POLICY DEBATE

Training Tomorrow’s Leaders How to Think Today!

WHAT IS A DEBATE?

• A debate is an organized discussion with rules.

• Debate has been popular since the days of Greek democracy. It is essential to democracy.

• All open societies have lively debates about politics, morals, economics, culture and other current issues.

WHAT IS POLICY DEBATE?

• Two, two-person teams argue

• A policy topic - a statement suggesting a course of action that has two reasonable sides

• One side – AFFIRMATIVE – argues in favor of the topic

• The other side – NEGATIVE – argues against the topic

THE 2015/2016 POLICY TOPIC

RESOLVED: THAT THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD

SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL ITS DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE

WHAT SHOULD THE AFFIRMATIVE DO?PART ONE

• The AFF should define/interpret the topic’s terms

• The AFF should demonstrate significant, quantifiable harms in the present system and that AFF proposal is significantly more advantageous than the PS

• The AFF should demonstrate that the PS is incapable of fixing the harms

WHAT SHOULD THE AFFIRMATIVE DO?PART TWO

• The AFF should demonstrate that the harms are inherent in topic’s PS policies by– Structural inherency – laws, regulations, court

decisionsAND/OR– Attitudinal inherency – public opinion, social or

political movements, polls, etc.

WHAT SHOULD THE AFFIRMATIVE DO?PART THREE

• The AFF should present a plan that will:–Implement the topic–Overcome the inherent barriers in the PS–Solve for the harms in the PS–Accrue quantifiable, unique advantages

over the PS

WHAT SHOULD THE AFFIRMATIVE DO?PART FOUR

• The Affirmative plan should:–Describe the actions to be taken

and who will implement them–Explain how the plan will be

enforced–Explain how the plan will be

funded

WHAT SHOULD/COULD THE NEGATIVE DO?PART ONE

• The NEG should attack the AFF case and plan• The NEG could demonstrate that the AFF harm

is not significant• The NEG could demonstrate the AFF is using

flawed evidence and analysis• The NEG could demonstrate there are no

inherent barriers to the PS solving the harms• The NEG could demonstrate that the PS is

already working to solve the harms

WHAT COULD/SHOULD THE NEGATIVE DO?PART TWO

• The NEG could argue that the AFF plan:–Won’t solve the problems the AFF

cites–Is unworkable or impractical–Is untopical, i.e., does not actually

implement the topic fully

WHAT COULD/SHOULD THE NEGATIVE DO? PART THREE

• The NEG could argue the AFF plan has significant disadvantages:– That those DAs outweigh the claimed AFF

advantages– That the DAs are worse than the claimed

AFF harm– That the DAs are unique to the AFF plan and

would not occur in the PS

OTHER THINGS THE NEGATIVE COULD DO

• Propose a counterplan. CPs should:–Be presented in the first negative speech–Be non-topical–Achieve the AFF’s advantages/solve for PS

harms without implementing the topic–Describe the actions to be taken, who will

take them, how the plan will be funded and enforced

EVEN MORE THINGS THE NEGATIVE COULD DO!

• Argue a critique (kritik)• A kritik re-directs the policy focus of the

debate from the AFF plan to a focus on the morality of the topic. It is a Lincoln/Douglas debate overlay on policy debate.

• A kritik asks why, if the AFF plan will never be implemented in the real world, we should discuss it

KRITIK TO THE MAX!

• Kritiks attack the debate’s underlying philosophical, political, moral or economic assumptions and show their harm

• Harms can be defined in philosophical or moral terms

• Harm can be demonstrated in psychological terms (dehumanization) or physical terms (mass extinction)

HOW IS A KRITIK FORMED?

• Thesis statement explaining why the topic is problematic and the K’s philosophy

• Should include criterion for judge to evaluate round

• Arguments why the NEG’s desire to discuss the K are important

MORE KRITIK-Y THINGS

• A kritik should demonstrate that it links specifically to the AFF and is not generic to the topic

• A kritik should demonstrate the specific harms caused by the AFF plan

• A kritik should demonstrate the impact of the AFF plan harms

A CAP K EXAMPLE

• U.S. current economic/social system is capitalistic

• The AP is a reflection of that capitalistic system

• Capitalism is evil - it dehumanizes people; treats them as only consumers

• Capitalism manipulates peoples’ desires and needs, creating an inherently unequal society

CAP K CONTINUED

• Capitalism causes war and other horrible effects – extermination, etc.

