Lincoln-Douglas debate drills for building contentions, weighing through a framework and writing a sharper 1AR. Practise LD online, on any resolution, with feedback.
Lincoln-Douglas is a one-on-one debate about values. Each resolution asks whether something ought to be done, and the round is won by the debater who best shows that their side upholds the more important value. That makes LD unlike any team format: you are alone for the whole round, and every argument has to connect back to a framework.
A typical round runs a six-minute affirmative constructive, a seven-minute negative constructive, a four-minute first affirmative rebuttal, a six-minute negative rebuttal and a three-minute second affirmative rebuttal, with cross-examination between the constructives. The 1AR is famously hard: four minutes to answer seven. Debaters who win it are the ones who can cut an argument to its core and decide quickly what matters.
Judges reward clear framework debate, a value and a criterion that actually filter the round, and contentions that link back to them. They also reward weighing. A judge who hears two good cases needs to be told why yours matters more under the standard you have both argued for.
Prep for LD is mostly done before the tournament, since resolutions change every couple of months. You write your affirmative and negative cases, then refine them round by round.
The drills below help with each part of that. Burden Identification and Argument Anatomy build the foundations of a case. The Classic Argument and Impact drills sharpen your contentions. Concision trains the 1AR. Rebuttal, Fallacy and Clash & Weighing prepare you for the second half of the round, where LD is decided. Every drill works on any resolution you choose.
Each card says how the drill helps in a Lincoln-Douglas round.
Take a contention apart into claim, warrant and impact, so every one you read links back to your criterion.
Find who the resolution touches, then build a contention around the group your value protects most.
Write a full contention on any resolution and practise linking it back to your value and criterion.
Finish a contention with an impact your criterion can weigh, and an example that makes the philosophy concrete.
Work out what the affirmative and negative each have to prove, before you pick your value and criterion.
Cut a contention down to its essentials, the skill you need when the 1AR has four minutes to cover a seven-minute NC.
Write a full constructive, from framework to contentions, ready to read in six minutes.
Answer a real opposing contention by denying the link, denying the impact or mitigating it, as you would in the NR or 1AR.
Build a complete case: a value, a criterion, contentions that meet it, and answers to what the negative will run.
Find the clash that decides the round and weigh it through the framework, the job of every 2AR and NR.
Spot the flawed reasoning in a real argument and turn it into an attack you can make in cross-examination.
Write "Resolved:" statements that weigh two values against each other, and test that both sides can win.
Pick one skill per session. Write a contention and link it to your criterion, cut it down to fit a 1AR, or answer a real opposing argument. The drills here give you a structure for each, so you are not practising with a blank page.
The value is what your side says matters most in the resolution, such as justice or liberty. The criterion is the standard the judge uses to decide which side better upholds that value. Your contentions should show you meet the criterion.
The 1AR is a compression problem: four minutes to answer a seven-minute negative constructive. Practise cutting arguments to their essentials with the Concision Drill, and practise choosing what to answer with the Clash & Weighing drill.
Yes. You can send a finished drill to a coach for written feedback, and the AI Debate Grader can review the Classic Argument Drill while it is in beta.