One of the most common pieces of feedback students receive in Speech and Debate is about hand gestures: too stiff, too distracting, too much, or not enough. While gestures can feel awkward at first, when used well, they become one of the most powerful tools a speaker has.
The goal isn’t perfect choreography. The goal is natural communication.
Hand gestures should support meaning—not compete with it. Remember, hand gestures can help grab your audience’s attention or also give them a VISUAL CLUE as to what you are trying to say. They are a big deal to helping you effectively communicate your thoughts, but they can also distract!! What can you do? Read on to hear Heather’s tips on how to create meaningful hand gestures that aren’t over-the-top, yet still have an IMPACT!…
To win an LD round, you’ve got to convince your judge that your side is “good.” But to answer that question, you first need to ask a more important question: What IS the good? In the particular situation posed by this particular resolution, what ought we to value as our highest priority? Why should we value it? Is LD just a math problem? Is it enough to just tally up the benefits and count up which side provides more? If you’d like to discuss these principles further, or get personal help refining your cases, a few spots are still available in this semester’s LD Socratic Circle club. The club meets on Mondays at 6pm CT. Sign up here: https://lastingimpact.info/product/club24801/
Coach Henry Chen addresses these questions and more in this new resource available as a free download in the Lasting Impact shop. His article describes the two levels of argumentation that an LD debater must win, and he explores the scenarios that can occur when students fail to recognize the clashing worldviews at play in a round. This resource will help debaters and coaches better identify conflicting frameworks and weigh the impacts of each side. Check it out int the Lasting Impact! Library as a PDF soon~
The “Two-Step” of LD Debate Lincoln-Douglas debate is unique because it requires two distinct victories. You cannot just prove your side is “good” (Step 2); you must first prove how we define “good” (Step 1). The “Scale” metaphor visualizes this hierarchy. Step 1: The First Order of Debate (The Framework) Image: Top Left (Framework Conflict) ● The Metaphor: This panel represents the Value and Criterion debate. ● The Action: Notice the two debaters are not looking at the weights (the arguments/impacts) on the table. They are arguing about the instruments in their hands. ○ The debater on the left wants to use a Standard Balance Scale (Utilitarianism). He wants to measure quantity—who has the biggest pile of benefits? ○ The debater on the right wants to use a Precision Gauge (Deontology). He wants to measure quality—did a specific rule or right get violated? ● The Lesson for Students: “Before you tell me how many lives you saved or how much money you made (the weights), you must win the argument of which type of scale the judge should use to weigh the round. If you start throwing weights on the table before the judge has picked a scale, you are wasting your time.”
Step 2: The Second Order of Debate (The Impacts) Once the “First Order” is settled and a scale is chosen, the debate moves to the “Second Order”—weighing the arguments. There are three possible outcomes shown in the other panels.
Outcome A: The Utilitarian Framework Wins Image: Top Right (Utilitarian Match) ● The Scenario: The judge accepted the Utilitarian framework, and both sides are arguing about quantity of impacts. (e.g., Value of Prosperity with a Criterion of Maximizing Well-being). ● The Metaphor: We use the scale that measures quantity, the debate becomes a math problem. ● The Action: ○ Left Pan: “Maximize Happiness” + “Save Lives” (Heavy weights). ○ Right Pan: “Minor Harm” (Light weight). ● The Result: The scale tips. One quantitative impact is found to be “heavier” than the other. ● The Lesson: “If Utilitarianism wins as the scale, then the heaviest pile of rocks wins. Your goal is to pile up as many positive consequences as possible. The side with the greater quantity or has the ‘heavier’ net benefit wins the round.”
Outcome B: The Deontological Framework Wins (The Clash of Duties) Image: Bottom Right (Deontological Match) ● The Scenario: The judge accepted a Deontological framework, but both sides are arguing about duties. ● The Metaphor: We use the scale that measures quality, the debate becomes a calculus of duties and rights. ● The Action: ○ Left Pan: “Duty to Protect” (e.g., National Security). ○ Right Pan: “Human Right” (e.g., Privacy). ● The Result: The scale tips. One moral duty is found to be “heavier” or more fundamental than the other. ● The Lesson: “If Deontology wins, then the strength of the obligation wins. Is the Duty to Protect the Nation ‘heavier’ than the Individual Right to Privacy? The side with the greater moral weight wins the round..”
Outcome C: The Deontological Framework Wins (The Mismatch) Image: Bottom Left (Deontological Mismatch) ● The Scenario: The judge accepted a Deontological framework, but the debaters have different types of things to weigh. ● The Metaphor: This scale is designed to detect specific moral properties (like rights violations), not the weight of consequences. ● The Action: The debater tries to put Utilitarian weights (“Maximize Happiness” and “Save Lives”) onto the Deontological machine. ● The Result: “DOES NOT COMPUTE.” The needle doesn’t move. The machine doesn’t care about happiness; it only cares about rights. ● The Lesson: “This is the most common novice mistake. If your opponent wins a ‘Justice/Rights’ framework, and you keep arguing that your side ‘boosts the economy’ or ‘makes people happy,’ you are putting the wrong fuel in the engine. It doesn’t matter how great your impacts are; on this scale, they weigh zero.”
