What is policy or CX debate?

The Resolution

Stock Issues

Structuring Affirmative Cases

Structuring the Negative Attack

Debate Format

Speaker Responsibilities

Keeping a Flowsheet

Tournament FormatPolic

y or

CX

Deba

te

What is policy or CX debate?

Three Types of Questions

Fact: Did Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, kill President

Kennedy? (Mock Trial)

Value: Is life more important than liberty? (LD)

Policy: Should the U.S. federal government increase funding

for wind energy? (CX)

The Resolution

Where does the resolution come from?• National Federation of High Schools

How often does the resolution change?• One topic for the entire year

Affirmative says “Yes” to the Resolution

Negative says “No” to the Resolution

Affirmative One Round

Negative the Next

Policy Debaters Switch Sides

Both Sides Have Certain Advantages

Choose the particular case within the area of the resolution

Speak both first and last in the debate

AFFMany ways to win (any one of five stock issues

Negative block (The 13/5 trade off)

NEG

The Resolution Creates Affirmative Options

Resolved: The U.S. federal government should increase its protection of ocean resources.

Stop Overfishing

Halt Toxic Dumping

Regulate Cruise Ships

Protect Coral Reefs

Dead Zones Invasive Species

The Resolution Creates Affirmative Options

Resolved: The U.S. federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development

of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.

Missile Defense

Moon Mining

Planetary Defense

Solar Power Satellites

Mission to Mars Space Junk

Stock Issues

Topicality

Harm

Inherency

Solvency

Disadvantage

Does the plan do what the resolution says?

Is there something seriously wrong in the present system?

Cause: Why is it that the present system cannot or will not solve the harm?

Would the affirmative plan remove all or a significant part of the harm?

Would the disadvantages of the plan outweigh the advantages?

The Stock Issues

Topicality

Harm

Inherency

Solvency

Disadvantage

Topicality is like raising a “Point of Order” in parliamentary procedure

Something is wrong: You can’t participate in after school activities because the bus leaves right after school leaving you with no way home.

What keeps this harm from being solved? What causes perpetuate the harm? Why can’t a parent pick you up? Ride with a friend?

A new Ford Mustang would solve your transportation problems.

The $600/month payment would be a bigger problem than the harm above

The Stock Issues in Everyday Choices

Structuring Affirmative

Cases

Topicality

Harm

Inherency

Solvency

Disadvantage

Becomes an issue only if the negative team questions it

Wait for the negative attack before responding

The Stock Issues

The stock issues of Harm, Inherency, and Solvency must be addressed in the First Affirmative Speech – We usually expect to hear a separate argument, or “Contention” establishing each of these stock issues.

Resolved: The U.S. federal government should increase its support for United Nations peacekeeping operations.

Plan: The U.S. federal government will ratify the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty and fully fund its allotment for demining within the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations.

I. Landmines needlessly cause death and suffering. (Harm)

II. The U.S. blocks efforts to ban landmines. (Inherency)

III. Changing U.S. policy on landmines would reduce death and suffering. (Solvency)

Miriam Kagan, (Staff Writer, Inter Press Service), Cancun Monitor, Sept. 9, 2003. Online. Internet. Feb. 4, 2004. http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2003_0912_03.htm. The United States remains one of the world’s largest landmine stockpilers and, along with Russia, China, India and Pakistan, one of the last non-signatories of the treaty. The US signature could influence other non-signatories, including China and Russia who sit with Washington as permanent members of the UN Security Council, to ratify.

United Nations Association of the United States of America, Say No To U.S. Landmines in Iraq, Feb. 2, 2004. Online. Internet. Feb. 4, 2004. http://usa. unaaction.org/showalert.asp?aaid=170. The Convention on the Prohibition of Antipersonnel Mines has been ratified by 130 countries and is supported by every NATO member except the United States.

The Washington Office on Africa, Landmines, July 2003. Online. Internet. Feb. 4, 2004. http://www.woaafrica.org/legacy5.htm. There are U.S.-made mines in 28 countries. Tens of million of landmines are buried in more than 100 countries all over the world. Landmines claim 2,000 deaths and maim 20,000 every month.

