

 

Like for all debates, LD needs to be logical.  If he can pinpoint logical flaws in the opponent, he will discredit him.  Additionally, while writing his own case, he needs to looks for "holes" (logical fallacies, weak links in his cause and effect, basically places where the opponent will easily attack); he needs to fill those holes.  Often, it is hard to see the holes in your own case; for this reason, someone else should analyze it (preferably a more experienced debater, but anyone will do).

 

One last thing- practice speaking.  Debate has come away from simply rhetoric, but if a round ends basically in a draw, the side with better speaking skills will usually win.  The neg side of LD (I think) has a lot of information to cover in one of their speeches (I think it's the first neg), so your ds's ability to succinctly speak his arguments is vital. This can be done in a mock round, like with the CX practice, or otherwise.   

 

I do PF.  PF is a partner debate but has more current topics (i.e. assault weapons, electoral college, China vs. US, etc.  It changes monthly).  It does not have all the philosophy; if your ds is shying away from philosophy, PF is amazing!!!! (I'm kind of biased...)  

 

 

(Disclaimer: I started typing what dd was saying, but she finished typing when I was too slow. J)

[MomsintheGarden]

Wow, thanks for the LD overview!

[EndOfOrdinary]

Philosophy for Dummies style books help a lot.  Check your local library, they often have a lot.  I did LD debate in high school with a fairly unhelpful coach as well.  Once I learned who the various famous philosophers were and what they were known for, it helped me a lot when I was attempting to organize my arguements as well as to break down the arguments of the opponent.  Most all famous philosophers have weaknesses in their logic or places where the fallacy is signficant.  Memeorizing those (or having note cards - some versions of LD won't allow notecards like CX and PF get to use) will help your son be able to break down the issues the other person is presenting.  That might be what the coach was refering to.  Knowing the issues can also help him think of how he is going to come back at the opponent when the same issues are brought against him.  Very rarely will there be a different argument than one of the more blatant refutes.

[JeanM]

My dd doesn't do LD; she does PF and Extemp, but she said she'd be glad to take a look at your son's arguments and offer suggestions if that would help....

 

 

Thank you so much! This is very helpful! I'll have my ds read your reply and see what he thinks. I think he has some interest in PF, but doesn't have a partner. Maybe he should try that.

[JeanM]

Philosophy for Dummies style books help a lot.  Check your local library, they often have a lot.  I did LD debate in high school with a fairly unhelpful coach as well.  Once I learned who the various famous philosophers were and what they were known for, it helped me a lot when I was attempting to organize my arguements as well as to break down the arguments of the opponent.  Most all famous philosophers have weaknesses in their logic or places where the fallacy is signficant.  Memeorizing those (or having note cards - some versions of LD won't allow notecards like CX and PF get to use) will help your son be able to break down the issues the other person is presenting.  That might be what the coach was refering to.  Knowing the issues can also help him think of how he is going to come back at the opponent when the same issues are brought against him.  Very rarely will there be a different argument than one of the more blatant refutes.

 

Thanks, I've requested a Philosophy for Dummies book from the library. I think they are allowed to use notecards, but I"m not totally sure.

[shawthorne44]

I did LD in High School, and I was very highly ranked in a competitive area.  I also had an unhelpful coach.  Not many of them are helpful.  What worked for me was going to summer camps.  Colleges with competitive teams will have them during the summer as a money raiser.  One year I went to a camp near where my Grandparents lived so I didn't have to pay for room and board.  Another year I got a scholarship to any debate camp from a nearby prestigious Jesuit High School.  I don't know why they gave it to me except that maybe I paid $10 to get it shipped priority mail to get my app in before the deadline.  Or maybe I was the only person that applied.  I was not at all competitive when I got the scholarship. 

 

One thing one of the camp coaches said was that he told his students that all he cared about was the speaker's points.  Not only did his student's start to get higher speaker's points but they started to win. 

 

Even though LD isn't as Evidence-based, you still need Evidence.  So reasearach skills are important.  One thing I found very helpful was to make a list of books to find in the stacks.  Then I would sit my butt down in that area, and look at all the books in the vicinity of the book I wanted.  Usually the vicinity books were more helpful than the ones I was looking for. 

 

Back in the dark ages, we had to photocopy books to get the quotes out of them.  And pay for the photocopy fees ourselves.  Now there are scanners, and that should simplify things a great deal. 

 

Many people used different colors of pin for outlining.  They would tape three different pens together and they could quickly spin the big pen in their hand to change colors.  I never did that. 

 

They need to develop stock responses to the typical arguments against their affirmative case.  Also, some stock negative responses to the popular affirmative cases.  But the stock responses need to be stored in smaller segments.  Judges get annoyed when you respond first to the 5th point of the opponents argument.  Also, do not leave any major point unanswered.  A general rule is that if your opponent says something on every point you bring up and you leave completely unaddressed something of theirs, then they win. 

As time goes on, you will find that a certain author is used frequently.  Try to find someone that thinks the author smoking crack.  It is pretty devastating to the other side.  For example, the book "Silent Spring" is still used in environmental arguments.  There is an entire book, where the author shows that it was largely fabricated out of thin air. 

 

In LD, knowing a bunch of history is helpful.  I remember one debate where my opponent had been in the same room before the round with me.  Before my round, I talked to my opponent's opponent just because we were acquainted.  She said that my opponent was SOOOO knowledgeable it was scary and he was unbeatable.  He started making stuff up as he went along.  Fortunately for me, my Junior thesis had been on a related topic so I was able to confidently refute his facts (and win). 

Also, watch out for people changing the words significantly in their quotes.  During questioning, you can ask to see the quote.  I caught two people reversing the idea, i.e. inserting a "Not".  But you have to know enough to smell the fraud.