What is Lincoln-Douglas?

What Makes LD Different From Other Formats?

The biggest difference between LD and other forms of debate, such as Policy (CX), Public Forum (PF), and World Schools (WSD), is the use of a framework. A framework is a set of 2 conditions that tell the judge what they ought to prioritize in the round (the value) and how we ought to achieve said value (the value criterion). There are many different types of frameworks that we cover on this page, so for a more in-depth explanation, check out the “Intro to Framework” guide!

LD is also much more focused on morality, i.e. what is “good” and “bad.” Unlike PF and Policy (which involve individuals debating policy actions), most LD topics feature more philosophical questions outside of a specific actor or a specific policy. For example, the current LD topic for January/February 2026 reads, “Resolved: The possession of nuclear weapons is immoral.” This resolution requires a moral evaluation, rather than a plan or an argument over policy. 

Another difference is that LD is a 1-on-1 debate event. Further, LD sides do not switch (i.e. the affirmative debater always goes first and speech orders do not change), unlike events like PF, where the affirmative or negative may go first, affecting the order of speeches throughout the round.

In LD, the resolution does not need to be proven as a plan, but rather as a general principle. Where the goal in policy debate is to isolate a specific course of action to implement the resolution, LD focuses on a much broader scale. For example, in the past November/December topic, “Resolved: The United States ought to rewild substantial tracts of land,” debaters did not need to lay out exactly how the United States would go about rewilding, but rather if they should, by proving it moral or immoral to some standard. 

What are LD Topics Like?

As previously stated, one of the core differences between LD and other forms of debate is that LD centers around morality. The wording of LD resolutions reflects this nature, with topics often setting up debates focused on moral evaluation, either of a hypothetical action or an action that is already being taken. 

LD topics often contain the word “ought,” which denotes a moral obligation for the actor to do something which is morally good, or correct. For example, the November/December 2025 topic, “Resolved: The United States ought to rewild substantial tracts of land,” was about whether or not the US has a moral obligation to rewild land. Other words commonly used in LD resolutions include: 

• Immoral 

• Moral 

• Just 

All of these indicate discussions about how “good” or “bad” something is. 

LD topics alternate between two states of being: tangible and intangible. The difference is especially important when noting if the topic is a policy action or just an evaluation of whether something is good/bad. When the topic is more of a policy topic, such as the November/December 2024 topic, “Resolved: The United States ought to adopt a wealth tax,” you can run specific arguments like a counter plan, which describes taking another action besides the one proposed. When the resolution is more of a moral evaluation, such as the September/October 2025 topic, “Resolved: In the United States criminal justice system, plea bargaining is just,” you have to run arguments that discuss the morality of the idea, not if it should happen or exist. 

As you can see, all of these words and resolutions boil down to morality, as that is what LD is based off of. More examples of past resolutions include:

• “The United States ought to substantially reduce its military presence in the West Asia-North Africa region.” 

• “In a democracy, a people ought to have the right to secede from their government.”

• “The United States ought to implement a single-payer universal healthcare system.”

All of these and more can be found on the NSDA website under past topics!

LD topics also often discuss very current issues, like the ethicality of AI, climate change, and more. Examples include: 

• “Resolved: The People’s Republic of China ought to prioritize environmental protection over economic growth.”

• “Resolved: The development of Artificial General Intelligence is immoral.” 

• “Resolved: Justice requires open borders for human migration.” 

• “Resolved: A public health emergency justifies limiting civil liberties.”

The last one was the nationals topic for the 2020-2021 debate season, making it especially topical with the COVID-19 pandemic that was unfolding in real time. Oftentimes, topics may discuss governmental actions, like whether or not a nation should become party to a statute or ban guns. This is where the wording of the topic becomes important, and where it becomes essential to know whether or not a resolution is evaluating if an action should occur or evaluating whether or not something that currently exists is good or bad. 

Finally, while most LD topics do include the U.S. as the actor, many do not. Unlike PF, which almost always includes some sort of governmental actor (whether it be a foreign country or the U.S.), LD topics may just be about the morality of an action in a broader sense, not whether a certain government should take that action.