Introduction to Policy Debate The Forensics Files

Contents § § § § Overview The Topic The Sides The Judge The Speeches The Format Preparation “Prep” Time The Role of the Affirmative The Role of the Negative The Roles of the Speeches Cross-Examination Stock Issues Topicality Inherency Harms § § § § © The Forensics Files Solvency Negative Arguments Topicality Overview Topicality Exercises Topicality - 5 Steps Arguing the other Stock Issues Disadvantages Counterplans Kritiks Evidence Flowing Tournaments Review

Back to Table of Contents Overview § Policy Debate is also known as Cross. Examination “CX” Debate § Policy debate gets its name, quite apparently, from what almost all debates of this type center around: a policy. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The Topic § Generally, topics (also called “resolutions”) in policy debate suggest that an actor (usually the US federal government) should take a particular action (a policy) § For example, many topics begin with “Resolved: The United States federal government should…” § The US federal government is the actor § The action usually follows the word “should” © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The Topic • More examples of policy topics/resolutions: • Resolved: The United States federal government should increase public health services for mental health care in the United States. • Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a policy significantly limiting the use of weapons of mass destruction. • Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase the number of persons serving in one of the following national service programs: Armed Forces, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Ameri. Corps, Citizen Corps, Learn and Serve America. • Resolved: The United States federal government should decrease its authority either to detain without charge or search without probable cause. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The Topic § Did you notice what all of the above CX topics had in common? § All start with “Resolved: The United States federal government should…” The US federal government has traditionally been the actor in high school policy debate § All propose a “significant” or “substantial” policy change. This is to limit the scope of the topic to include only large policy changes. § All introduce a topic that is controversial (e. g. health care, government authority, etc. ) so that it is debatable. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The Topic § This year’s topic is… § Resolved: The United States federal government should…. § Notice that it is similar in structure to the previous examples of CX topics, but the subject is different. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The Sides § Like most forms of debate, policy debate has two opposing sides: the affirmative and the negative. § The affirmative team consists of 2 debaters that support the proposition in the topic, usually by proposing a specific policy that relates to the topic. § The negative team consists of 2 debaters that oppose the topic and refute the affirmative’s specific policy. § The debaters on both teams are usually assigned a number based on the order in which the debaters speak. For example, the first affirmative speaker is the “ 1 A” and the second negative speaker is the “ 2 N. ” § This means that there are usually at least 5 people involved in any given debate - 2 affirmative debaters, 2 negative debaters, and the arguably most important person in terms of wins or loses the debate. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The Judge § The judge is the 5 th person and he or she usually sits and observes the debate and almost always takes some form of notes to keep track of the arguments made. § The judge could be anyone that can understand what the debaters are saying. This means that, at tournaments, the judge could be a parent of a student from the hosting school, another school’s debate coach, a college student, or anyone else available to judge. § Usually, other high school students are not allowed to judge varsity debate, and students that have graduated or teachers from a high school are not allowed to judge teams from the high school he or she graduated from. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The Judge § In practice debates, almost anyone makes a good judge. § The most important thing to remember about the judge is that the judge is the final say on who wins and who loses, regardless of how the debaters feel. Challenges to judges decisions are rarely successful, if at all. This means that your job as a debater is to convince the judge that you’re right, not the other team (or even yourself!). © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The Speeches § Both debaters on both sides get 2 speeches, a constructive speech (8 minutes) and a rebuttal speech (5 minutes) to speak. § Constructive speeches are generally reserved for constructing (making) arguments and counter-arguments § Rebuttal speeches are generally reserved for refuting the other team’s arguments and counter-arguments, extending your team’s arguments, and weighing the arguments. § Constructive speeches are always followed by a crossexamination period, when a debater from the other side gets to question the debater that just gave the speech. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The Format § All policy debates follow the following format: § § § § 1 st Affirmative Constructive (1 AC) - 8 minutes Cross-Examination of the 1 AC by the 2 N - 3 minutes 1 st Negative Constructive (1 NC) - 8 minutes Cross-Examination of the 1 NC by the 1 A - 3 minutes 2 nd Affirmative Constructive (2 AC) - 8 minutes Cross-Examination of 2 AC by the 1 N - 3 minutes 2 nd Negative Constructive (2 NC) - 8 minutes Cross-Examination of the 2 NC by the 2 A - 3 minutes First Negative Rebuttal (1 NR) - 5 minutes First Affirmative Rebuttal (1 AR) - 5 minutes Second Negative Rebuttal (2 NR) - 5 minutes Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2 AR) - 5 minutes Both sides get equal preparation time. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The Format § Why should you know the format? § To know which person on your team will be giving the next speech and asking the other team questions § Not knowing the format may make your team look unprepared to a judge § To know how much preparation time you have © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The Format § What is important to know about the format? § Who speaks when and for how long § The negative team has 2 speeches in a row: the 2 NC followed by the 1 NR. This is called the “negative block. ” This is fair because the affirmative team gets to speak first and last and both teams get the same amount of time to speak (26 minutes for each team). § Who cross-examines who and for how long § Cross-examination period is always 3 minutes. § If you look carefully at the format you will notice that, except for the 1 AC, the person asking questions is the last person who gave a speech. Can you guess why? © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Preparation “Prep” Time § Usually, prep time varies in different regions of the countries. Some areas have 5 minutes of prep time for each side, others have 8 minutes and some have as much as 10 minutes for each side. § The tournament invitation will usually indicate how much prep time a team will have. § Prep time is, quite obviously, to prepare for your speech. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Preparation “Prep” Time § However, you can always prepare while someone is giving a speech, during the other team’s prep time and during cross-examination. This does not come out of your allotted prep time. § The reason why, for example, the 2 N crossexamines the 1 A after the 1 AC; this gives the 1 N 3 extra minutes (the time the 2 N cross-examines the 1 A) to prepare for the 1 NC. