Breaking the Code

   

Terminology  

   CX  Debate      

�  Cross  Examination  Debate  

�  Also  called  Policy  Debate  

�  Partner  debate  which  focuses  on  advancing  a  specific  policy  within  the  resolution.  

Resolution �  The  topic  of  a  debate  

�  A  stand  in  an  issue  that  the  affirmative  supports    

�  The  proposition  up  for  debate    

�   Is  debated  all  year  –  both  fall  and  spring  

Resolved:

�  The United States federal government

should substantially increase its

transportation infrastructure investment in

the United States.

Affirmative �   the side which supports (affirms) the resolution in

the debate

�   called the “Aff”

�  Begins and ends the debate round

�  Develops a specific plan which addresses the problems of the status quo and offers a viable solution

Negative �  The side which rejects (negates) the resolution

and/or the affirmative case

�  Called the “Neg”

�  Has a 13 minute block of time in the middle of each round (the negative block)

�  Common Arguments Run: Topicality, Disadvantage, Counterplan, Kritik, and “On-Case”

Status Quo �  The  present  system  of  government  

�  The  present  method  or  policy  

�  The  Aff  is  advocating  for  a  change  to  the  Status  Quo.  

�   Status  Quo  is  defended  by  the  Negative  (Neg).  

FIAT  �  The  right  of  the  affirmative  to  assert  its  plan  will  go  into  effect.  

�   Is  Latin  for  “Let  it  be  done”  

�   Is  based  off  the  word  “should”  within  the  resolution  

�  Allows  the  debate  to  be  centered  around  the  effectiveness  (or  lack  thereof)  of  the  aff  plan  rather  than  the  likelihood  it  would  actually  be  passed  

Round  Elements  

Constructive �  The first four speeches of the round

�  Constitutes about 2/3 of the time allotted

�   Portion of the debate in which initial positions and arguments are presented

�  Only portion of round where CX is allowed

Rebuttal �  2nd portion of the round

�  Constitutes approximately 1/3 of the time allotted

�  Arguments made in the constructives are crystallized, extended and/or defended

�  NO NEW ARGUMENTS can be presented!

CX �  The only time during the round where the

Aff and the Neg speak “to” one another

�  Purpose: �  Clarify points within the opponent’s case

and/or arguments �  Ask questions that set up Neg arguments or

Aff responses

Prep Time �  The amount of time each team is given to prepare

their respective remarks/arguments

�  8 minutes per team per round

�  Can be used in any configuration – but – time allocation is a crucial part of strategy

�   Prep time is typically NOT TAKEN before CX

Time  Alloca2on  1  st    1st  Affirmative  Constructive   8  Minutes  Negative  CX  (2NC)   3  Minutes  

1  st    Negative  Constructive   8  Minutes  Affirmative  CX  (1AC)   3  Minutes  

2  nd      Affirmative  Constructive   8  Minutes  Negative  CX  (1  NC)   3  Minutes  

2  nd    Negative  Constructive   8  Minutes  Affirmative  CX  (2  AC)   3  Minutes  

1  st    Negative  Rebuttal   5  Minutes  

1  st    Affirmative  Rebuttal   5  Minutes  

2  nd    Negative  Rebuttal   5  Minutes  

2  nd    AffirmativeRebuttal   5  Minutes  Re

bu6als  

               Neg  Block  

Stock Issues �  T  –  Topicality  

�                      H  –  Harms  

�                                          I  –  Inherency  

�                                                              S  –  Solvency  

�                                                                                      S  -­‐  Significance  

Topicality �  The issue in debate of whether the affirmative

(aff) plan supports the resolution

�  The affirmative MUST run a case that falls within the boundaries set by the resolution!

�  The negative is NOT bound by the same restrictions. (Counterplans do not have to be topical.)

Harms �  An undesirable result of a problem, policy, or value �  The “bad things” that will happen if the Aff plan

is not adopted – according to the Aff �  The Affirmative (Aff) must show that the

present system (status quo) can not solve for the harm(s)

Inherency �  The issue of whether the present system (status

quo) will or can solve the problem

�  The aff needs to make sure a major change must take place in the status quo in order to solve for the harms.

�   Is sometimes referred to as the “Inherent Barrier”

Solvency �  The issue of whether or not the affirmative plan

will/can “take care” of the problem (harms).

�  The affirmative must show their plan covers for the harms listed in their plan text!

�  Best if the solvency does not create a larger problem than the harms presented

Significance �  The issue of whether or not there are important

problems and/or harms in the present system

�  Shows if there is a true need for a plan or action

�   Is the “So what?” of the round

�   If the problem is too small, there is no real need for a change.

Advantage �  A benefit gained or maintained by a policy

�   a good or positive consequence of a plan

�  Usually includes arguments for solvency, significance and inherency

�   Is either what is achieved when the harms are solved, or creates an additional plan benefit

Common Neg

Arguments

Topicality  Shell  –  Neg  Arg.  �  Argument  which  outlines  how  the  affirmative  has  failed  to  adhere  to  the  terms  within  the  resolution  

�  A  topicality  violation,  usually  presented  in  the  1NC,    contains  the  follows:    �   Interpretation    �   Violation    �   Standards    �   Voting  Issue  

Interpreta2on  �  Negative  interpretation  of  a  word  or  words  in  the  resolution  –  should  be  supported  by  evidence.      

�   Evidence  to  support  an  interpretation  can  come  from  virtually  any  source  (dictionary,  legal  dictionary,  academic  paper,  laws,  court  rulings,  etc.)      

