A new season means new opportunities to grow, learn, and discover what you’re capable of.
Whether your student is stepping into Speech & Debate for the very first time or preparing for another competitive season, our Fall 2026 lineup has something designed to help them thrive. From foundational speech classes to advanced debate training, interpretation, extemporaneous speaking, Lincoln-Douglas, Team Policy, Moot Court, and specialty clubs, every class is built around one goal: helping students become confident communicators who think critically, speak with purpose, and make a lasting impact.
At Lasting Impact!, we believe communication is about so much more than winning rounds. It’s about learning to defend truth with grace, lead with confidence, and use the gifts God has given each student to influence the world around them.
Why join a Lasting Impact! class? • Learn from experienced, nationally recognized coaches. • Receive consistent instruction and meaningful feedback. • Build friendships with students from across the country. • Grow in confidence, critical thinking, and communication. • Strengthen skills that last far beyond competition.
Whether you’re brand new or a seasoned competitor, we’d love to have you join us this fall. Classes begin soon, and many have limited enrollment, so don’t wait!
At Lasting Impact!, our support doesn’t stop with classes or clubs we create. Whether you’re starting a new Speech & Debate club, leading an established team, or simply looking for extra help, our experienced coaching staff-
We are here to partner with you!
We offer private coaching, club coaching, personalized lesson plans, tournament preparation, and one-on-one mentoring, script assessments across Speech, Lincoln-Douglas, Team Policy, Moot Court Leagues. Need a coach for your club? Hire a Lasting Impact! team member and receive the encouragement, expertise, and practical guidance your students need to succeed.
Every debate season begins the same way- with excitement, anticipation… and a little uncertainty!? A new resolution means new research, new strategies, new arguments, and countless hours spent learning how to communicate truth with clarity and conviction. It can feel overwhelming, especially at the beginning of the year.
That’s exactly why we, at Lasting Impact! are excited to introduce two brand-new resources for the NCFCA 2026–2027 season (we also have ANOTHER resource coming soon).
Our goal has never been to simply give students arguments to memorize. We want to equip them to become thoughtful thinkers, persuasive communicators, and confident competitors. These new resources were created with that purpose in mind… to jump start and kick off the new year…
Featuring more than 350 pages of material from five talented authors, this Sourcebook contains eight complete cases covering a wide variety of approaches to this year’s resolution – Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly reform its foreign policy toward the Republic of Turkey.
Inside you’ll find:
Eight complete affirmative cases
AFF backups and NEG briefs for every case
Both specific and open-ended mandates that encourage deeper research
Practical examples of different approaches to case construction
The cases span topics including rare earth investments, democracy aid, military policy, anti-corruption initiatives, Turkish banking sanctions, missile detection, and more.
Rather than presenting only one “right” way to debate the resolution, the Sourcebook demonstrates multiple ways experienced debaters approach research, organization, and advocacy. Whether you’re building your first case or refining your tenth, we hope this resource sparks new ideas and strengthens your understanding of the topic.
If you’re new to Team Policy- or know someone who is- don’t miss our Intro to Team Policy – A Guide!Designed especially for first-year students, parents, and coaches, this resource breaks down the fundamentals of Team Policy in a clear, approachable way. This is a non-league specific guide- from understanding the structure of a round to learning key terminology and preparing for competition, this guide helps take the mystery out of Team Policy so you can begin the season with confidence. It’s the perfect companion for families just starting their Team Policy journey. Check it out HERE
NEW! 2026–2027 NCFCA LD Casebook
We’re equally excited about this year’s NCFCA LD Casebook, and for good reason.
This edition features 10 original cases written by five accomplished alumni who have competed, researched, and coached within the NCFCA community. The resolution centers around – Resolved: It is Just for a Criminal Justice System to value Retribution over Rehabilitation.
But this year we’ve added something entirely new!!! Each case includes access to exclusive video interviews with the author. Instead of simply reading a case, you’ll hear directly from the writer as they explain:
Why they chose their framework
How the argument develops
What story the case is trying to tell
Possible rebuttal strategies
Ways to defend the position effectively
Learning how an experienced debater thinks is often just as valuable as the finished product itself.
The Casebook also includes analysis of the resolution, philosophy review, and recommended resources for additional study, helping students develop a deeper understanding of justice rather than simply preparing for the next round.