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The Role of the Affirmative § The affirmative is often though to have the “burden of proof” § This does not mean however that the affirmative is the only team that needs to prove its arguments, of course. § The “burden of proof” means that the affirmative team must prove the resolution true (i. e. that the US federal government should increase health care services, aid to Africa, etc. ) § Since all resolutions require the affirmative to defend a change to the status quo, then the affirmative must argue that the status quo has problems and that the plan fix those problems. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The Role of the Negative § The negative team is said to have the “burden of rejoinder” also known as “the burden of clash. ” § This does not mean that the negative is the only team that has to respond to the other team’s arguments. § The “burden of clash” means that the negative team must respond to the affirmative’s arguments that support that the resolution is true. § The negative team usually does this by proving that the affirmative plan is a bad idea. This means usually arguing that plan changes society for the worse. § Thus, the negative is often given the burden of defending the status quo. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The First Affirmative Constructive (1 AC) § 8 minutes § Presents the plan and arguments supporting that the plan is a good idea and that, if the plan is an example of the resolution (i. e. an example of how the US federal government could increase health care or aid to Africa, etc. ) then the plan proves the resolution true § Presents the “stock issues. ” Generally, they are arguments that (1) the plan is not currently being done (inherency), (2) there is a problem now that needs to be fixed (harms), (3) the plan would help solve the problems (solvency) and (4) the plan is an example of the resolution (topicality). These will be discussed more in depth later § Followed by a 3 minute cross examination (CX) period where the 2 N asks questions © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The First Negative Constructive (1 NC) § 8 minutes § Refutes the affirmative’s stock issues - (1) that the plan has already passed or will pass (2) the harms are insignificant, (3) the plan doesn’t solve the harms, and (4) the plan is not an example of the resolution § Introduces other arguments that the resolution is not true based on the affirmative plan (e. g. that the plan causes more harm than it would solve) § Followed by a 3 minute CX period when the 1 A asks the 1 N questions © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The Second Affirmative Constructive (2 AC) § 8 minutes § Extends arguments made in the first affirmative constructive § Refutes arguments made by the first negative constructive (1 NC) § Followed by a 3 -minute CX by the 1 N © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The Second Negative Constructive (2 NC) § 8 minutes § The first part of the “negative block” § Extends SOME arguments made by the 1 NC (the 1 NR will extend the other arguments - this is called “splitting the block”) § Responds to ALL the refutations made by the 2 AC on the arguments chosen from the 1 NC § Followed by a 3 -minute CX period by the 2 A © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The First Negative Rebuttal (1 NR) § 5 minutes § The last part of the “negative block” § Extends ALL arguments from the 1 NC not extended by the 2 NC (to “split the block”) § Responds to ALL of the 2 AC’s refutations of the arguments © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The First Affirmative Rebuttal (1 AR) § 5 minutes § Extends the strongest arguments and extensions from the 2 AC § Responds to arguments made in the 2 NC and 1 NR § Often thought of the toughest speech because the speech is 5 minutes and it must respond to ALL of the important arguments from the negative block © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The Second Negative Rebuttal (2 NR) § 5 minutes § Extends ONLY the strongest arguments from the negative block § Extends responses to ALL of the refutations of the negative arguments made in the 1 AR § Explains reasons why the judge should vote for the negative team § The reasons are called “voting issues” or “voters” © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents The Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2 AR) § 5 minutes § Extends the strongest affirmative arguments that were made in the 1 AR § Extends the strongest refutations of the negative’s arguments § Explains the affirmative’s “voting issues” © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Cross-Examination § What should you ask about? § Arguments made by the other team you did not understand § Arguments made by the other team that you think you may have missed § How some arguments made by the other team are consistent with other arguments they made § How the arguments the other team made relate to the arguments you made § Don’t ask questions, just to ask questions. Have a purpose for asking them aside from needing to use your cross-examination time. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Cross-Examination § How should I ask my questions? § Always politely. Judges don’t particular enjoy civilized debates turning into shouting matches. § If you have many questions, ask closed-end questions (e. g. yes or no or either-or questions ) § If you have only a few questions, asking open-ended questions (i. e. questions that allow for more explanatory answer instead of a yes or a no answer) § If you are running out of time and have more questions, and if the other debater is still answering your previous question, simply state politely. “Thanks, my next question is. . ” © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Affirmative Arguments The Stock Issues § Generally, there are 4 stock issues: § Topicality - that the plan is an example of the resolution § Inherency - the plan is not a law that already exists § Harms - there are currently problems with society that could be fixed § Solvency - the plan corrects or “solves” these problems © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Affirmative Arguments The Stock Issues § “Significance” as a fifth stock issue? § Many still view “significance” as a stock issue. This means that the plan must be a significant change to the status quo (i. e. the way society is now) or the plan must solve for a significant harm. § Others view significance as a topicality issue since most if not all resolutions have the word “significantly” or “substantially” in them. § Many also think that the plan does not have to solve a significant harm, just solve for more harms than it causes. If the plan makes society even just a little bit better, then it is a good idea and, thus, the resolution would be true. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Topicality § The root of the word “topicality” is the word “topic. ” This helps to remember that this argument is about how the plan relates to the topic § The affirmative will argue that the plan is topical. The negative may argue that the plan is not topical. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Topicality § The current trend in policy debate is to presume that, if the affirmative presents a plan, that the affirmative does not need to present more arguments in the 1 AC about why the plan is topical. § The affirmative generally only has to defend that its plan is topical in the 2 AC if the negative first argues that it is not topical in the 1 NC. