LD_TopicAnalysis

Resolution:
Each LD topic is stated as a resolution. The job of the affirmative debater is to generate arguments in support of the resolution, while the negative debater challenges those arguments and presents arguments against the resolution.

Central Tension:
Each LD topic focuses debate on a tension between competing values. Topics are chosen to give viable ground to both sides; there are good arguments for both the affirmative and negative positions. Make sure you understand the good in each side before you proceed. For example, one 2001 topic stated "Resolved: that the possession of nuclear weapons is immoral." Here the central tension was between the destructive power of nuclear weapons, and their effectiveness in preventing war. Simplistic “Good vs. Evil” analysis of the topic will rarely be profitable.

Object(s) of Evaluation:
Each LD topic asks you to evaluate (determine the value of) something. In the nuclear weapon example above, the object of evaluation was "the possession of nuclear weapons". Sometimes two objects of evaluation that are contrasted in the resolution, like “the spirit of the law” and “the letter of the law”.

Evaluative Term:
Each LD topic contains an evaluative term that focuses the debate. In the nuclear weapon example, the evaluative term is "immoral". Sometimes the evaluative term is actually a phrase, like "valued above" or "ought to be a fundamental goal".

Context of Resolution:
Some LD topics specify a context for discussion, while others do not. A contextual phrase might be “When they are in conflict...” or “In a just society...” or “in the United States judicial system.”

Definition of Terms:
Most judges require an affirmative team to define the essential terms and phrases of the resolution, while the negative team is only obligated to define the terms if they dispute the fairness of the affirmative definitions.

Value Premise:
A value premise is a short clear statement that summarizes the moral issue of your case. These premises could form the core of any ethical system, and should ring true (at least on first hearing) with any listener. The value premise should be clearly connected to the resolution, but should suggest a deeper moral truth that could be applied in many contexts. If both sides accept this premise, then the debaters will have to convince the judge that their side of the resolution better secures the safety of the worldwide community. Many judges look for a value premise that either side could conceivably uphold, rather than one that is biased to either side of the resolution.

Criteria:
In some cases, the value premise will be sufficiently abstract that further analysis will be required. This analysis can take the form of looking for a criterion which will serve as a measure for how well the value has been upheld. For instance, if “Safety” is the value, then the judge could use the criteria of which side of the argument would most likely to prevent armed conflict, or prevent Armageddon, or ensure the viability of nation-states. Criteria are usually more disputable than value premises, and often set up the greatest room for clash.

Contentions:
If the debaters have reached an agreement on the appropriate value and criteria for deciding the resolution, they will attempt to convince the judge that their side of the resolution does it better. This is done by making specific contentions about facts. Here, you can introduce case studies and expert testimony to supplement your logical analysis. When the value issues are resolved by the debaters, clash shifts to the truth of the contentions.