Chase is a three-time CDE Alumnus, and this article was written in connection with the CDE Scholar's Program.

Businessman and philosopher William Clement said, “When you discover your mission, you will feel its demand.  It will fill you with enthusiasm and a burning desire to get to work on it (An inner, 1).”  When Lincoln Douglas debaters select values, their demand must be felt by judges.  One way to show the demand for a value is through change in present conditions.  Values inspire policies, and consequently, policy changes fulfill demands and work on values that people desire and are enthused to support.  Therefore, the use of plans and counterplans in Lincoln Douglas debate is a feasible option to advocate subsequent societal shifting created by a plan’s value promotion, but it is an option that comes with ramifications.

The academic atmosphere surrounding the debate community has shifted to an era of change which has revolutionized debate.  Debate principles are not stagnant but are constantly evolving collections of conventional strategy and practicality (Friedman-Pizzo, 1).  A false dichotomy must no longer exist between policy debate and Lincoln Douglas debate argumentation.  The commutation of debate strategies is more viable currently than ever before.   

An example of the discontinuation of bifid debate style is the lack of speed reading, solvency, and critical theory in policy debate.  These three practices are gaining momentum in Lincoln Douglas debate (Herder, 1).  The application of non-traditional argumentation will rapidly become a new traditional method.  The same shift from policy arguments to Lincoln Douglas will occur with plans, as well.   

The interchange of debate theories couldn’t come at a better time.  Jason Baldwin wrote in “Logic in LD”:
“It is notoriously hard to say precisely how the value premise is related to the resolution and how the criterion is related to the value premise.  Debaters often speak of the value premise as ‘supporting’ the resolution or of the criterion ‘fulfilling’ the value premise, but it is hard to know just what these descriptions mean (1).”

Values lack appeal when there is no reason to support them, but the use of policy-style plans can mend the current, stodgy use of values.  The crossover of debate style will promote values with more efficacy when plans or counterplans make societal changes that are inspired by a desired value.

One aspect of policy argumentation is at the root of the resolution.  Numerous Lincoln Douglas resolutions have focused on United States politics.  Thus, the argumentation often focuses on whether or not cases provide for impacts or solvency to present problems perplexing the status quo (Waldo, 2).  This is an example of the transition of policy-style plans into the realm of value debate.  A value drives a plan, which becomes a method of solving issues facing current conditions in societies.  The value becomes the driving force behind change, rather than an unwarranted, hypothetical ideology that ‘supports’ the resolution.
The transition of policy arguments into Lincoln Douglas isn’t the only way the debate events are changing.  High school debate is also affected by the collegiate debate community.  Many changes in high school debate can be attributed to college debaters (Friedman-Pizzo, 4).  College judging pools, as well as college debaters becoming debate coaches, will greatly influence argumentation styles.  The collegiate style can trickle down and transmogrify the standard wise of Lincoln Douglas debate.

At the collegiate level, judges in elimination rounds of Lincoln Douglas used stock issues and policy maker in decision making (Dier, 46).  This suggests that perhaps a fusion of collegiate and high school judging habits are often created, similar to how aspects of policy and Lincoln Douglas have already merged on the high school level.  Plans and counterplans will become increasingly prevalent once the collegiate properties of Lincoln Douglas debate are mimicked by high school debate.

Walter Ulrich notes that the stock issues paradigm in Lincoln Douglas suggests that a speaker has responsibilities to advocate change in policy, or to justify those changes.  The increased usage of the stock issues paradigm in Lincoln Douglas will hold speakers accountable for their use of values (245-51).  

Values cannot be hypothetical, nor can they ‘support’ the resolution.  On the other hand, value debate can be accompanied by a plan or counterplan as a method of changing policy and promoting that value.  High school Lincoln Douglas debate commonly lacks solvency, but rather ‘upholding’ a value premise that makes no change and creates a stagnant debate.  The transition of collegiate level judging paradigms to the high school level will foster a change in order to win a ballot; the change will be increased policy-based plans and counterplans to promote a value.

However, the stock issues paradigm doesn’t suggest original aspects of Lincoln Douglas won’t continue to exist.  The foundation has changed, but has not been removed.  The stock issues paradigm provokes the likelihood for increased research and emphasis and refutation skills; however, skills of traditional Lincoln Douglas debate, such as persuasion and delivery, are still key issues in decision-making (Diers, 46).  After all, the foundation of LD debate was to be based on clarity, persuasiveness, and being conversational.
Regardless of paradigm preferences, plans can also be used based on the resolution itself.  Jeff Doss wrote in “Lincoln Douglas Debate Theory Applied”:

“Terms such as ‘ought’, ‘justified’, and ‘value’ all signal the presence of an open-ended value analysis.  Denotatively, the previous three all command or defend a choice, action, condition, etc.  However, the method by which the debater is to define the evaluative term is not clear.”