And Why AI Can’t Replace the Human Touch in Speech & Debate
Artificial intelligence has changed how students write. With the click of a button, speeches can be outlined, rewritten, polished, and refined. AI can be a helpful tool—but it is not a coach. And when it comes to script assessment, nothing replaces the insight of a human who understands people, performance, and purpose.
At Lasting Impact!, we believe technology should support growth, not replace mentorship. And while AI can assist in brainstorming or editing, it cannot fully understand what makes a speech connect. Did you know Lasting Impact! has live classes (Winter 2026 Clubs just started!) instructors, and coaching waiting to work personally with your competitor? Although AI can be a great tool, don’t let it replace the human touch! Continue reading about how to use AI and ways to connect with an audience…
Transforming Impact-Measure to Consequentialist Obligation Measure
In this next example, we take an Impact-Measure case and transform it into a case that looks at measures of Consequentialist Obligations.
This looks similar but is quite different. It treats Utilitarianism as a Philosophy and shows why there is a moral duty to care about the “bigger” impact. This is what we call Principled Consequentialism rather than Shallow Consequentialism.
Here is an Impact Case for the LD Space Resolution “Resolved: In the exploration and utilization of outer space, international cooperation should be prioritized.”….
Since most people’s default mode is policy thinking, Lincoln Douglas Debaters need clear positive examples of what values reasoning looks like when it’s working. Here are How Different Frameworks Generate Duty-Measure Arguments… Each major moral framework has its own way of generating duty-measured arguments. Understanding how your chosen framework generates duties helps you construct genuine values arguments. Read on to see different frameworks and how judges can respond to them…
Winter Debate Clubs at Lasting Impact! are designed to help students stay sharp, grow confident, and deepen their debate skills during their speech and debate season. These clubs provide structured instruction, guided practice, and meaningful feedback in a supportive community led by experienced, knowledgable coaches. Students will strengthen argumentation, critical thinking, and persuasive communication—skills that extend far beyond competition. Whether your student is brand new to debate or preparing for higher-level rounds, our Winter Online Debate Clubs offer a focused, encouraging environment where students from across the country learn, connect, and continue building skills that truly last. Here is the winter line up…
NEW! LD Socratic Circle with Anne and Caleb McClure
LD NCFCA with Ethan Tong
Moot Court Advocacy with Ethan Tong
Get the full descriptions in the SHOP! Want to learn more about what our NEW LD Socratic Circle is all about? Keep reading…
Why Students and Parents Benefit from Investing in an Outside Speech & Debate Coach
In Speech and Debate, we often talk about skills—communication, organization, delivery, argumentation. But behind every great speaker, every confident competitor, every transformed student… there is usually a coach… a coach can be a club coach, mentor, sibling, alumni, even a parent!!
A coach is more than a tutor. More than a teacher. A coach is a guide, a mentor, and often the person who sees potential long before the student sees it in themselves.
Coaching, at its core, is a gift—a gift of clarity, confidence, and growth that lasts far beyond tournaments. Why can a coach be the right fit for you? Why does coaching matter? Read on…
Even students who understand the scale analogy often fall into traps that pull them back toward policy thinking. Let’s identify the most common ones so you can avoid them.
The competitive season is about officially to be in full swing—and whether you’re still searching for the right case, considering a strategic switch, or preparing for the arguments you know are coming, we’ve got exactly what you need.
Today, we’re excited to unveil the Lasting Impact Team Policy Mid-Season Release, a powerful new resource designed to equip debaters with fresh, relevant, and high-quality material right when they need it most.
If you’re reading this, you’ve probably experienced the frustration of values debate. Maybe you’re a student who worked hard on a case but felt confused about what the judge actually wanted. Maybe you’re a parent judge who felt uncertain about how to evaluate rounds, especially when one student had more evidence but the other had more philosophical arguments. Maybe you’re a coach watching your students drift toward policy-style cases because that’s what seems to win. Read on to hear Henry’s opinion and perspective (bio below)…
In a world overflowing with information, it’s easy for students to lean on shortcuts—summaries, prewritten cases, or someone else’s arguments passed along as their own. But the true value of Speech and Debate doesn’t come from finding the right answer quickly. It comes from learning how to think deeply, critically, and independently…
Henry Chen has been coaching Lincoln Douglas Debate for numerous years. He coaches at Vox Speech and Debate in WA, a club with a consistent record of success at the national level. His students have regularly advanced to outrounds, and in the 2024-2025 season, the NCFCA National TP Championship round featured two teams from Vox.
As a father of three, his passion for the league is also personal; his sons have won National Championships in both Lincoln-Douglas (2022) and Team Policy (2025). This experience as both a parent and a coach informs the philosophy he is passionate about sharing. Professionally, Henry is a User Experience (UX) leader in the high-tech industry…
The Problem: I believe Lincoln Value Debate is currently struggling because students, judges, and coaches default to policy-style argumentation. Debates labeled ‘values’ are indistinguishable from policy debates except for decorative value/criterion statements. Is there more… (keep reading…)
You must be logged in to post a comment.