Resolved: The U.S. federal government should increase its protection of ocean resources.

Plan: The U.S. federal government will increase its protection of bottle-nosed dolphins by prohibiting the use of the “Dolphin Safe” label for tuna caught using the “circle net” fishing method.

ADVANTAGE: The affirmative plan increases the protection of bottle-nosed dolphins.A. Circle net fishing needlessly kills bottle-nosed dolphins (Harm)

B. The U.S. federal government allows the use of the “Tuna Safe” label for tuna caught using circle nets. (Inherency)

C. Proper use of the “Tuna Safe” label protects bottle-nosed dolphins. (Solvency)

St. Petersburg Times, Jan. 14, 2003, p. 6. The Dolphin Safe seal on a can of tuna is – or was – one of the brightest environmental success stories of the last decade. To earn the seal, tuna producers had to switch to fishing practices that protect dolphins from injury and death. Soon after the seal was introduced, American consumers would buy nothing else, and the U.S. tuna industry was forced to abandon its old ways. That paid off both for tuna sales and dolphins. While 700,000 dolphins were killed by tuna fishermen in 1967, that number dropped to 25,000 in 1991.

Bruce Lieberman, (Staff Writer), San Diego Union-Tribune, Jan. 10, 2003, p. A1. Yellowfin regularly swim with several species of dolphins. In the late 1950s, fishermen began looking for surface-schooling dolphins to locate tuna, using speed boats to herd these dolphins into large purse-seine nets – and by association the tuna they wanted.

San Antonio Express-News, Jan. 6, 2003, p. 4B. To ring in the new year, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Department of Commerce announced tuna fish caught with nets that encircle the schools of dolphins that swim with them in the Eastern Tropical Pacific still can be labeled “Dolphin Safe.” So why have the label if it is to be made so meaningless?

Resolved: The U.S. federal government should increase public health assistance to sub-Saharan Africa.

Plan: The U.S. federal government will increase its health assistance for HIV/AIDS patients in sub-Saharan Africa by allowing health assistance programs to purchase generic drugs.

ADVANTAGE: The affirmative plan saves lives in sub-Saharan Africa.A. Lack of access to life-saving drugs is a death sentence for HIV/AIDS sufferers in Africa. (Harm)

B. Existing U.S. policies restrict access to life-saving drugs. (Inherency)

C. Allowing the use of U.S. funds to purchase lower-cost generic HIV/AIDS drugs will save lives. (Solvency)

Ed Susman, Journalist, AIDS: Opposing Viewpoints, 2006, p. 102. Generic copies of antiretroviral cocktails can lower the cost of drug treatments dramatically, which makes it cost-effective, even in the poorest of countries, to give the drugs to AIDS patients. “Access to anti-retroviral therapy is not just a moral imperative,” [Jean-Paul] Moatti said. “It is good economic sense.”

LeeAnne Gelletly, Journalist, AIDS and Health Issues in Africa, 2007, pp. 37-38. American-funded anti-AIDS programs, particularly the $15 billion PEPFAR [President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] initiative, continued to stipulate that their funds could not be used to purchase generic drugs because of violations of pharmaceutical manufacturers’ patents.

Robert Weissman, Editor of Multinational Monitor, Africa: Opposing Viewpoints, 2005, p. 59. In the United States, existing treatments enable many people with HIV/AIDS to live relatively healthy lives. But lifesaving HIV/AIDS-drug cocktails cost about $12,000 a year in many African countries – vastly out of the reach of all but a small handful of the growing African population with HIV/AIDS. So, for virtually everyone in Africa, an HIV/ AIDS diagnosis is a death sentence.

Resolved: The U.S. federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.

PLAN: The United States federal government will substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere by accelerating the construction of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) and adding the detection of near-Earth objects to its mission. The plan will cost $125 million to be funded by a similar reduction in the U.S. military budget.