ALSO- COMING SOON… We’re not finished yet! Later this month, we’ll also be releasing the Official NCFCA LD Guide by Hillary and Nathanael Kolssak. Whether you’re brand new to Lincoln-Douglas debate or looking to strengthen your understanding of the event, this guide is designed to provide practical instruction, thoughtful insight, and a solid foundation for the season ahead. Stay tuned- you’re not going to want to miss this exciting new resource!
Learning From Those Who Have Gone Before
One of the greatest blessings of the speech and debate community is the willingness of coaches and alumni to invest in the next generation. These resources represent hundreds of hours of research, writing, editing, and collaboration. We’re incredibly thankful to coaches, writers, and contributors… Roman Hogancamp, Brendan McDonald, Derek Sun, Andrew Formo, Xander Yoder, Gabriel Zylstra, Caleb McClure, Carlton McCormick, Caleb Zylstra, and Melody Jardinico. These people continually give of themselves sharing both their knowledge and their experience to equip the future generations, as well as coaches and parents.
Their work provides students with more than finished cases… it offers a window into effective research, persuasive writing, and strategic thinking. Lasting Impact! is committed to putting out the highest quality products! These books are just a starting point… we look forward to hearing about where you take them.
Our Hope
Every resource we create has the same purpose: to help students communicate truth with wisdom, confidence, and integrity. Winning rounds is exciting, but our greater desire is that students leave speech and debate equipped to think critically, speak graciously, defend their beliefs well, and influence others for Christ. We hope these new resources become valuable tools as you prepare for another incredible season.
Thank you for allowing Lasting Impact! to be part of your journey. We can’t wait to see what this year’s students accomplish.
A coach watches a Lincoln-Douglas round and sighs, “Two ships passing in the night.”
A judge sits in the back of the room, looking at a ballot, completely paralyzed. The Affirmative defined Justice as Moral Desert. The Negative defined Justice as Human Dignity. Neither debater engaged the other’s definition. Neither debater acknowledged the other’s value. They built two parallel universes, spoke past each other for 45 minutes, and left the judge with an impossible task: choose between two competing worldviews, or flip a coin based on who spoke more persuasively.
We end up with these “toss-up” decisions because judges aren’t allowed to hand down a double loss. But make no mistake: when a round devolves into non-intersecting worldviews, both debaters failed at the fundamental task of Lincoln-Douglas debate.
The root cause of this failure isn’t that debaters are lazy, or that parent judges don’t understand Kant. The root cause is that our community has forgotten the true nature of a Value-Criterion framework.
The framework is not a weapon to bludgeon your opponent. It is not a fortress to hide in. It is a scale. And until both debaters agree to put their cases on a scale that can actually register weight, the debate hasn’t even begun….
Calling all parents! Our team is excited to offer a free parent registration with every student who signs up for one of our online camps this summer. The fact is, YOU are an essential member of your student’s competition team. Every late night conversation in the kitchen, every practice round you judge, every bit of feedback you offer will help your student gain a deeper understanding of the resolution, and our league culture will benefit from your expertise!
Camps start this week! It’s not too late to sign up for…
Novice Team Policy, June 26-27 from 9am-12pm CST
Advanced Team Policy, June 26-27 from 1-4pm CST
Novice LD, June 27 from 11am-3pm CST
Advanced LD, June 27 from 11am-3pm CST
We hope to see you there! If you haven’t signed up yet or haven’t checked out ALL the Speech and Debate Camps we are offering this year – check them out – HERE!! https://lastingimpact.info/product-category/online-camps/ OR Email anne.lastingimpact@gmail.com with any questions.
What’s the point of asking your judge what they want to see in the round? There isn’t one, if you’re not going to act on it. One of the biggest mistakes debaters make is misunderstanding what it means when a judge says they want you to focus on impacting. Most debaters think that means just making it really clear why you should win that particular argument. Some debaters will take it a step further and interpret that statement to mean explaining why that argument wins the round. However, very few debaters understand the implicit request in that phrase. We often forget there should be some guiding idea or principle behind every debate case. Judges want to hear not just why you win an argument, or why that argument wins you the round, but why that argument matters beyond the context of high school speech and debate. Continue to read THREE levels of layered 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.”
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…
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.
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)…
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…)
This isn’t a repetition of the basics of LD you learned about in summer camp. This isn’t just a few hours of google searches summarized into a document. This is over one hundred pages and hundreds of hours of research!! It’s PACKED full of AMAZING content that you will want for the 2025-2026 NCFCA year. Lasting Impact’s model is to provide you with arguments and examples that you can use ALL YEAR long. This resource is for students who are looking to go deeper into the arguments.
You must be logged in to post a comment.