�   Emphasis  is  placed  on  both  the  desirability  of  the  interpretation  and  the  quality  of  the  evidence  which  supports  the  interpretation.    

Viola2on  �  Reason(s)  why  the  plan  does  not  meet  the  negative  interpretation    

�  Neg  must  show  how  the  aff  fails  to  meet  the  boundaries  set  by  the  superior  definition  (that  of  the  neg);  thus,  the  aff  case  is  nontopical.  

�   Stock  Issues  judges  look  at  topicality  more  than  other  judge  styles.  

Standards  �  A.  “We  meet”  invalid  �  B.    Limits    �  C.    Bright  Line    �  D.    Framer’s  Intent  �    E.    Education  �    F.    Ground  �    G.    Common  Man    �  H.    Breadth  v.  Depth  

Vo2ng  Issue  �  A.    Jurisdiction      

�  B.    Education    

�  C.    Predictability      

�  D.    Tradition  

Disadvantage – Neg Arg. �  Harmful consequence of a plan –is worse than

the harms for which the affirmative is solving

�  Must include each of the following: �  Uniqueness �   Link �   Brink �   Impact

�  Also called a “DA” or a “Disad”

Disadvantage – con’t. �  Uniqueness and Link

�   Separate but connected �   Link = how the disad connects (links) to the Aff �  Uniqueness = how the aff case uniquely links to the

disad �  Brink

�  Neg claim that the impact of the disad is not happening now but can happen under certain circumstances

�   The Aff plan creates those circumstances �  Impact

�   The negative results that will occur

Counterplan  –  Neg  Argument  �  An alternate plan which achieves the goals of the

affirmative plan but DOES NOT link to the disadvantage

�  Must solve for the Harms established by the affirmative plan

�  Does not have to be topical

�   Is considered an off-case argument

Paradigms  �  Refers  to  the  philosophy  to  which  the  judge  adheres  when  writing  a  ballot.      

�  Knowing  a  judge’s  paradigm  allows  for  judge  adaptation.  

�  Most  common:  �   Lay  Judge  �   Games  Player  Judge  �   Policymaker  Judge  �   Stock  Issues  Judge  �   Tabula  Rasa  Judge  (Tab  Judge)  

Lay  Judge  �  Are  not  experienced  judges  and/or  have  little  if  any  knowledge  of  debate  

�  Often  will  judge  a  round  based  on  appearance  and  eloquence  of  speech;  though,  they    do  not  always  realize  this  is  what  they  are  doing.    L  

�   Speeding,  Kritiks,  jargon,  and  counterplans  are  strongly  discouraged  

�  Disadvantages  should  be  run  slowly  and  with  detailed  explanation.  

Games  Player  Judge  �  As  the  name  suggests,  these  judges  believe  that  debate  is  a  game,  and  any  argument  that  forms  a  coherent  syllogism  is  "fair  play"  in  round.    

 �   Syllogism  –  form  of  deductive  reasoning  containing  a  major  premise,  minor  premise  and  a  conclusion  

 �   Ex:    All  humans  are  mortal.  –  I  am  human.  –  thus  –  I  am  mortal.  

 

Games  Player  Judge  cont’  

�  Games  judges  will  have  no  qualms  about  voting  for  a  ridiculous  policy    

�   If  one  team  can  prove  their  plan  or  action  holds  the  largest  advantage  in  the  round  –  they  can  win  the  ballot  

Policymaker  Judge  �  Policymaker  judges  tend  to  vote  for  the  side  that  presents  the  best  policy  option.    

�  Tend  to  like  disadvantages  and  counterplans    

�  Are,  however,  beginning  to  accept  kritikal  arguments.  

�   Simply  put:    They  tend  to  decide  by  weighing  the  affirmative's  advantages  against  the  negative's  disadvantages.  

Stock  Issues  Judge  �  Believes  the  affirmative  plan  must  fulfill  all  their  stock  issue  burdens    

�   If  the  negative  proves  that  the  affirmative  is  lacking  in  any  one  of  the  issues,  it  is  grounds  for  the  plan  to  be  rejected.    

�   Stock  issue  judges  generally  prefer  a  clear,  eloquent  presentation  of  issues  in  round,  and  dislike  arguments  that  seem  to  not  relate  to  the  topic  on  the  surface.  

�  …are  often  referred  to  as  “Old  School  Judges”.  

Tabula  Rasa  Judge  �   From  a  Latin  phrase  that  translates  to  clean  slate.  �  Tabula  rasa  judges  claim  to  begin  the  debate  with  no  assumptions  or  expectations.    

�  Expect  teams  to  show  why  arguments  should  be  voted  on,  instead  of  assuming  a  certain  paradigm.    

�  Most  tab  judges  are  okay  with  speed  and  will  also  consider  counterplans,  disadvantages,  and  kritiks.    

�  To  be  safe  -­‐  ask  a  tab  judge  on  his  or  her  preference  in  regard  to  specific  types  of  arguments.  

Final  Words  �   Watch  out  for  the  “Debate  Lingo”.  �   Beware  the  “Mind  Games”.  �   There  are  no  freshman  or  JV  debate  teams.  �   Debate  is  a  subjective  contest!  

�   You  will  sometimes  lose  the  round  but  win  the  ballot.  �   You  will  sometimes  win  the  round  but  lose  the  ballot.  

�   Debate  is  a  professional  competition!  �   Two  Great  Resources:      

 <uil.utexas.edu>    <debatecoaches.org>  

�   HAVE  FUN!!!    J      �   Otherwise…what’s  the  point?!?  

The End!

J