Lincoln-Douglas debate
A sample LD case, annotated
A complete novice-level affirmative case on the September/October 2026 resolution, Resolved: Outer space colonization is a moral imperative, with the reasoning behind every section written out beside it. The left side is what a debater actually says. The right side is what the coach would tell you about it.
Read this, don't run this
This case is published on the open internet, which means any opponent can find it in about four seconds and will have answers ready before your student finishes the first contention. It is here to be taken apart and learned from, not read in a round. The value of a case is in having built it: the research, the choices, and knowing what every line is for when someone attacks it under cross-examination.
1. Opening and framing
THE CASE
Carl Sagan wrote that every person you have ever heard of lived out their entire life on a single speck of dust suspended in a sunbeam. That is still true today, and it is the reason I affirm.
Resolved: Outer space colonization is a moral imperative.
WHAT IT'S DOING
A short opening line, then the resolution read verbatim. The quotation is doing one specific job: it plants the single-planet framing that Contention 1 will cash in later. It is not decoration, and that is the test for whether an opening line has earned its fifteen seconds.
ON THE JUDGE'S FLOW
Most judges write almost nothing here. They are getting their pen ready and listening for the word after "I affirm."
2. Definitions
THE CASE
For clarity in today's round, I offer two definitions.
Colonization, per the Oxford English Dictionary, is the establishment of a self-sustaining settlement, not a visit, a research station, or a temporary outpost.
A moral imperative, following Kant, is an obligation that binds regardless of whether fulfilling it is convenient or profitable.
WHAT IT'S DOING
Two definitions, both load-bearing, both defended. "Self-sustaining" rules out the negative's easiest attack, that we are already in space and nothing changed. "Regardless of convenience" pre-empts every cost-based objection, because a moral imperative that dissolves when it gets expensive was never an imperative.
ON THE JUDGE'S FLOW
Judges write definitions down and circle the contested words. If the negative wants to fight the meaning of "colonization," this is the line they have to come back to.
3. Value: human survival
THE CASE
My value for today's round is human survival.
The resolution does not ask whether space is exciting or profitable. It asks whether we are obligated. Obligation-level claims need something weighty underneath them, and there is nothing weightier than whether there continue to be humans at all. Every other value in this debate, justice, autonomy, welfare, presupposes people existing to have them.
WHAT IT'S DOING
Notice the structure: name the value, then justify it from the wording of the resolution rather than from personal preference. The last sentence is the strongest move in the whole framework, arguing survival is prior to competing values rather than merely bigger than them. That is what makes it hard to simply outweigh.
ON THE JUDGE'S FLOW
Written at the top of the flow, usually boxed or starred. This is the anchor of the round.
4. Criterion: reducing existential risk
THE CASE
My criterion is reducing existential risk: the probability of an event that permanently ends humanity's future.
Survival alone cannot decide this round, because my opponent will also claim to protect human life, and they should. The question is not who cares about survival. It is which world has fewer paths to zero. Whichever side better reduces the chance of a permanent ending is the side that better achieves the value, and that is the standard I will hold myself to as well.
WHAT IT'S DOING
This is the piece novice cases most often skip, and it is why they lose to weaker cases. The criterion openly concedes that both sides claim the value, then converts an abstract commitment into one comparable question. The closing clause matters too: a criterion offered as a neutral standard reads far better than one that transparently only fits your own contentions.
ON THE JUDGE'S FLOW
Written directly under the value. From here on, a judge holding this criterion evaluates every argument by asking whether it changes the odds of extinction.
5. Contention 1: one planet is a single point of failure
THE CASE
Contention One: humanity currently has a single point of failure.
Every human being, every library, every language, and every scientific record sits on one planet. That is a category of vulnerability engineers design out of every critical system they build, because a system with one point of failure eventually fails at that point.