• Promoting capitalism frustrates our efforts to develop more humane socio-economic systems

• Rejecting the AP allows us to explore more humane ways to develop our society and economy and avoids AP disadvantages

SOME AFF RESPONSES TO A KRITIK

• Explain why discussing a K is inappropriate to the round:– It’s policy debate, not philosophy debate

– All arguments are discourse – if the NEG wants to debate, that’s why we have a pre-approved topic

– Social contract: we were invited for a policy debate

MORE AFF RESPONSES TO A KRITIK

• The K is not a compelling policy option • The K does not apply to the AFF plan• The K does not quantify impact of the AFF

plan’s DAs• The K is poorly constructed, i.e., causal links

are unproven• If the K’s harms could have happened, they

would have

EVEN MORE AFF RESPONSES TO A KRITIK

• The K is untrue• The turn - so-called K “harms” are actually

advantages (capitalism funds R&D, exploration, the arts, charities, etc.)

• No NEG solution to capitalism besides arguing it – other systems have serious flaws

• Any NEG solution to capitalism must be considered a counterplan

HOW DOES POLICY DEBATE WORK?

• Eight speeches – four by each side• First four speeches CONSTRUCT each side’s

arguments• Last four speeches REBUT the opponent’s

arguments and CRYSTALLYZE them as voting issues for the judge

• Each speaker participates in cross-examination

POLICY DEBATE FORMATCONSTRUCTIVE SPEECHES

• 1 AFF constructive – 8 minutes– 1 AFF cross-ex by 2 NEG – 2 minutes

• 1 NEG constructive -8 minutes– 1 NEG cross-ex by 1 AFF

• 2 AFF constructive – 8 minutes– 2 AFF cross-ex by 1 NEG

• 2 NEG constructive – 8 minutes– 2 NEG cross-ex by 2 AFF

REBUTTAL SPEECHES

• NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN REUBTTALS – NEW EVIDENCE, YES – NOTE NEG BLOCK/AFF HAS LAST WORD

• 1 NEG rebuttal

• 1 AFF rebuttal

• 2 NEG rebuttal

• 2 AFF rebuttal

FLOWING THE DEBATE

• Just jot!• Use/develop shorthand• Experiment with styles• Use different color ink pens• Pace yourself/leave enough room for all

arguments• Structure/label points

JUDGING PHILOSOPHIES – WHO ARE YOU?

• Stock issues – inherency, topicality, harms, solvency, presumption, significance

• Policy-maker – compares advantages/ disadvantages of each side

• Tabla rausa – all about whoever wins the most arguments, no predisposition

MORE PHILOSOPHIES

• Games player – offense vs defense, who wins the most arguments

• Speaking skills/persuasion • Hypothesis tester – what is the best way to

deal with this issue – adapt the resolution (vote AFF) or reject it (vote NEG)

• A blend of some or all of the above!

WHY IT’S IMPORTANT – THE BALLOT

• Helps organize judge’s thoughts• Provides a reason for decision• Helps debaters and coaches understand

reason for decision• Educational tool – highlights

accomplishments, notes areas for improvement

BALLOT TECHNICAL ISSUES

• Make sure you give speaker points – nothing below 25 unless the speakers were egregious

• The winning team should have the most points/highest ranks

• Decide # of points, then work backwards through the boxes to decide how to apportion them

• Ensure you have right team, right names, points/rank/decision matches

OTHER JUDGING CONSIDERATIONS

• Don’t insert your personal prejudices and beliefs – it’s the debaters’ show

• Listen carefully, take notes and write down a few reasons for your decision – debaters need to see what judges think of their work

• Be patient – this is a new activity for you and for many of the debaters, too

• Let debaters know you’re new to debate

FINAL JUDGING CONSIDERATIONS

• Keep the round courteous and ethical!• Make sure the room is returned to its previous

state• Make sure to take the decision part of the

ballot back to the tab room ASAP• If you have time and they want it, critique the

debaters, but DO NOT reveal your decision

WAS THIS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE?

• If so, shouldn’t we all get credit?• Debaters should get at least one credit for

debate if they meet certain requirements – attending practices, doing homework, attending tournaments

• Support debaters’ rights to academic credits – contact your school board representative to let him/her know why debate is important!