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Topicality § It is important to remember that topicality is about how the plan relates to the topic, not about the affirmative’s arguments about why the plan is a good idea. For example, if the topic concerns increasing health care and the affirmative argues that the plan increases health care and that this increase of health care helps people to become healthier so that they work better and that the economy is improved as a result, this is topical because, even though the affirmative is arguing about the state of the economy, there is a sufficient connection to the topic because the plan relates to health care. However, if the topic was health care and the plan was to cut taxes to improve the economy, this would not be topical because the plan is about cutting taxes, not increasing health care! © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Inherency § The 2 nd stock issue § There are 3 types of inherency: § Existential inherency - the most basic type of inherency; this type means that the plan is simply a law that does not exist in the US; it usually the easiest to meet. § Attitudinal inherency - this type of inherency means that there is an attitude in the government that prevents the affirmative’s plan from being passed. For example, the plan could embody democratic values and, if the government was controlled by republicans, a republican government would not pass such a plan. § Structural inherency - this type of inherency means that there is a law or regulation that prevents the policy from being passed. § The trend in policy debate is to ignore this distinction because it tends to only really matter to judges that the plan is not a law that already exists. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Inherency § Why does it matter? § Inherency matters because if the policy is already an existing law, then the affirmative is not proposing a policy change, but is rather advocating the status quo. § Inherency overlaps a bit with topicality because all topics require a substantial change to the status quo. If the resolution requires, for example, an increase of aid to Nigeria and that particular aid policy already exists as a law in the US now, then the affirmative’s proposed plan would not be increasing any aid. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Inherency § Why does it matter? § The trend in policy debate is to ignore inherency on the negative, unless the plan clearly exists in the status quo. § It may also be strategic for the negative to NOT argue inherency. If the plan already exists in the status quo, then nothing bad could happen as a result of the affirmative plan being enacted because it already has been enacted! § While inherency is disappearing in policy debate, it is important to never rule out making the argument if it would be strategic in the particular debate. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Harms § The 3 rd stock issue § Harms are the problems with society that could be fixed § There are 2 types of harms: § Systemic Harms: these problems have existed in the past and exist now and, without change, are presumed to occur in the future. Examples would include: § Poverty § Hunger § Crime § The benefit of claiming systemic harms is that they are certain to persist if nothing is done to counteract them. § The downside systemic harms is that they may be so rooted in society that a simple new policy would not be enough to fix the problem that have existed for a very long time. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Harms § Probabilistic Harms: these problems are not harms that exist now, but are problems that are likely to make a specific future harm to occur. § For example, if US relations with China are poor then it is more likely that US and China would go to war in the future. There is no war between US and China now, but a plan could claim to improve relations with China to prevent a future war. § A benefit of probabilistic harms is that they can be claimed to be prevented and stopped more easily than a harm like poverty. § A downside to probabilistic harms is that they are not certain to happen in the future as systemic harms are. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Harms § Why does it matter? § Without harms, the plan cannot claim to make society better in any way. If the plan does not make society better, then it is not necessarily something the US federal government should do. This relates back to the affirmative burden to prove the resolution true. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Solvency § The 4 th stock issue § Solvency is that the plan prevents the harms (e. g. preventing war between US and China) or makes the harms better (e. g. fewer people living in poverty). § While this stock issue is relatively easy to explain, it is still very important. If the plan does not solve the harms, then it cannot claim to make society better in any way. Thus, without solvency, the affirmative may not be meeting its burden of proof. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Solvency + Harms = Advantage § Solvency and harms are closely linked. Without harms, there would be nothing to solve for and without being able to solve the harms, the plan cannot claim any benefits to the plan. § If the affirmative wins at least one harms argument and at least one relative solvency argument, this is called an “advantage. ” § Example: “One advantage is that plan prevents a war between US and China. First, the harm is that US and China’s relations are weak. Second, the plan would improve relations between US and China because…” § To prove that the resolution is true and that the policy should be passed, the affirmative must prove that the plan is more advantageous than disadvantageous. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Sample 1 AC Structure § Inherency: the plan is not a law that already exists. § Harms: there are problems with society that could be fixed. § Plan: The United States federal government should… (remember, the 1 AC’s plan is the affirmative’ assertion of topicality) § Solvency: This plan would solve the harms mentioned above, which gives the plan the advantage of… © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Negative Arguments § Negative arguments are separated by “off case” positions and “on case arguments” § Off case positions include § § Topicality Disadvantages Counterplans Kritiks (“Critiques”) § On case arguments include § Arguments against the affirmative harms § Arguments against the affirmative inherency § Arguments against the affirmative solvency © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Topicality § Topicality is usually only first argued in the 1 NC. § Topicality arguments are usually based on a word or phrase in the resolution. For example, if the resolution is “Resolved: the US federal government should substantially increase its aid to Nigeria, ” any of the words or phrases within the quote could be used as the basis for a topicality argument. § The following slide has some topicality exercises based on the wording of this topic. Which words or phrases would you argue that the following plans don’t meet? © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Topicality Exercises § Resolved: The US federal government should substantially increase its aid to Nigeria. § Plan 1: The US Congress should cease its funding of all Nigerian foreign health assistance programs. § Plan 2: The US Congress should give $10 to Zimbabwe to help Zimbabwe’s farming economy. § Plan 3: The US Congress should convince Russia to give Nigeria money for Nigerian HIV/AIDS relief. § Plan 4: The state of Texas should give $10 dollars for Nigeria’s farming economy. § Plan 5: The US Congress should give Nigeria $10 billion for its farming economy. § Which words or phrases of the resolution would each of these plans violate? © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Answers to Topicality Exercises § Plan 1 is probably not topical because it violates, or does not meet, the phrase “increase its aid. ” If the US stops funding all Nigerian assistance programs, how can it afford to pay for an increase of aid or assistance to Nigeria? © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Answers to Topicality Exercises § Plan 2 is probably not topical because it does not meet the word “to Nigeria, ” since the plan increases aid to Zimbabwe, a country that is not Nigeria. § Plan 2 is also arguably not topical based on the word “significantly” since $10 probably will not be much of an increase in assistance, even if the plan was changed from “Zimbabwe” to “Nigeria” It is important to remember that plans can violate multiple words of the resolution. § You may be able to see the difficulty of arguing something is not “substantial. ” If $10 is not substantial, would $100 be substantial? Would $100 billion? What about $1 million? $10, 000? Reasonable minds could differ about what is substantial when it is not as clear as simply increasing funding by $10. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Answers to Topicality Exercises § Plan 3 is probably not topical based on the word “its” since the US is trying to get Russia to give Nigeria aid. Assuming the US would be effective at convincing Russia to do so, the US would not be increasing American aid to Nigeria, but at best would be acting to increase Russia’s aid to Nigeria. § It’s important to realize that even small words in the resolution (such as “its” could be grounds for arguing topicality). © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Answers to Topicality Exercises § Plan 4 is probably not topical because it violates the phrase “federal. ” Texas is a state government where the US federal government refers to the national government located in Washington D. C. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Answer to Topicality Exercises § Plan 5 is probably topical because it meets all the words and phrases of the resolution because it is an example of the US federal government (not a US state government) increasing (rather than decreasing) its (rather than Russia’s) aid to Nigeria (rather than Zimbabwe). © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Topicality § Why does it matter? § Topicality is important because it relates back to the affirmative’s burden of proof. If the affirmative has the burden to prove that the US should increase its aid to Nigeria by presenting a plan that would be an example of the US giving aid to Nigeria, and the affirmative plan instead has a plan that proves that it would be a good idea that Texas convince Russia to give $10 to Zimbabwe’s to help its farming economy, is this plan really proving that the US should increase aid to Nigeria? Probably not. This means that the affirmative is not proving the resolution true. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Topicality § Why does it matter? § Topicality is a strategic argument for the negative to make because if the negative wins this argument, then, if topicality is argued well by the negative, it does not matter how great the affirmative policy is if it does not prove the resolution true. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Topicality § Unfortunately, topicality is a little more complicated than simply stating “the plan is not a substantial increase of aid to Nigeria. ” § However, pinpointing the specific word or phrase that the plan violates is the first step of arguing topicality. § So what’s the next step? © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Topicality § Step 1: Pinpoint the word or phrase that the plan does not meet. § Step 2: Define the word that plan does not meet. § Step 3: Argue why the plan does not meet the particular word based on the definition. § Step 4: Argue why this definition should be used to define the word in the resolution. § Step 5: State why the judge should vote for you if you win the topicality argument. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Topicality § Step 2 - Define the Word - “Interpretation” § Many times a simple dictionary definition will work § For example: Aid is defined as “help or support; assistance” by the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006. § This part is identified as the “interpretation” of the resolution © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Topicality § Step 3 - Argue why the plan does not meet the word “Violation” § Assume Plan 1 from the exercise above for example, The US Congress should cease its funding of all Nigerian foreign health assistance programs. § Since the plan cuts funding of health assistance to Nigeria, the plan does not increase “help or support or assistance” of Nigeria because cutting funding for health assistance would be a decrease in assistance. § This part of the argument is called the “violation. ” © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Topicality § Step 4 - Argue why the definition should be used to define the word in the resolution - “Standards” § For example, one may argue that dictionary definitions are more accessible and commonly used by the average person and that the use of a definition from a dictionary provides more predictability of terms. § On the other hand, one may argue that a definition from the state department or a law journal concerning foreign affairs would be more accurate precise in context of the resolution of giving foreign aid to Nigeria than would a common and ordinary dictionary. § Keep in mind that a definition can have multiple reasons why it is a valid definition. § These arguments are generally referred to as “standards. ” © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Topicality § Step 5 - State why the judge should vote for you if you win the topicality argument. “Voters” § Generally, it would suffice to argue that the affirmative burden must prove the resolution true and if the plan doesn’t relate to the specific words of the resolution is not proving the resolution true and, thus, the affirmative has not met the burden of proof. § The reasons to vote for the negative if the negative wins the argument are called “voters. ” © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Sample Topicality Argument § Interpretation: Aid is defined as “help or support; assistance” by the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006. § Violation: Since the plan cuts funding of health assistance to Nigeria, the plan does not increase “help or support or assistance” of Nigeria because cutting funding for health assistance would be a decrease in assistance. § Standards: Dictionary definitions are more accessible and commonly used by the average person and that the use of a definition from a dictionary provides more predictability of terms. § Voters: the affirmative burden must prove the resolution true and if the plan doesn’t relate to the specific words of the resolution is not proving the resolution true and, thus, the affirmative has not met the burden of proof. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Arguing the other Stock Issues § Inherency - To disprove inherency, the negative team would want to argue that the affirmative policy is already. In most debates, this will not be a viable argument as affirmative teams usually do research before writing their cases and will likely not select a plan that is already law. § Harms - Refuting harms may be difficult. The trick of arguing harms is to argue that the harms of the 1 AC aren’t as significant as the disadvantages. Another strategy is to argue that the harms aren’t really harms but are advantages. These arguments are not always available on the negative because most teams will pick harms that are generally accepted as bad (e. g. nuclear war, death, poverty, etc. ). © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Arguing the other Stock Issues § Solvency - Refuting solvency requires closely looking at the affirmative plan and how it relates to the harms the affirmative claims the plan would solve for. Ask yourself, “Is it truly likely that the plan would solve for the harms as it claims? ” If not, state why not. Many judges are receptive to common sense arguments and will appreciate attempts to use common sense in debate if it is used effectively. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Disadvantages § Negative disadvantages are reasons why, even if the plan has advantages, the affirmative’s plan would make society worse off. § If the negative can prove that the plan is more disadvantageous than advantageous, then the plan is a bad idea, and the resolution is false because the US federal government should NOT enact the policy proposed by the affirmative.

