Sep/Oct Lincoln-Douglas Brief

Our Sep/Oct Lincoln-Douglas Brief is 612 pages long, in-depth Topic Analyses by Daniel Shatzkin, Sheryl Kaczmarek, Grant Chmielewski, Gabriella Basette, and Adam Tomasi, 250+ cards, plus General Information, Framework suggestions, and more! Our briefs for Lincoln-Douglas Debate provide both traditional and progressive style analyses and argumentation, so every debater is well prepared no matter which style they follow. Each brief includes topic analyses from coaches and alumni with a variety of perspectives, plus basic and advanced frameworks. As educators, we believe it is important to help students learn argumentation, research, and critical thinking skills fostered by debate. Our briefs are designed to facilitate real learning — helping students succeed in their rounds and build a foundation of expertise that benefits them for a lifetime.

From the Editor

Welcome to the 2026-2027 debate season. We at Champion Briefs are thrilled you've turned to us for your research needs. One note before the topic. This year we added an additional commitment to our Evidence Standard: we will not use artificial intelligence as a crutch to substitute for original ideas, critical thinking, and research. We will use it as a tool to improve human work, never as a replacement for it. Every argument, card, and topic analysis in this brief was researched and written by a person who knows and loves this activity. After more than fifteen years as the community's most trusted brief, we think that promise matters more now than it ever has. Our year starts off with the topic: Resolved: Outer space colonization is a moral imperative. First, we looked at the word doing the heaviest lifting, "imperative," and asked what separates an action that is admirable from one that is obligatory. Next, we built out the affirmative's strongest ground: longtermism, existential risk, and the Kantian duty to preserve the conditions under which rational agency can exist at all. Finally, we turned to the negative's answers, from imperfect duties, to the Lockean proviso and who actually gets to appropriate what is out there, to the history buried in the word "colonization." By following this process, our writers have created a well-balanced research resource for you to begin crafting your cases. When I first saw our new topic, I smiled. Space is not new ground for debate; the 2011-2012 policy topic sent everyone to the stars, and plenty of us still have the files somewhere. But that topic asked whether the government should fund exploration, which is a question about budgets and tradeoffs. This one is harder. It does not ask whether going to space would be good, since almost nobody disagrees about that. It asks whether failing to go is wrong. That is a much heavier claim, and I suspect a lot of rounds this fall will be lost by affirmatives who defend the easy version of it and negatives who forget to make them defend the hard one. Go find the best version of the argument you do not like, and then beat it. You cannot know whether you are right until you have honestly tried to be wrong. Good luck in your rounds this season, and remember that trophies are nice but learning will take you further. Daniel Shatzkin Editor-in-Chief