Contentions, Warrants, and Impacts

Arguments in Lincoln-Douglas debate aren’t just about stating opinions - they have to be structured in a way that makes them clear, logical, and persuasive. That’s where contentions, warrants, and impacts come in. These three components form the foundation of every argument you make in a debate round. If you understand how they work, you can build stronger cases and refute your opponent’s arguments more effectively.

Step 1: Contentions - The Big Claims

A contention is your main argument. It is a statement that supports your side of the resolution. Think of contentions as the pillars that hold up your case. If they are weak, your entire argument collapses.

For example, if you are affirming the resolution “The development of Artificial General Intelligence is immoral,” one of your contentions might be:

• AGI threatens human autonomy.

This is a strong claim, but a claim alone isn’t enough. You have to prove it. That’s where warrants come in.

Step 2: Warrants - The Proof

A warrant is the reasoning or evidence that supports your contention. It answers the question: Why is this true?

Using the same contention from above, you need to explain why AGI threatens human autonomy. You could say:

• As AI systems improve, they will take over more decision-making roles in government, business, and daily life. When humans rely on AI to make choices for them, they lose control over their own futures.

This warrant provides logical reasoning. If you can back it up with expert opinions, historical examples, or real-world data, it becomes even stronger.

Step 3: Impacts - Why It Matters

An impact explains why your argument is important. If your contention is true, what are the consequences? Impacts answer the question: So what?

Going back to our example:

• If AI replaces human decision-making, we could see a future where machines control economies, military actions, and even laws. This would fundamentally change what it means to have personal freedom and could lead to widespread societal instability.

Now, your argument is more than just an opinion. You’ve shown why it matters and why the judge should care.

Bringing It All Together

Here’s what the full argument looks like:

• Contention: AGI threatens human autonomy.

• Warrant: As AI systems improve, they will take over human decision-making, reducing individual control.

• Impact: If AI replaces human decision-making, society could lose personal freedom and face instability.

Every strong argument follows this structure. When you’re constructing your own contentions, always ask:

• What am I claiming? (Contention)

• Why is this true? (Warrant)

• Why does it matter? (Impact)

The Bottom Line

Debate rewards those who can think critically and explain ideas clearly. If you build strong arguments using this structure, your speeches will be more convincing, and your judge will have no trouble seeing why your side is the right one.