Back to Table of Contents Disadvantages § There are 3 main parts of a disadvantage: § Uniqueness § Links § Impact © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Disadvantages § Part 1 - Uniqueness § The first part of a disadvantage involves arguing a favorable description of society (of the status quo - i. e. the way things are now) § Remember that the negative is usually given the burden of defending the status quo. Defending something is much easier if you argue that what you are defending is good. § Uniqueness simply means describing that there is something good about the status quo (e. g. the prevalence of poverty in the US is low, the US economy is strong, the US has good relations with China, etc. ) © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Disadvantages § Part 2 - Links § A “link” connects the plan to the favorable description of society (uniqueness) by claiming that the plan in some way changes this aspect of the status quo for the worse. § The link argument shows that the plan causes a change in society that is not favorable. The plan changes that specific description set out by the uniqueness argument. § For example, the plan increases poverty, hurts the US economy, or hurts relations between the US and China. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Disadvantages § Part 3 - Impact § The “impact” basically describes the impact of the change the plan would cause (as argued by the link) in terms of how it would hurt society. § For example: § An impact of a weak US economy is that people would lose their jobs and not be able to provide for their families. § An impact of a poor relations between the US and China is that the US and China are more likely to go to war. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Sample Disadvantage 1 § Uniqueness: The US economy is strong now. § Link: The plan hurts the US economy. § Impact: A poor US economy would leave many people jobless and unable to provide for their families. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Sample Disadvantage 2 § Uniqueness: The US and China have good relations now. § Link: The plan hurts US-China relations. § Impact: Poor US-China relations increase the likelihood that US and China would go to war. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Disadvantages § Notice that the uniqueness aspects of the disadvantages above were positive descriptions of the status quo (i. e. things are good now; the “economy is strong now” and “US-China relations are good now”) § The links show the plan changes this positive situation for the worse (plan hurts the US economy and hurts US-China relations) § The impacts show this change has a undesirable effect on society (people are unable to provide for their families and the US and China are more likely to go to war) © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Disadvantages § Why do they matter? § In most cases, disadvantages won’t matter UNLESS the negative team argues how the disadvantages outweigh the plan’s advantages (i. e. the plan is more disadvantageous society than it is advantageous to society) § Simply because a plan has a disadvantage does not mean that it is automatically a bad idea. The disadvantages must be weighed against the advantages. § The affirmative’s job is to prove that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages and the negative’s job is to prove that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Counterplans § Counterplans propose an alternative policy that is different from the affirmative’s plan that would be able to solve for some or all of the harms the affirmative claims and would avoid one or more of the disadvantages the negative argues. § Many people do not view counterplans as acceptable, since they view the negative’s job solely as defending the status quo, but the trend in debate is that counterplans are acceptable. § One basis for this is the situation where an affirmative case only claims racism as its only advantage. The negative may be stuck in a position of having to defend a racist policy. Counterplans would give negative teams more leeway to avoid having to defend positions they were not morally comfortable with. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Counterplans § Parts of a Counterplan § Text § Solvency Arguments for the Counterplan § Net Benefits © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Counterplans § Part 1 - Text § The text of the counterplan is a short and plain statement, like the plan text, that suggests what the alternative policy is. § Assume the Nigeria topic again. An example of a counterplan would be: § The European Union (EU) should give the same aid identical to the amount plan increases to Nigeria. § This counterplan is different from the plan because it has the EU give aid to Nigeria instead of the US. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Counterplans § Part 2 - Solvency for the Counterplan § Solvency was discussed earlier as being a stock issue for a plan. However the same concept can be applied to a counterplan. § Instead of how the plan solves for the harms, counterplan solvency is how the counterplan solves for the harms the affirmative presents. § For example - If the plan was to have the US give $10 billion to Nigeria to help it develop its farming communities, and the counterplan was to have the EU give the equivalent of the same amount ($10 billion) to Nigeria for its farming communities, then the solvency argument would be that if $10 million dollars from the US is sufficient to solve the harms, then $10 million from the EU would be just as effective to solve for the harms. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Counterplans § Part 3 - Net Benefit § The phrase “net benefit” simply means that there is a reason why the counterplan is better than the plan. § This reason why the counterplan is better could be that the counterplan does not cause a disadvantage that the plan would. § This reason could also be that the counterplan has an advantage that the plan does not have. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Counterplans § Part 3 - Net Benefit § Taking the EU counterplan above for example, a net benefit could be that the US is not in a financial situation to give $10 billion away and doing so would hurt the US economy whereas the EU did have the extra money to donate without experiencing much economic harm. § The “net benefit” would be that the counterplan avoids the disadvantage of hurting the US economy. