The LD debate speech is called "the case". It is an extremely structured and complex miracle (when done right). This portion of my website is to attempt to explain the basics of "the case".

Most people open their cases with a quote or story. It's not necessary to do so, but it sort of eases the listener into the speech and sets the tone for the arguments. A well-chosen quote will also grab the judges attention. Some debaters get alittle overzealous and attack eachother's opening quotes. This is a waste of time, and if you are a beginning debater and you hit (are paired against) such a debater my advice to you is spend as little time as possible refuteing their comments and hit them hard where it really hurts. I'll put it this way, if you're opening quote falls, but the rest of your case stands strong, you'll still win the round.

Right after the quote, the resolution is stated, and whether the debater affirms or negates it. "It is because I agree with Mark Twain that I must affirm the resolution that, 'Civil disobedience ought justified in a democracy.'."

Next in the line-up come the value, and the value criteria. Vast schools of thought have arisen to explain what these two really are. I'll try my best to explain them to you. Say the resolution is, "Capital Punishment is justified"and you are Aff. Your value is the principle by which capital punishment is justified. Is it justified because it is moral? Then you run morallity. Is it justified because it is just? Then you run justice. The value criteria is the principle that tells you capital punishment is meeting your first value. Capital punishment is moral because because it preserves society (thus your V.C. is Preservation of Society) or it is just because is upholds the Social Contract.

After the value and the value criteria are stated, definitions of key words are given. For an example, I'll use the same resolution as I did for values. For that resolution, I personally would only define capital punishment (and ofcourse my values, always define the values!). Most people would probably not see the need to define capital punishment. You commit certain crimes, you get electrocuted, right? In Lincoln/Douglas Debate, nothing is ever so certain. When debaters actually start researching topics, they find about a thousand ways to define even the simplest words. When we debated capital punishment, there were debaters who tried to define Hitler's Holocaust as capital punishment. Now, if you are affirming the resolution, you really don't want to be defending Hitler's insanity. So, you find a definition of capital punishment that excludes genocide. Definitions help to keep the rounds more manageable, and weed out some of the extreme example. There are those debaters who like to over-define in the round. I.E. For "Civil disobedience ought to be justified in a democracy", this breed of debater will define civil disobedience, ought, justified, and democracy. This wastes time. Rule of thumb for definitions: if you don't forsee it being a problem in a round, don't define it. There are few judges who want to hear how the negative position is wrong because they don't fully understand the nuances of the word "ought".

All of the above should take a minute at the very most. The rest of the case is devoted to contentions and subpoints. Contentions are the actual reasons that "Capital punishment is justified". Each contention has subpoints within it, organizing the evidence of the contentions into manageable bits. So if a debater is affirming capital punishment they might have a first contention stateing, "Capital Punishment deals justices" with the subpoints of, "Subpoint A: Capital punishment reciprocates the crime" and "Subpoint B: Capital punishment deters other crimes", and then a second contention stateing, "Capital Punishment is Moral" with "Subpoint A: Capital punishment serves justice (and that is a moral thing)" and "Subpoint B: Capital punishment saves society". These are just off the top of my head, so if you are a beginning debaters, don't take any inspiration from these contentions. I have only given them as a example of what contentions and subpoints really are.

At the end of the case, a debater rights a small conclusion. This should take as little time as possible. Most of the time should be spent of contention, the actual argumentation. The conclusion sums up the arguments, and ends the case on a very convinceing note. "Thus we can see that capital punishment is absolutely needed to keep the innocent safe!"