Debate The Basics What is debate 1 a

Debate: The Basics

What is debate? 1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports. 2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers. 3. deliberation; consideration.

What is debated? The topic used in debate is referred to as the proposition or resolution. There are four types of resolutions that are debated. Proposition of problem This is used to explore a controversial issue and find solutions. It is worded as a question. What should be the federal role in education? Proposition of fact This resolution makes a statement about something that can be proven true or false. Proposition of value This proposition implies that one belief or value is better than another. National security is more important than government honesty. This is the basis of Lincoln-Douglas debate. Proposition of policy These resolutions are large scale, complex, and are related to current issue within our society. It will call for a change in the way something is currently operating. Policy debate gets its name from the type of resolution debated.

Practice With your group, write four debate topics (one per type of proposition) on the topic of identity fraud. Be able to justify why it is that type of proposition.

National Topic 2015 -2016 Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance.

The Sides Affirmative Supports the resolution Rejects the status quo Current system/state of things Advocates change Negative Rejects the resolution Supports the status quo Rejects the change put forth by the Affirmative

The Format: Policy Debate First Affirmative Constructive (1 AC) 8 minutes Cross Examination (1 A questioned by 2 N) 3 minutes First Negative Constructive (1 NC) 8 minutes Cross Examination (1 N questioned by 1 A) 3 minutes Second Affirmative Constructive (2 AC) 8 minutes Cross Examination (2 A questioned by 1 N) 3 minutes Second Negative Constructive (2 NC) 8 minutes Cross Examination (2 N questioned by 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

The Format: Policy Debate cont. 2 NC and 1 NR are the Negative Block. Both the affirmative and negative teams have 7 minutes of prep time during the round. You are allowed to use the time when your team needs it. It may NOT be used before cross examinations. Every speech after 1 AC should follow a roadmap. Briefly explain your plan of attack to the judge. Traditionally, the roadmap is not timed by the judge.

Stock Issues These are the issues that must be won by the affirmative in order to win the round. The negative can win IF they can effectively challenge the affirmative in any of these issues. There are four traditional issues: Inherency Harms Solvency Topicality

Topicality The affirmative team MUST support the resolution and use a “reasonable interpretation” of the resolution. Topicality can also be called on an unfair grammatical interpretation. Resolved: the United States federal government should significantly increase its economic engagement with Mexico, Cuba, or Venezuela. If the team fails to follow the stipulations of the resolution, the negative team can argue that the affirmative team is “untopical” and should lose the round. Only the negative team can introduce topicality arguments.

Extra-topicality This concept relates to the plan. The affirmative plan must gain advantages through the adoption of the resolution. Resolved: that the federal government should significantly increase social services to homeless individuals in the United States. The affirmative plan must also solve the problems and/or gain the advantages without utilizing additional steps not outlined in the resolution. Plan “spikes” are okay AS LONG AS they are not what is actually solving the problem or gaining the advantage.

Effects Topicality Affirmative plans can be considered topical with the effects of their plan. The affirmative plan makes a small change in policy that has large scale impacts that meet the requirements of the resolution. “significantly change” or “substantially change” The affirmative plan has elements that are not a part of the resolution, but the plan creates the results desired by the resolution. The affirmative team must show a link between the plan and the policy change in the resolution.

The Final Word on Topicality Always be ready to defend your interpretation of the resolution. When calling topicality, you cannot just say the affirmative team in untopical, you must illustrate how it is untopical.

Harms These explain the extent and severity of the problems with the status quo. They explore the problems that are inherent in the status quo. They are usually effects of poor policies or the counterproductive attitudes of those in power. They are a REQUIRED part of the affirmative plan. There are two types of harms: Quantitative Harms that can be counted Qualitative Harms that affect our quality of life

Inherency This is the explanation of the cause or potential permanence of the problems/harms in the status quo. This is a REQUIRED component of the affirmative plan. There are three types of inherency: Structural Proof that the laws and policies of the status quo are causing problems Attitudinal Proof that the attitudes of people in power are causing problems Existential Proof that significant problems exist in the status quo and will not go away without the affirmative intervention

Solvency This explains that the affirmative plan will effectively reduce or eliminate the harms in the status quo. In order to “solve” the problems, the plan must have beneficial mandates and solid funding, enforcement, administration, etc. The plan must address the inherent cause of harms and remove “inherent barriers” to solvency. It is a REQUIRED part of the affirmative plan.

Burden of proof Almost always falls on the aff team Can be shifted to the neg team Prima facie case 1. at first appearance; at first view, before investigation. 2. plain or clear; self-evident; obvious.

Disadvantages/DAs These arguments introduces by the negative team. They urge the judge to reject change/the affirmative plan. They suggest that if the affirmative plan were to go into effect, there would be disastrous consequences. The negative team can argue that the disadvantages of the affirmative plan will outweigh the potential benefits/advantages.

Components of Disadvantages Brink Evidence that the status quo is on the verge of a major event Uniqueness Evidence that the disadvantages are not generic The disadvantages will not occur if the affirmative plan in not put into effect Links Evidence that ties the affirmative plan to the impacts of the disadvantages What the plan does “wrong” Impacts The horrific consequences if the affirmative plan is passed

Counter Plans A plan advocated by the negative to avoid the disadvantages caused by the affirmative plan. It must be: Non-topical Mutually exclusive Net-beneficial

Critiques/”Krits” A negative argument that attacks the value of the resolution or the quality of affirmative delivery/language. It doesn’t relate to the merits of the affirmative case.