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Sample Counterplan § Text: The European Union should give Nigeria the equivalent of $10 billion dollars in aid for its farming communities. § Solvency: if $10 million dollars from the US is sufficient to solve the harms, then $10 million from the EU would be just as effective to solve for the harms. § Net Benefit: that the US is not in a financial situation to give $10 billion away and doing so would hurt the US economy whereas the EU did have the extra money to donate without experiencing much economic harm. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Kritiks § A kritik (pronounced “critique”) is an argument that challenges the premises of the affirmative case. Kritiks tend to be based on very dense, philosophical literature that is frequently difficult to understand. § Kritiks tend to argue broader than just whether the plan is a good or bad idea. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Kritiks § For example: § If a team proves that its policy is a good idea but the team uses racist words, then many people would agree that the team should lose even though they have met the burden of proof. Thus, the kritik operates on a broader scale. § Assume that there is a presidential candidate that proposes one good policy, but agrees with the worldview of Nazism. Many people would not vote for this candidate even though they agree with one policy, because they disagree with the worldview. Similarly in debate, a judge may not want to vote for a policy that’s a good idea because the team’s worldview is not good. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Kritiks § There are generally 3 types of kritiks: § Kritiks of words § Kritiks of worldviews § Kritiks of method © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Kritiks § Kritiks of Words § Many kritiks challenge words that the affirmative uses. § Generally, these “bad words” that the negative kritiks are sometimes obvious “bad words” such as racial or sexual slurs § But many times, though, the words that are frequently kritiked are less obvious such as “woman, ” “terrorism, ” “mankind, ” “the United States federal government, ” “war on, ” and acronyms. § Many kritiks of words and phrases claim that because the affirmative used a particular term that it should lose because the word/phrase used has an actual affect on the debaters © The Forensics Files

Kritiks § Kritiks of worldviews § A worldview is simply how a person perceives the world and how the world should be. § Some examples of worldviews are free-market capitalism, the political platforms of democrats and republicans, Nazism, etc. § Kritiks of worldviews argue that the worldview assumed by the affirmative is bad, even though the plan may be a good idea. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Kritiks § Kritiks of Methods § These kritiks challenge certain practices a team engages in. § Examples include when a team talks too quickly, or one of the other debater sits down (or stands up) when the team speaks, or any other act that the a team physically does in a debate. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Kritiks § 3 or 4 main parts § § Link Impact Alternative Framework © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Kritiks § Links § Like disadvantages, kritik links attempt to relate the affirmative to the kritik § For example: § The link to a language kritik would be the particular word or phrased used (e. g. The affirmative team used a racial slur. ) § The link to a worldview kritik would be that the policy is supported by justifications that are similar to that of a worldview that the team is kritiking (e. g. “The affirmative plan endorses a capitalist worldview. ”) § The link to a methodology kritik would be pointing out what the other team did during one of the team’s speeches (e. g. “The affirmative spoke too quickly. ”) © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Kritiks § Impact § Like disadvantages, kritik impacts are the undesirable effects of voting for the affirmative because the affirmative links to the kritik. § Unlike disadvantages, the kritik impacts don’t occur as a result of the policy, but rather because of the words/phrases, worldview or the method the affirmative team uses or supports. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Kritiks § Alternative § The alternative acts somewhat like a counterplan by proposing a different phrase, method, or worldview § Alternatives can be simple (e. g. Instead of using racial slurs, the alternative would be to not use racial slurs. ) § Alternatives can also be complex (e. g. Instead of endorsing capitalism, the worldview of communism should be adopted). § Many kritiks don’t have an alternative because teams argue that simply rejecting the affirmative team for use of the word/phrase, method or worldview

Kritiks § Framework § Since kritik impacts don’t occur as a result of the plan, it is helpful to tell the judge how to evaluate the kritik’s impacts § For example, are the kritik impacts more important than the advantages of the policy the affirmative proposes? Or should the judge weigh the kritik impacts against the advantages of the policy? § Without telling the judge how to evaluate the impacts, it is difficult to predict how the judge will decide to evaluate the impacts and thus you may not get the full weight of the argument if you don’t argue how the judge should evaluate it © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Kritiks § Kritiks are a relatively new type of argument in policy debate. Many judges and coaches in regions in the US will refuse to listen to kritiks and may even vote against a team for making such an argument because they do not reflect traditional styles of policy debate. § However, there is a growing trend of acceptance of kritiks in many regions. § In any case, if you plan to argue a kritik on the negative, make sure to ask your judge if he or she has strong opinions about that type of argument. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Evidence § In general, debaters should try to support each argument made with a piece of evidence § Presenting evidence usually means reading a selection or quote from a credible and external source (such as a newspaper article, law review, scholarly journal, book, etc. ) § Each piece of evidence should contain an argument. An argument consists of a claim and a warrant. § A claim is the conclusion the evidence is reaching. § The warrant is the reason why the one should believe that the conclusion is true. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Evidence § The following are examples of claims: § The economy is doing well now. § The US is in a good position to give foreign aid to Nigeria. § Abraham Lincoln was the best president. § Each of the claims ARE NOT arguments because, as stated before, an argument generally consists of a claim AND a warrant. