Editing Lincoln–Douglas debate format (section)

== Alternative case structures (Used in Progressive Debate) ==

=== Plans and counterplans ===
{{Unreferenced section|date=October 2020}}
Lincoln–Douglas debate format borrows from [[Policy debate|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:

* Compete with the affirmative's advocacy. The affirmative can disprove this quality of competition using a variety of "perms," short for [[permutation]], which describes the possibility of some sort of combination or [[permutation]] of the affirmative's and the negative's advocacy. A few types of perms include perm-do-both (in which the affirmative attempts to prove that the counterplan and the plan are not mutually exclusive and can co-exist, which means the counterplan no longer disproves the affirmative), perm-do-the-counterplan (in which the affirmative attempts to prove that the counterplan ''is'' the plan, based on how the counterplan or the plan function), timeframe-perm (in which the affirmative attempts to prove that the counterplan can exist in a world after the plan), and textual-based perms (a variety of perms in which the affirmative claims a lack of competition via the specific text of the plan and counterplan).
* Offer a net-benefit to the affirmative. The affirmative can disprove that the counterplan offers a net-benefit by claiming that the plan solves for the net-benefit, that the counterplan does not, or that the net-benefit is not significant.
* Solve either the entirety of or a sufficient amount of the impacts that the affirmative's advocacy solves. If the counterplan does not do either, then the affirmative can simply claim that the counterplan is not as good as the plan.

There are various ways that an affirmative could defeat 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 the value of the debate.

=== Kritiks ===
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.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Justin |last=Bowles |journal=Rostrum |url=https://pbcfl.net/wp-content/uploads/Rostrum-Article-A-Rejection-of-Kritiks-in-LD.pdf |title=Nothing Special About K: A Rejection of Kritiks in LD |volume=84 |pages=37-38 |issue=5}}</ref> There are a few different types of kritiks. The '''resolutional kritik '''argues that 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 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 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: the '''role of the ballot''', '''link''', '''impact''', and '''alternative'''.<ref>{{cite web |title=Viewing the Kritik as an NC |url=https://www.debatedrills.com/blog/viewing-the-kritik-as-an-nc |first=Connor |last=Engel |date=2021-07-27 |access-date=2025-03-30 |website=debatedrills.com}}</ref> 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]], 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 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.

===Theory shells===
{{Unreferenced section|date= October 2020}}
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 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.

=== Plans ===
{{Unreferenced section|date= October 2020}}
Sometimes, the affirmative advocates for a plan, which is a certain specified action which falls under the resolution. For example, with 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 [[wiktionary:Topicality|topicality]]. Plans originated from policy debate. Despite the growing popularity of affirmative plans, they are unacceptable in certain debate districts. In some states, 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 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 (rhetoric)|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 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.