The Chicxulub impact ended the dominant life on this planet in an afternoon. The Toba supereruption is estimated to have cut the human population to a few thousand. Neither event required malice, warning, or human involvement of any kind. They simply happened, and the only reason they are history rather than the end of history is that nothing was there to be permanently lost.
A self-sustaining settlement off Earth removes that single point of failure. Not by making Earth safer, but by ensuring that a bad afternoon on Earth is no longer the end of the story.
WHAT IT'S DOING
A complete argument in four moves: claim, warrant, evidence, and the link back to the criterion. That last paragraph is the one novices leave out, and without it the contention is just interesting information. "Not by making Earth safer" also quietly answers the negative's best response before it arrives.
ON THE JUDGE'S FLOW
Written as a short tag in the AC column with space beneath it for the negative's answers. Judges flow the tag, not the whole paragraph, which is exactly why the tag has to say what the argument proves.
6. Contention 2: obligations run to future people
THE CASE
Contention Two: our obligations do not stop at the people currently alive.
If humanity survives at anything like its present scale, the overwhelming majority of people who will ever live have not been born yet. We already act on this. We bury nuclear waste to standards measured in tens of thousands of years, and we protect wilderness for generations we will never meet. We do not treat those obligations as optional.
Extinction is different in kind from other harms, not merely larger. A catastrophe humanity survives is a tragedy that can be recovered from. A catastrophe humanity does not survive erases every future life and every future recovery at once. Under my criterion, that asymmetry is decisive: reducing even a small probability of a permanent ending outweighs larger reductions in recoverable harm.
WHAT IT'S DOING
The second contention deliberately does not repeat the first. Contention 1 argues the risk is real; Contention 2 argues that the risk counts more than the negative's harms do. Together they are structurally complete: one establishes the impact, the other wins the weighing. The nuclear waste example is chosen because it is a practice the negative already accepts.
ON THE JUDGE'S FLOW
Judges flow this as a weighing argument, not just a contention, and it is what a good 2AR will return to when the round is close.
7. Closing
THE CASE
Two things follow. Humanity has one point of failure, and our obligations extend to people who do not exist yet. A settlement that survives without Earth is the only response that addresses both.
Because reducing the risk of a permanent ending is how we actually protect human survival, I affirm.
WHAT IT'S DOING
Three sentences, no new arguments, and it names the criterion out loud one final time. The closing exists to tell the judge what the case adds up to, because a judge writing quickly through six minutes will remember the last sentence far better than the third one.
What this case is deliberately avoiding
Four mistakes turn up in almost every first case a student writes. Each one is a choice the case above made in the other direction.
Contentions written before the framework
The most common structural error in novice LD. A student writes two arguments they find interesting, then reverse-engineers a value and criterion that sort of fit. The case above was built in the other order, which is why every contention ends by naming the criterion instead of gesturing at it.
A criterion that only restates the value
"Value: survival. Criterion: surviving." gives the judge no way to compare two debaters who both claim survival. A criterion has to be a test, something a judge could in principle apply to both sides and get different answers.
Evidence with no link back
The Toba and Chicxulub material is genuinely striking, and a novice will often read it and move on, assuming the conclusion is obvious. It never is. The sentence that says what the evidence proves under your criterion is the sentence that wins the argument.
Writing to fill the time instead of to the time
Six minutes of written text is not six minutes of spoken text, and a case that fits on paper routinely runs forty seconds long out loud. Time it, read it aloud, and cut before the round rather than during it.
Now flow it
The most useful thing a student can do with this page: print the flow sheet, read the case out loud at a normal speaking pace, and flow it as if it were being delivered in a round. Then check the flow against the annotations and see how much of the structure came through.
Want feedback on a case your kid actually wrote?
A call for parents: talk to our coaching staff directly, no pressure, no obligation. Core itself is month to month, and every session ends in a written progress note, so you always know how it's going.
Still have questions?
Pricing, scheduling, safety, and more, answered plainly, no call required.