Lincoln Douglas 2024-2025
Lincoln Douglas debate falls under Stoa rules and is for debaters ages 12 to 18. Ages are determined as of October 1st. Lincoln Douglas debate consists of one student per team and is a value oriented debate. Rounds last 47 minutes.
A Lincoln Douglas debate examines competing value systems to answer big questions. The purpose of Lincoln Douglas value debate is to instill in Christian home school students the skills of presentation, critical thinking, research, and value analysis. That endeavor is accomplished in an environment of honorable competition that cultivates maturity, wisdom, grace, poise, and brings glory to our Lord Jesus Christ.
Resolutions for the 2024-2025 season
- Resolution 1 – Debated from October to December 31, 2024
- Resolved: The acquisition of knowledge is an intrinsic good.
- Resolutions 2 and 3 – The order of the second and third resolutions will be announced on December 1st.
- Resolved: Mandatory national service is justified
- Resolved: In U.S. law enforcement, accountability ought to be prioritized over effectiveness.
- The competition window for each resolution will be as follows:
- Resolution 2: January 1 – March 9, 2025
- Resolution 3: March 10 – NITOC
*Please note that not all tournaments offer Lincoln Douglas Debate.
Resolution background from Stoa
Resolved: The acquisition of knowledge is an intrinsic good.
Resolved: Mandatory national service is justified.
Resolved: In U.S. law enforcement, accountability ought to be prioritized over effectiveness.
Our society places a huge priority on education. It is assumed that acquisition of knowledge is the key to success. We can acknowledge that the acquisition of knowledge has led to some incredible advances in medical science, technology, and many other areas of everyday life. This allows our generation to live longer and more comfortably than any other in all of history. We can solve problems that previous generations thought were impossible. At our fingertips we can find any fact we want wherever we are with just a couple of keystrokes. And all of this appears to be good.
But is this actually true? Can too much knowledge be too much of a good thing? Have we learned so much that we are actually causing more harm than good? The fields of AI and biomedical engineering are daily pushing the boundaries of traditional ethics. Technological advances have led to mental health problems and have led to a socieity that is disconnected from community.
Although this resolution is crafted as a statement, it asks a moral question.
Our country is becoming more diverse and divided. It is seldom that we choose to reach out beyond our circle of acquaintances and understand life from another’s perspective. There is nothing that forces us to interact with others of a dissimilar background. In the past, we did have a common circumstance that required us to serve, work with and understand individuals who were different from ourselves. The military draft, conscription, was a part of our national fabric off and on until 1973. This culminated in the draft during the Vietnam War. However, making national service mandatory introduces another set of considerations. When you force another to do something, do they do it willingly or well? What about their personal choice to spend their efforts in the way they choose?
National service can be performed in a variety of ways. Serving in the military, teaching in low-income areas, caring for the elderly or working on a needed infrastructure project are all examples of tasks that could be classified as national service.
Although this resolution is crafted as a statement, it asks a moral question.
In the last few years, there have been a lot of conversations about police–and more broadly, law enforcement–reform. Handheld recordings from citizens, paired with whistleblowers from the inside, have many pushing for stronger accountability measures in law enforcement. It’s been said that power corrupts, and law enforcement wields a lot of power over the average citizen. At the same time, that power is necessary to protect citizens from crime. Many measures that increase accountability, can decrease overall effectiveness. This resolution identifies two good things for law enforcement to have, and asks: when in conflict, which ought to be prioritized above the other?