Talk:Lincoln–Douglas debate format

message: www.lddebate.org just tells you "it works!" .com seems valide, but hasn't been updated in a while and looks out-of-date. I didn't check the other sources out. Someone with more freetime should.
--Lophoole 02:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: Should we start a separate wiki article that is just a list of all of the LD resolutions? That part is starting to get unneccessarily long on the LD page.--199.94.95.138 19:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of resolutions

message: I deleted those sentences about the affs burden of proof and not needing a case (If anyone has ever won without a case please tell).  Negatives must uphold a value in LD debate, and for this they need a construction.  The affs burden of proof is to prove that x is acheived by y, the neg must prove that x is not acheived by y, or something better than x is not acheived. Uber nemo 04:33, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
In Overview: it says "...the negative must simply prevent the affirmative from achieving this goal through showing that standard for the round cannot be acheived in a world abiding to the resolution."   Can someone more familiar with debating put this into a form that non-debaters can understand?  I find it mystifying.  Boojum 14:35, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The most common way to negate the resolution is simply to prove that the opposite is true. If the resolution is "abortion is moral," the negative would argue that abortion is not moral.  Due to the fact that the negative does not have to prove the whole part of the resolution absolutely false, he or she could argue that abortion is sometimes moral, but since the resolution is an absolute, categorical statement, it is false.  This is known as a "balanced negative."
...balance negs are fairly controversial -- I seem to recall reading an editorial "against balance negatives" in the NFL magazine some years back, which observed that no neg has ever lost a round because they argued against the resolution, but plenty have lost for arguing that they don't have to. Balance negs may be worth mentioning in passing, but they shouldn't be in the 3rd paragraph of the article. jdb ❋ (talk) 00:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Burden of Proof

message: Honestly people, the policy page is 10x better than the LD page. The LD article is cramped and poorly written. I think the whole thing should be overhauled. Dramma!
:Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).  The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome.. --YbborTalk 22:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Is it really necessary to have NDR rankings in here? They lack any real value in explaning what LD is. I propose removing that
Lasvegasgamer 05:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NDR Rankings might not explain how LD is done but they certainly contain information pertaining to the practice. Presumably not everyone who reads the entry is looking for basic information about how the activity works, some could very well be looking for the sort of information NDR supplies. Further, links don't have to include information directly related to explaining the entry. Thats why they're links and not text (we obviously wouldn't list the top ten debaters in the country in the wikipedia entry). I would agree with moving it to the bottom of the list of external links since I don't think the NDR is especially important.--Jsn4 08:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NDR

message: It seems to me that if we are going to define things we should try to define them first *without an example*; as it stands now the conceptualizing the debate section makes no sense at all, even with the analogy. If this section is even necessary it should be clarified, otherwise it ought to be deleted. Lasvegasgamer 01:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples as definitions (specifically the "Conceptualizing the debate" section)

message: Wikipedia is not to be used as advertising.See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.  While whoever runs LDdebate.net may have a useful guide for students new to the activity, that does not need to be in the intro. Lasvegasgamer 08:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising

message: After viewing the intense dicussion of the various institutes here on the Talk page and looking over at the Policy Wiki article, does anyone feel that it might be beneficial to have (at least) an institutes section? Such a page should at least explain what they are and some reasons debaters go to them.
: I agree, write it. Its a significant part of the culture. My concern below was that people were just using the link section to advertise their companies. So long as its unbiased and accurate- fine with me.--Jsn4 00:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon user just added Dallas Debate. I'm eliminating all of the corporate links and changing the Victory Briefs link to the daily blog.--Jsn4 00:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, deleting NSD link. If someone things it should be up justify it here. As far as I'm concerned we should either include every institute site or none at all. The Victory Briefs link that is up there is not a link to the institute site but to the popular weblog- thus its inclusion.--Jsn4 06:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Summer Institutes

message: What is the basis for this? It makes sense to have the Victory Briefs blog (for its role as a cultural focus point) as a link- but not the company homesite. Similarly the NSD link should either be struck or changed so it links directly to a page that provides information regarding LD debate.--Jsn4 00:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon user just added Dallas Debate. I'm eliminating all of the corporate links and changing the Victory Briefs link to the daily blog.--Jsn4 00:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, deleting NSD link. If someone things it should be up justify it here. As far as I'm concerned we should either include every institute site or none at all. The Victory Briefs link that is up there is not a link to the institute site but to the popular weblog- thus its inclusion.--Jsn4 06:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Summer Institutes as Links

message: This guy keeps vandalizing the page.  Anyone know to report him to have him suspended for a couple of days so that we can patchthe broken peices of it back together?--XAdHominemx 06:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 67.53.145.33

message: Shouldn't the topics (November/december topic-blah blah blah) provide
a link to other wikipedia sites?  So that if a debator were to visit
this, they could find some research on the topic easily?  As a matter
of fact, there are very few links to be found in this article in general!
I'm only a n00b (and uber n00b) but could some put some wiki-links on this
page?
: If you're gonna call yourself a "n00b" then you should be asking for linkz, no? I added a whole bunch, btw, good suggestion. Does anybody think we should be linking to basketball and football? That doesn't make too much sense to me... w/e--Jsn4 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links links links 