The wording of specific Lincoln Douglas resolutions offers grounds for a plan or counterplan.  The command for an action or choice is found within a plan.  Therefore, in resolutions like these, plans and counterplans would be perfect ways to promote specific values through change of the status quo.  

For example, a debater could say the United States ought to promote democratic ideals in a plan to increase support and protection to Sri Lanka’s political leaders.  This plan would show one aspect of how the United States ought to promote democratic ideals, thus affirming the topic.  This shows action and demand creating actual change, and consequently, the plan secures democracy for Sri Lanka, which promotes numerous values.  Thus, the value debate can be won based on topic wording and the application of a plan or counterplan which will create action based on a value.

On the other hand, change in debate style can be compromising in the attempt to win a ballot.  Debaters, coaches, and judges all experience the transitions that make debate tradition a novelty.  However, the increased sophistication of arguments, and new types of argumentation create gamesmanship and also creates deception in debate rounds (Waldo, 1).  Although times are changing, the shift between policy and Lincoln Douglas, as well as college and high school is not prevalent enough to completely overhaul traditional styles of competition and judging.

Discretionary decisions made by judges differ.  Depending on what judge pool you are targeting, argument developments and shifts to plan and counterplan usage may be limned, or described, as controversial, but could also be viewed as progressive (Herder, 1).  Therefore, the subjective and unpredictable nature make the use of plans and counterplans risky and inconsistent.

An off-putting characteristic of the plan and counterplan is the ‘deception’ created during a round.  An untraditional style of argumentation is often used to baffle opponents, rather than focus on the educational benefits of a debate round (Friedman-Pizzo, 4).   Plans and counterplans are not a completely satisfactory, or traditional, method for value promotion in all Lincoln Douglas debates.

Your judge, not to mention your opponent, could be left behind wondering what just happened.  However, the changing era of debate may foster a growth of borrowed styles to create a debate with real-world impacts and changes to the status quo.  The emphasis of values in Lincoln Douglas can be translated into a plan or counterplan that makes change.  The lack of value clash and promotion certainly exists.  The methods to use plans and counterplans in Lincoln Douglas are apparent as well, but the intransigent tradition that Lincoln Douglas possesses has stifled the growth and evolution of the debate community—to one where plans and counterplans are not fully acceptable in Lincoln Douglas debate.
 

Works Cited

1. “An inner calling to pursue the impossible – a devotion to a cause greater than ourselves.”  Shout and Whisper.  25 Jul 2006 <http://www.shoutandwhisper.com/mission.html>.
2. Baldwin, Jason.  “Logic in LD.”  Rostrum (Dec. 2004).  19 Jul. 2006 <http://www.nflonline.org/Rostrum/Ld1204Baldwin>.
3. Diers, Audra R.  “Understanding Lincoln Douglas Debate.”  National Forensic Journal  23.1 (Spring 2005): 45-54.  19 Jul. 2006 <http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/nfa/journal/vol23no1-8.pdf>.
4. Doss, Jeff.  “Lincoln Douglas Debate Theory Applied.”  Rostrum  (Feb. 2005).  19 Jul. 2006 <http://www.nflonline.org/Rostrum/Ld0205Doss>.
5. Friedman-Pizzo, Jan.  “The Use of Lincoln-Douglas Debate as a Debate Evaluation Paradigm.”  Rostrum (Apr. 2005).  19 Jul. 2006 <http://www.nflonline.org/Rostrum/Ld0405Pizzo>.
6. Herder, Rick.  “Forensics at the Cross-Roads.”  Rostrum (Jan. 2005).  19 Jul. 2006 <http://www.nflonline.org/Rostrum/Coach0105Herder>.
7. Ulrich, Walter.  “The stock issues paradigm.”  Advanced Debate:  Readings in Theory, Practice, and Teaching.  Eds. D.A. Thomas and J.P. Hart.  Lincolnwood:  National Textbook Company, 1992.  245-251.
8. Waldo, Dixie.  “Framing the Debate:  Creating a More Appealing Possibility.”  Rostrum (Mar. 2006).  19 Jul. 2006 <http://www.nflonline.org/Rostrum/Debate0306Waldo>.