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Evidence § The following are examples of warrants for the claims above: § Taxes are low and thus consumers have more money to purchase to promote commerce in the US, thus, the economy is doing well now. § The US has been effective at collecting taxes, thus the US has extra revenue that it can give aid to Nigeria without hurting its economy. Thus, the US is in a good position to give foreign aid to Nigeria. § Abraham Lincoln was the most honest president. Thus, Abraham Lincoln was the best president. § While some of the arguments make assumptions, they would generally be considered arguments because they consist of a claim and a warrant. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Evidence § Quotes or selections from reputable sources are usually referred to as “cards. ” § Cards consist of § Tag § Cite § Quote © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Evidence § Tags of Cards § The tag is the headline or main point the quote is arguing. Generally, tags should include a summary of the claim and a warrants presented in the quote. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Evidence § Cites of Cards § Cites or “Citations” should generally include § The author of the quote, first name and last name (e. g. Michael Smith) § The qualifications of the author (e. g. Professor of law at Loyola University) § The publication date (date, month and year if possible - e. g. January 1, 2009) § The URL of the website, if applicable (e. g. http: //www. citation. com/) § The name of the publication source § the name of the book § the name of the newspaper (e. g. The Boston Globe) § the name of law journal (e. g. Loyola Law Review) © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents § A sample card Evidence § Tag - Several economic indicators show that the economy is doing well now. § Peter Morton (author), Washington Bureau Chief of the Financial Post (qualification), December 16, 2006 (date), Financial Post (publication), “US economy given one-two boost” (article name) Lexis-Nexis (search engine) - (Cite) § “International investors poured billions of dollars into US stocks and bonds…inflation showed the sharpest drop in 56 years…the economy remains strong and inflation remains relatively mute. ” (Quote) § Can you identify the claim and the warrants in this card? © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Evidence § The claim is “the economy remains strong” § The warrants are § International investors poured billions of dollars into US stocks and bonds § Inflation showed the sharpest drop in 56 years © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Evidence § Because there are so many types of arguments, it is inevitable that a debate round will have many pieces of evidence or cards read § How do you keep track of all the cards read in a debate? © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Flowing § A very specific method of taking notes in debate is known as “flowing” § “Flowing” generally means taking notes of the arguments in a manner that you can see how the arguments made in the debate flow throughout the speeches § With the increase of technology in debate, many people now flow on laptops using an excel spreadsheet § This format (writing arguments in columns for each speech) came from the original method of flowing on paper. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Flowing § Generally, it is best to flow the different negative positions (disadvantages, kritiks, counterplans, and topicality) and the affirmative case on separate sheets of paper. § This is why they are called “off case” positions, because they are not flowed on or next to the case. § Negative arguments against the affirmative harms, inherency and solvency should be made as “on case” arguments. § They are “on case, ” because the arguments are flowed on the sheet of paper where the case has been flowed © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Flowing § For example, you would need 6 sheets of paper for the following § § § Affirmative Case Topicality “Increase” Topicality “its aid to Nigeria” US Economy Disadvantage European Union Counterplan Kritik of Capitalism © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Flowing § If you look at the bottom of the excel spreadsheet you will notice that there are different tabs for different arguments § If there were multiple disadvantages in a debate, you would want to flow the disadvantages on separate pieces of paper. § The same is true when there are multiple kritiks or topicality arguments © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Flowing § Why does it matter? § Very few people, if anyone, can remember every single argument and each piece of evidence read in a debate. Flowing helps to remind the debaters and the judge of which arguments have been made. § Knowing what arguments have been made is essential to success. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Flowing § If you do not answer an argument made by the other team this may end up hurting you for 3 reasons § First, if you don’t respond to an argument the judge may think that you do not have a good response and will accept it as true. § Second, most judges that have some experience in debate will grant that an argument is true for the remainder of the debate if the other team does not respond to it. This is commonly referred to as “dropping” arguments. § Third, if the “dropped” argument is important enough, then you may lose the debate just for not responding to an argument. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Flowing § Is it always bad to drop arguments? § Not always. If you remember the format of CX debate, the speeches get shorter as the debate progresses. Speeches go from 8 minutes to 5 minutes. This means that it is impossible to adequately extend EVERY argument made in a constructive into the rebuttal. § The goals of the rebuttal speeches are to select your strongest arguments and to refute all of the other team’s arguments that they have extended. § What happens to the arguments you don’t extend? © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Flowing § They are considered “dropped. ” However, dropping your own arguments can be OK if you have better arguments to spend your time on. But you should always be careful not to drop your opponent’s arguments. § This means that you cannot bring the argument back up later in the debate if they were not extended in one speech § For example, if you make an argument in the 2 AC, but it is not extended in the 1 AR, then the 2 AR generally cannot extend the argument, because it was “dropped” in the 1 AR. § Another example, if you argue a disadvantage in the 1 NC, but neither the 2 NC nor the 1 NR extend it, the 2 NR generally cannot extend the disadvantage because it was dropped in the negative block.

