Although there are a few types of Lincoln Douglas debates, we will focus on the value-based debates in this class. It asks us to argue what should or should not be. A classic example is the equality v. liberty resolution - "Resolved: A just social order ought to place the principle of equality above that of liberty." For this resolution, the goal of the debate should be to determine which value is of greater importance in a just social order.
A resolution is a statement or an assertion that places two sides in conflict.
For example, “Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote," or "Resolved: A public health emergency justifies limiting civil liberties," or "Resolved: The United States ought to provide a universal basic income."
The two sides of the debate are known as the Affirmative and the Negative.
The affirmative debater upholds, affirms, or agrees with the resolution. Their job is to present arguments in order to persuade the judge that the resolution is true.
The negative debater, on the other hand, disagrees with the resolution and presents arguments to persuade the judge that the resolution is false. Each debater is responsible for arguing, or advocating, for his or her side of the resolution in front of a judge who decides which side of the resolution they will vote for based on the arguments presented in the debate round. The debate's most important concept is forced choice, which is also known as clash. This means that the judge is required to select (vote) between two mutually exclusive propositions. For example, if you are forced to choose between buying a soda and keeping your dollar, you can only choose one of those options.