Lincoln Douglas 2026-2027
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.
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 2026-2027 season
Lincoln Douglas debaters will move from three to two resolutions for the upcoming season. Note: specific dates for these resolutions have not been determined.
Lincoln-Douglas Resolutions:
- Fall 2026 – Liberty ought to be prioritized over order.
- Spring 2027 – In regulating emerging technologies, governments ought to prioritize caution over innovation.
*Please note that not all tournaments offer Lincoln Douglas Debate.
Resolution background from Stoa
Liberty ought to be prioritized over order.
This resolution is a classic of political philosophy. Students will examine what liberty and order actually mean, whether they are genuinely in conflict or mutually dependent, and what it looks like when one is sacrificed for the other. Affirmative debaters will draw on libertarian traditions to argue that liberty is the precondition for human dignity and that order imposed at its expense tends toward authoritarianism. Negative debaters will argue that order is the foundation upon which liberty itself depends, and that some constraints on freedom are necessary for any free society to function. This resolution offers significant depth for experienced debaters while remaining conceptually clear enough for newer students to engage meaningfully.
In regulating emerging technologies, governments ought to prioritize caution over innovation.
- As artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and other emerging fields reshape society at an unprecedented pace, this resolution asks students to wrestle with one of the most pressing governance questions of our time. Affirmative teams will make the case that the potential harms of unregulated technological development, ranging from safety risks to ethical violations to systemic disruption, justify a cautious regulatory posture. Negative teams will argue that excessive caution stifles progress, entrenches existing power structures, and often causes its own harms by delaying beneficial technologies. The resolution is exceptionally relevant to the current moment and gives students the opportunity to engage with real policy debates while developing a principled philosophical framework for evaluating risk, responsibility, and the role of government.