message: As I understand it and as the article seems to say, NFL value debate attempts to find a value that both sides agree upon as the standard and then focus the debate on which side better achieves this value.  In the NCFCA, on the other hand, the focus is much greater on the clash of values - debating which value should take precedence when the two come into conflict.  Rounds where the entire debate is focused on which side better upholds one value (referred to as criteria wars) are usually looked upon with some disdain by most NCFCA LDers.  Does the NFL focus at all on the clash of values or is this looked upon with as much disdain by NFLers as criteria wars are by NCFCAers?
--HomeschooledDebater 19:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording of recent NFL resolutions has tended to proclude extensive value debate. I wouldn't say they're "looked down upon" value debates just don't tend to happen very much. When there are significantly different values the debate still tends to focus on the criterion where the value the differences are more clear and easier to understand. That said...you kids really spend 26 minutes talking about whether justice or morality is better? --Jsn4 23:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Something like that, though there are some areas with local debate that is more progressive than NFL. --Jsn4 23:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think this is really the place for that debate since we all know how the word progressive is being used its not all that important.--Jsn4 23:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variance of focus in LD between leagues 

message: Could somebody please link me to an LD rulebook? I've been unsuccessful in my search. Cynicism addict 04:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're sincere- there isn't one. If you're being ironic- hahahah. --Jsn4 04:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rulebook 

message: Should we create a "Past winners" section? It would probably fit before or after the past topics section and include winners of major tournaments such as Nationals and TOC (possibly other national circut tournaments?) Is this too elitist or does it provide a record of important historical information? --Sdevoid 23:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's relevant. --proficient (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past winners 

message: Should the syllogism method of debate be included? This method has been becoming popular in recent months.
-rubbaducky42
:Nah, I don't think so. Syllogism is a basic form of logic and should be kept in its separate article. Rokasomee 03:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Syllogism

message: I removed this paragraph:
In light of recent competition, the National Forencics League has created new burdens for both debaters.  In stead of the AFF having to prove that the resolution is true, and the NEG simply preventing this from happening, the new burden is equal on both sides.  The rational behind this is the recent trend in LD style.  LD is intended to be a more persuasive arguement based debate.  However, national circuit debaters were taking advtage of the previous burden system and "spreading their opponent."  In other words, the NEG would focus on making a lot of arguements against the AFF and only go for "dropped arguements."  This style of debating was effective at winning debates, but lost sight of the intent of LD.  Thus, in hope of preventing this style from overtaking copetitors, the National Forensics League created equal brudens for botht he AFF and the NEG.
It's got no source, it's poorly written, and it's biased. Does anyone know enough about the changes to make a serious edit?
--Monkus2k 03:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware that the burdens were changed? What are they now? Rokasomee (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes in NFL ballot

message: I think the times for the various parts of the debate listed in the article are incorrect. I can't find a reliable source to base real times on, however, so could someone check the times with some other source? Cap'n Refsmmat 01:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate section times 

message: I propose that someone rewrite the article in order to outline what LD really SHOULD be about--what the creators originally INTENDED it to be about--as opposed to what it has become. For instance, the use of cards along with the term itself has only come into use in the last couple of years. It did not exist when the category was originally created, and certainly was not used by either Lincoln or Douglas. LD has become so bogged down in technicalities that people have stopped focusing on what the values, the true essence of LD, and this article is only worsening the situation. This must be mended.
--a concerned advocate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.212.94.131 (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Happened? 

message: Does anyone have proof for the opening quote or observation portions? Those portions are very rare, even in "novice debate," which the article claims.--Soulwar (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation of a Case section

message: In the "Cases" section, there is a mention of irony cases and major/minor premise cases. I don't fully understand what either of these are, but if anyone else does, it might be good to add a brief definition of these, similar to what has already been done for the other types of cases mentioned in that paragraph.--Smileej (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rare Cases

message: This article is kind of important within the debate community, but it is really bad and has no sources. You should totally fix it.Enigmocracy (talk) 03:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hey debaters 

message: Having this page be Lincoln–Douglas debate is a bit like having the John Philip Sousa page be about the John Philip Sousa award , and relegating the actual person to John Philip Sousa (composer).  If someone wants to read about high school debates, they'll go to an article about high-school debates or about one of the organizations that sponsor them; from there, if the person is interested enough and the sub-types are actually notable, they'll follow "main article" links to pages about the specific sub-types.  If someone comes directly to this page, it's nearly certain they actually wanted Lincoln–Douglas debates.  --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this even have its own page? 

message: As much as I love the fact that there is still a debate system in place in high school, which I thought would be history by now, and though I favor the LD style, the policy-oriented, auctioneer-style Speech and Debate tournament sponsored by the National Forensic League should certainly be mentioned. 173.217.145.196 (talk) 04:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy Debates

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lincoln–Douglas debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150930055930/http://www.speechanddebatecoach.com/ to http://www.speechanddebatecoach.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lincoln–Douglas debate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518100136/http://debateclash.com/2015/05/lincoln-douglas-debate-format/ to http://debateclash.com/2015/05/lincoln-douglas-debate-format/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141218010921/http://nflonline.org/ to http://www.nflonline.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified