As citizens of a particular society (a nation, a high school, a speech and debate team, etc.) we receive benefits and have obligations. Because I am a citizen of the United States, I have various obligations: For example, I have to obey the law and pay taxes. I also receive benefits by virtue of my citizenship: I have my constitutional rights protected, I can expect police protection, etc.
The same holds for your membership as a student at FLVS: you are obligated to complete your assignments, communicate with your teacher, etc. As a result of these actions, you receive benefits in the form of education, passing grades, etc.
In short, membership in a society entails receiving benefits from and owing obligations to that society.
A contract is one way of ensuring an agreement in which an individual receives benefits and owes obligations. For example, I may sign a contract with you under which I agree to wash your car if you pay me five dollars. I have an obligation to you (washing your car) and I receive a benefit from you (five dollars). A Social Contract is the same concept applied to an individual and a society: It is a system of benefits and obligations to which the individual agrees. The individual acquires obligations such as abiding by the law and receives benefits such as having his rights protected.
If social contracts are predicated on giving up something to get something, the Social Contract must strike a reasonable balance between order (what you get) and liberty (what you give up). Another way of saying this is that under the Social Contract, individuals should be granted as much liberty as possible without sacrificing the order that is necessary for liberty to be protected.
The Social Contract was first formulated by Thomas Hobbes. According to Hobbes, the only purpose of a society was to ensure the safety that was lacking without an organized society. Therefore, authoritarianism was justified because it protected safety because Hobbes believed that without government people would go around killing each other. To Hobbes, the liberty that would have to be sacrificed for safety under an authoritarian government was of little importance.
John Locke refined Hobbes' Social Contract. When people speak of "The Social Contract", they generally mean Locke's version of it. Locke took a more positive view of human nature than Hobbes: People were fundamentally good, and needed society to work together toward common goals. Because Locke had more faith in human nature than did Hobbes, he saw no need to control people absolutely. Locke's Social Contract granted people more freedom than Hobbes's, and sought to strike a balance between order and liberty.
Social Contract analysis can be applied to many Lincoln-Douglas Debate resolutions because they often deal with a conflict between order and liberty.
For example, consider the resolution: Resolved: Limiting Constitutional liberties is a just response to terrorism in the United States.
This resolution involves the conflict between order and liberty. Striking the balance in favor of liberty would mean that Constitutional liberties not be limited in order to preserve order through the prevention of terrorism. Striking the balance in favor of order would entail limiting Constitutional liberties, and thus limiting individual rights, to maintain safety.
The Social Contract can be used on the affirmative side to highlight the limitations on liberty that must exist in a society in order to further order and on the negative side to underscore the rights of citizens which governments are obligated to protect.
Social Contract is often useful on both sides of a resolution, which means that your opponent can easily turn your Social Contract arguments against you.