Back to Table of Contents Flowing § Why should you use so much paper? § This helps to keep the arguments organized by subject § For example, when arguing a disadvantage you will generally have all the following arguments § Negative’s link and impact arguments § Affirmative’s refutations to the disadvantage in the 2 AC § Negative’s responses in the negative block to the 2 AC refutations § The 1 AR’s extensions of the 2 AC arguments and the 1 AR’s responses to the responses of the negative block § The 2 NR’s extensions of responses to the 2 AC arguments and responses to the extensions made by the 1 AR § The 2 AR’s extensions of the 1 AR extensions and responses to the 2 NR’s extensions © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Flowing § Why should you use so much paper? § You can see how the arguments could add up quickly. It is not unusual for there to be 25 or more arguments, extensions and refutations on each disadvantage throughout the debate. § And that’s just for ONE disadvantage. If there are multiple negative arguments (disadvantages, kritiks, counterplans) the arguments, extensions and refutations in the debate could easily be over 100. § Keeping the arguments separated by subject (i. e. on separate sheets of paper) you will be much more organized in a debate round. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Flowing § Why should you use so much paper? § Another reason to use separate sheets of paper is so that you can rearrange the order of the arguments that you wish to address during your speech. § If you have all the arguments flowed on one sheet of paper in the order they are made in the 1 AC and 1 NC then it may be difficult to change the order of the arguments you respond to. § Many advanced debaters will want to change the order they address the main arguments (kritiks, disadvantages, etc. ) for the purposes of using their time more efficiently © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Flowing § Using separate sheets of paper makes its easier to split the block § For example - the 2 NC can take the sheets of paper that have the disadvantage and the kritik and the 1 NR can take the sheets of paper that have the affirmative case and a topicality argument © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Flowing § One more reason why flowing is important is so that you can easily give your judge a “roadmap. ” § Outside of debate, roadmaps help drivers determine where they will be going, the streets that will be taken and where their destination will be. § Similarly in debate, roadmaps are given by the debaters to the judge so that the judge knows the order the debater will be addressing which arguments © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Flowing § However, in debate, you do not need to draw out a map for the judge! § Simply state the name of the positions in the order you will address them © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Flowing § An example of a 1 NC roadmap would be, “ 5 off-case positions and then the affirmative case. ” § Judges don’t usually expect the 1 NC to disclose the positions they are going to argue before they are argued. § However, in the 1 NC, you should always name the position first before you start to make arguments on the position § An example of a 2 AC roadmap would be stating, “‘Topicality increase, ’ Topicality ‘its aid to Nigeria, ’ the Economy Disadvantage, the Capitalism Kritik, the affirmative case, then the EU Counterplan § After the 1 NC, list the order by the name given to the positions by the 1 NC to avoid confusion. § For example, if the 1 NC calls the position “the economy disadvantage” don’t call the same position by a different name © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Flowing § A final note § Flowing is a very difficult skill to learn. It is difficult to know what to write down, when to write it down, and how much of what was said to write down. § However, it becomes easier with practice. Don’t expect your flowing skills to come to you, practice them by watching debates at tournaments. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Tournaments § Tournaments are where you will put all of the information you have learned together. § It is difficult to know exactly what all this means until you go out and experience it first hand. § Attending and debating at a tournament will help you understand piece together what you have learned so far © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Tournaments § Tournaments are usually held on weekends § This is partially because tournaments are usually held at a host school and debates are held in classrooms of the host school. § Debates would be difficult to have if they occurred while a class was going on and the debate would surely disrupt the class. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Tournaments § The schedule of the tournament is usually set by the host school § Assuming there is an even number of debate teams, each team will be assigned to debate a team from another school § If there is an odd number of debate teams, one team each round will get a bye meaning a win without debating © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Tournaments § A tournament usually has anywhere from 5 -11 debate rounds § 3 -6 of these rounds will be preliminary debate rounds in which all teams that have signed up for the tournament will be scheduled to debate § The remaining 2 -5 rounds are elimination rounds. § Teams that do very well in the preliminary debate rounds will advance to the elimination rounds. § Once a team loses an elimination round (also known as an “out round”), the team is out of or eliminated from the tournament. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Tournaments § Teams that advance to elimination rounds usually receive a trophy or an award of some sort from the host school. § Debaters that perform well individually throughout the tournament may win speaker awards. § Debaters that win speaker awards don’t always advance to elimination rounds though. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Tournaments § When you don’t advance to elimination rounds, it may be helpful to watch the elimination rounds. § Many tournaments will permit debaters who have not advanced to watch and flow the out rounds. § This would be wise to help you develop your flowing skills. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Tournaments § At tournaments you are a representative of your school and it is important to always behave and dress appropriately. © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Review § What are the burdens of the affirmative and of the negative? §Affirmative - burden of proof §Negative - burden of rejoinder / burden of clash © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Review § When can a team use it’s allotted prep time? Before or after any speech or cross-examination period § When can a debater actually prepare? Before the debate, during one’s own prep time, during the other team’s speeches, during one’s partner’s speech, and during a cross-examination that one is not involved in © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Review § What are 4 stock issues? Topicality Harms

Back to Table of Contents Review § What are the 4 main negative positions? Topicality, Disadvantages, Kritiks, and Counterplans § What other arguments can the negative make? Responses to the affirmative’s harms, inherency and solvency © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Review § What are the 5 steps of topicality? Identify the word the plan doesn’t meet, define the word, state why the plan doesn’t meet the definition, argue why the definition is valid, and give voters § What are the 4 parts of a disadvantage? Uniqueness, Link, Impact and Weighing § What are the 4 main parts of a kritik? Link, Impact, Alternative, and Framework © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Review § What are the 3 main parts of a counterplan? Text, Solvency, and Net Benefit § What are the 3 essential components of a card? Tag, Cite, and Quote § What should a cite include? Author’s name, qualifications, date, publication title, and other important information © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Review § What 2 things should the quote or text of a card include? Claim and a warrant § Why is it important to flow? To remember what argument were made in the debate, to not drop arguments made by the other team, and to organize the arguments made © The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents Review § If the negative has 4 off case position and made 2 harms arguments, 3 solvency arguments and 2 inherency arguments, how many pieces of paper should a debater be flowing on in this round? 5 - one for each of the off case positions and one for all of the case arguments © The Forensics Files