I. A Planetary Collision with Near-Earth Objects Would Be Catastrophic. (Harm)

II. Current Efforts to Detect Near-Earth Objects Are Inadequate. (Inherency)

III. Assigning the Task of Detecting Near-Earth Objects to the LSST will increase our ability to identify Near-Earth Objects. (Solvency)

Aeronautics & Space Engineering Board of the National Research Council, Defending Planet Earth, 2010, p. 37. Optimizing the system for NEO detections requires approximately 15 percent additional cost to compensate for extended observations specific to NEO detection but not useful to meet other goals. The LSST project estimates that $125 million of additional funding is required for this optimization.

Aeronautics & Space Engineering Board of the National Research Council, Defending Planet Earth, 2010, p. 26. Unlike most other known natural hazards to humanity, such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, hurricanes and tornadoes, NEO impacts present a very large spread of disaster scales ranging from small property damage to global extinction events. Larger impacts may result in global climatic changes that can result in famine and disease, infrastructure failure and, potentially, societal breakdown. Smaller impacts could be misinterpreted and thereby could conceivably even trigger wars.

Timothy Kusky, professor of natural science at St. Louis University, Encyclopedia of Earth and Space Science, 2010, p. 547. To date, there have only been limited efforts by the nations of the world to monitor near-Earth objects and to try to prevent large meteorites from crashing into the Earth and wiping out much of the population and biosphere. NASA has estimated that there are about 2,000 near-Earth objects greater than one-half mile (1 km) in diameter and that about half of them may eventually hit the Earth.

Structuring the Negative

Attack

Sample Topicality Argument

Note: This argument refers to an affirmative plan suggesting that “the U.S. federal government should substantially increase its exploration and development of space beyond Earth’s mesosphere” by providing seed money to private space firms for the launch of a space-based solar satellite system.

THE PLAN DOES NOT MEET THE “ITS” TERM: THE SYSTEM IS NOT OWNED BY THE U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

A. Standard: “Grammatical Context”

The term “its” in the resolution is a possessive pronoun referring back to the subject of the sentence, which is “United States federal government.”

B. Definition: “Its” includes only the United States government, and does not include a private company .

Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed., 1993, p. 623. Its: Of or relating to it or itself, especially as possessor.

C. Violation: Private companies hold the patents assuring their ownership of space-based solar satellite technologies; the government cannot own them.

William Maness, CEO of the PowerSat Corporation, Space Future Journal, Aug. 19, 2009. Retrieved Mar. 21, 2011 from http://www.spacefuture.com/journal/journal.cgi?art=2009.08.05.powersat_qanda. The provisional patent is what starts the process. It effectively locks in the proprietary interest for up to eighteen months while the technical, financial and regulatory details are being completed. We plan to have a BrightStar in orbit for demonstration purposes in the 2017-18 range, or at most within three years of that.

D. Topicality is an independent voting issue for the negative team.

1. Topicality ensures fairness: The resolution is carefully worded so that available argument ground is fairly divided between the affirmative and negative teams.

2. An affirmative team must “affirm” the resolution: If the plan does not fall under the resolution, then the plan fails to “affirm” the resolution.

Sample Harm Reduction ArgumentNote: This argument refers to an affirmative claim that the U.S. should support the use of DDT in sub-Saharan Africa in order to combat the spread of malaria.

