UHSAA 2A Region 16
2025 — Holladay, UT/US
Lincoln Douglas
Event Description:
The student creates a case for both the affirmative(Aff) and negative(Neg) that responds to the resolution. The Aff agrees with the resolution, and the Neg negates the resolution. Before round, tabroom will notify each student which side they will be arguing for. Each student presents their case. The Aff’s case provides evidence/logical arguments proving to the judge(you) why we have a moral obligation to enact the resolution. The Neg’s case provides evidence/logical arguments proving why we have a moral obligation to not enact the resolution, or do something different/Counter Plan. After presenting their cases, the students will then each have a Cross Examination(cx) where one person will ask questions. The questions tend to be about the case or personal opinions. After this the students rebut and defend each other's cases using their own information, evidence from Cx, and other logical arguments. Each student gets 4 minutes of total prep time, that they can use at any point in the round. For example I might take 1 minute before my neg speech, and 3 minutes before my neg rebuttal.
Aff Constructive speech 6 minutes. Neg Cross Examination 3 minutes(in this period the neg will ask questions). Neg Constructive Speech 7 minutes. Aff Cross Examination 3 minutes. Aff rebuttal 4 minutes. Nef rebuttal 6 minutes. Aff rebuttal 3 minutes
As a judge you should write down each individual argument that a student gives. Keep track of when the other student addresses the points his/her opponent made. Look for logical, evidence based arguments. Focus on the Value/Criterion debate because that is what ultimately determines rounds. Are we voting a round based on Utilitarianism-greatest good for the greatest number of people, or Justice? How do we determine whether an action is just etc. Counterplans are allowed. Don’t make assumptions about your vote. Vote purely on which debater had better arguments, not on which side you believed in. Some difficult situations you might run across: one of the debaters is a very poor speaker but overall has better arguments. In this context it would be a low-point win if there is an extreme difference in skill level. Flow(write down) arguments, and if an argument is dropped drag is across the flow. Meaning, that is the neg gives an argument, and the aff fails to respond to that in their first rebuttal. That argument can no longer be refuted in later speeches.