How to build your first Lincoln-Douglas case

Before you write: read the resolution like a lawyer

Write the resolution at the top of a page. Circle every word that could be defined more than one way. "Ought" almost always means a moral obligation, not a prediction. "Colonization," "just," "prioritize," and "substantially" each carry a definition debate. Decide what you will defend each word to mean, find a credible definition for the ones that matter, and write them down. Your definitions belong in the first thirty seconds of the case.

Step 1: Pick the framework first

Choose your value and criterion before you research contentions, not after. The criterion tells you what kind of evidence you need. If your criterion is about consequences, you research outcomes. If it is about rights, you research principles. See Value and criterion, explained for how to choose.

Step 2: Find two contentions, not four

A contention is one independent reason the resolution is true (or false, for the negative). Two well-evidenced contentions beat four thin ones, because you will need to extend them in a four-minute 1AR or six-minute NR, and thin arguments do not survive that.

Each contention has the same shape:

Tag: one sentence stating the claim. "Contention one: colonization protects humanity from extinction-level risk."
Warrant: the reasoning. Why is the claim true?
Evidence: a quoted source that supports the warrant, with a full citation you can read aloud.
Impact: why it matters under your criterion. This is the sentence novices forget.

Step 3: Research with a purpose

You are not looking for everything on the topic. You are looking for a source that proves each warrant. Search for the specific claim, not the topic. "Long-term existential risk mitigation space settlement" finds better material than "space colonization." Prefer academic articles, government reports, and established news organizations, and read enough of the source to know it says what your tag claims. A judge who asks to see your evidence should find that the quote supports the argument in context. See Five research skills every debater should learn.

Step 4: Write it to be spoken

Read every sentence out loud. If you stumble, rewrite it shorter. Judges flow (take notes) as you speak, so signpost relentlessly: "First, ... Second, ... The impact is ..." Aim for these lengths:

Section	Affirmative (6:00)	Negative (7:00, including responses)
Resolution, definitions, framework	1:15	1:00
Contention one	2:00	1:45
Contention two	2:00	1:45
Summary of why you win under the criterion	0:30	0:30
Responses to the affirmative case	n/a	2:00

Most students speak at 130 to 150 words per minute when reading a case clearly. A six-minute affirmative is roughly 800 to 900 words. If your draft is 1,200 words, cut it.

Step 5: Pre-write the attacks on yourself

Before your first practice round, list the three strongest arguments against your case and write a two-sentence answer to each. Put those answers in a separate file called "blocks." Most of the 1AR and NR are written here, before the round starts.

Template

Framework
I affirm the resolution: [text]. I define [term] as [definition] (source). My value is [value], because [one sentence]. My criterion is [criterion], because [one or two sentences with reasoning].

Contention one: [tag]
[Warrant in two or three sentences.] [Evidence: author, credential, publication, year.] "[Quote.]" [Impact: under my criterion, this matters because ...]

Contention two: [tag]
[Same structure.]

Summary
Because [contention one] and [contention two] both achieve [criterion], and [criterion] is the best way to measure [value], I affirm.

The negative case

The negative has seven minutes and two jobs: present a case and answer the affirmative. Write your framework and one or two contentions in about five minutes of material, then leave two minutes to respond to the affirmative case line by line. Since you will not know the affirmative case in advance, your responses come from your blocks file. The best negative debaters spend more time on blocks than on their own case.

Once the case is drafted, the next skill is the rebuttal. Read Lincoln-Douglas rebuttal strategy.

A revision checklist

Before a case is ready, go through this list line by line.

The resolution is quoted exactly as the NSDA published it.
Every term that could be contested is defined, with a source for each definition.
The value and criterion appear in the first ninety seconds and are named again at the end of each contention.
Each contention has a claim, at least one piece of cited evidence, a warrant that explains why the evidence proves the claim, and an impact connected to the criterion.
Every card includes author, qualification, source, and date, and the underlined portion says what the tag says.
The case reads aloud in under 5:45 (affirmative) or 6:45 (negative) at a pace a volunteer judge can follow.
Someone who disagrees with you has read it and told you the weakest point.

Common first-case mistakes

Three contentions that are three versions of the same argument. Two distinct contentions beat three overlapping ones.
Evidence that describes the problem but never supports the claim that your side solves or matters more.
Impacts with no scale. "This hurts people" is not an impact; "this affects the forty percent of households that..." is.
A conclusion that introduces a new argument. The last thirty seconds should tell the judge what the round is about, not add to it.

Practice

Write a full affirmative for one of the past resolutions in the practice bank using the template above, in one sitting, in under two hours. Then write the negative the next day. Doing this twice on old topics makes the current topic feel easy. Time yourself on the practice timer set to Lincoln-Douglas.