THE HARM FROM MALARIA IS EXAGGERATED

1. The Claim that Malaria Is the Leading Killer of Children is Exaggerated.Reed Karaim, Staff Writer, American Scholar, Summer 2005, p. 53. Any rereconsideration of DDT ought to begin with a look at malaria. Advocates of the pesticide cite two statistics over and over again as justification for greatly expanding DDT use. The first is that malaria is killing between 1.1 million and 2 million people a year. The second, to quote Rosenberg, is that "each year, 300 to 500 million people get malaria." (This is often phrased as "malaria infects” 300 to 500 million people every year.) The first number is chilling, particularly when you consider that malaria is largely concentrated in Africa and most often kills children under the age of five. But if mortality rates are the measure of a disease problem in the developing world, the truth is that malaria ranks fourth. It trails respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases and, in Africa, AIDS. Among children under five worldwide, the World Health Organization ranks the leading causes of death by disease as "acute lower respiratory infections, mostly pneumonia (19 percent of all deaths), diarrhea (18 percent), malaria (8 percent), measles (4 percent) and HIV/AIDS (3 percent)." The HIV/AIDS number is deceptive since children born with the HIV virus do not necessarily die in the first years of their life. The largest killer of young children is not even on that list. The World Health Organization has a catchall category called "neonatal conditions," which includes preterm birth, low birth weight and other immediate problems that kill 37 percent of the 10.6 million children the World Health Organization estimates die every year before their fifth birthday.

2. Great Progress Is Being Made Against Malaria.David Brown, Staff Writer, Washington Post, 17 December 2006, p. A30. Before 1999, 86 percent of children in the most severely affected part of Mozambique were infected with malaria annually. That fell to 21 percent four years later. In the Swaziland district, malaria incidence fell from 130 cases per 1,000 people to 1.7 cases per 1,000. In the South African area, several game parks and tourist areas no longer have high malaria incidence, and in some places the infection is now so rare that it cannot be detected by random blood sampling.

Sample Inherency ArgumentNote: This argument refers to an affirmative claim that day care facilities in the U.S. are inadequate. The negative inherency argument claims that grandparents offer a superior alternative to daycare.GRANDPARENTS BEST MEET CHILD CARE NEEDS

1. GRANDPARENTS FILL THE GAPS IN CHILD CARE.

Peggy Liuzzi, (Staff, Syracuse Post-Standard), CHILD CRE MATTERS, Apr. 11, 2009. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2009 from http://blog.syracuse.com. According to the survey, 40% of grandparents, with grandchildren under age 13 who live less than an hour away, provide child care for their grandchildren. Beside providing regular care, 50% of grandparents provide back-up care, 31% provide care when their grandchildren are sick, and 38% provide summer care.

2. GRANDPARENTS SOLVE THE HIGH COST OF CHILD CARE.

Stacey Garfinkle, (Staff), WASHINGTON POST, Nov. 3, 2008. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2009 from http://voices.washingtonpost.com. Grandparent care can cost far less -- or nothing at all -- for families who simply can't afford the high child care costs of licensed day cares and nannies. Plus grandparent care helps build bonds across generations.

3. GRANDPARENT CARE IS SAFER FOR CHILDREN THAN TRADITIONAL DAY CARE.

Robert Preidt, (Staff), BUSINESS WEEK, Nov. 3, 2008. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2009 from www.businessweek.com. "Recent growth in the number of grandparents providing child care has some observers concerned they don't adhere to modern safety practices. To the contrary, this research tells us not only is there no evidence to support this assumption, but families that choose grandparents to care for their children experience fewer child injuries," study author Dr. David Bishai, a professor in Bloomberg's department of population, family and reproductive health, said in a news release.

4. GRANDPARENT CARE HAS CULTURAL ADVANTAGES OVER CENTER-BASED CARE.

Valerie Polakow, (Prof., Educational Psychology & Early Childhood, Eastern Michigan U.), WHO CARES FOR OUR CHILDREN? THE CHILD CARE CRISIS IN THE OTHER AMERICA, 2007, 145. While reliance on grandparents (usually grandmothers) is often precipitated by a child care crisis, or the lack of good quality and affordable care, it is also a reflection of strong intergenerational ties and family cohesiveness.

Sample Solvency ArgumentNote: This argument refers to an affirmative case claiming that a “cap-and-trade” system will reduce reliance on fossil fuels without harming the economy. This solvency argument disputes such a solvency claim.1. Europe’s experience proves cap-and-trade will seriously hurt the economy.

Joe Barton, U.S. Representative from Texas, Dallas Morning News, 8 Feb. 08, p. 21A. “The price that Europeans are paying in lost jobs and constrained economic activity is growing, and so are greenhouse gases. It doesn't look much different for America. Projections on the household impact of various cap-and-trade proposals now pending range as high as $6,000 per home per year, with job losses topping 8 million under some scenarios.”

2. Cap-and-trade fails to restrict new sources of CO2 emissions.Hoff Stauffer, Analyst with the Wingaersheek Research Group, Energy Policy, Nov. 2007, p. 5433. “New sources, not existing sources, will be primarily responsible for global CO2 emissions in the 21st century, since new sources provide for growth and replace existing sources at the end of their useful lives. Hence, policy initiatives should be designed for new sources rather than for existing sources, and cap and trade may not be the best approach.”

3. Cap-and-trade is much less efficient than other incentive mechanisms.Christopher Horner, Senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming, 2007, p. 254. “The environmentalist group Resources for the Future counted that cap-and-trade is actually about four times as expensive to the economy as an energy tax designed to achieve the same outcome.”

Sample Disadvantage ArgumentNote: This argument refers to an affirmative case proposing that the U.S. immediately withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

PULLING OUT OF AFGHANISTAN UNLEASHES NUCLEAR TERRORISM A. Link: The Plan proposes to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. B. Uniqueness: U.S. troops in Afghanistan are now succeeding against al-Qaeda.

1. Terrorists are now on the run. David Goure, Analyst at the Lexington Institute, States News Service, Feb. 15, 2010. Retrieved Apr. 15, 2010 from Nexis. Over the past year, the Obama Administration has decimated al-Qaeda, killing twelve of the terror group’s top twenty leaders as well has hundreds of rank and file. The very week that the Christmas Day bomber conducted his abortive attack, U.S. drones conducted multiple attacks against al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula.

2. Pakistan is stabilized by success against the terrorists. Stephen Hadley, Former U.S. National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush, Washington Post, Dec. 11, 2009, p. A29. It will take time and great effort, but we can succeed by convincing friends, foes and our own forces that we are committed to success and will not fail; motivating and enabling the Afghan government and people to accept greater responsibility for their future; and helping Pakistan in its effort to put down its own Taliban threat and control its territory. The last goal is paramount. A destabilized Pakistan would threaten regional stability and ensure that Afghanistan could not be stabilized. Success will depend on proving to Pakistan that it has an enduring partner in the United States. Our strategy can succeed in Afghanistan if we are committed to succeeding, not just getting out.

Sample Disadvantage Argument (Continued)

C. Brink: The stability of Pakistan is at a critical point. John Mulligan, Staff Writer, Providence Journal-Bulletin, Dec. 4, 2009, p. 1. Gates said al-Qaeda is operating near the border to support a number of other terrorist groups in ways that are destabilizing not just for Afghanistan but for the entire region including nuclear-armed Pakistan. If the Taliban were to operate freely from eastern and southern Afghanistan, Gates told the House panel, the Pakistani Taliban could use that region to strengthen itself and expand its ranks, and be even more effective in its efforts to destabilize the government of Pakistan.

D. Impact: Destabilizing Pakistan will unleash nuclear terrorism. 1. Destabilization of Pakistan puts terrorists in charge of nuclear weapons.

David Petraeus, Commander, U.S. Central Command, United States Policy Toward Afghanistan And Pakistan, Sen. Hrg., Apr. 7, 2009, p. 21. Destabilization of the nuclear-armed Pakistani state would present an enormous challenge to the United States, its allies and our interests. Pakistani state failure would provide transnational terrorist groups and other extremist organizations an opportunity to acquire nuclear weapons and a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks.

2. Nuclear terrorists will kill millions. Graham Allison, Dir., Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Terrorism, 2009, p. 79. Nine months after the attack on New York, Osama bin Laden’s official press spokesman, Suleiman Abu Gheith, made a chilling announcement on a now defunct al-Qaeda-associated Web site, www.alneda.com. “We have the right,” Abu Gheith asserted, “to kill 4 million Americans – 2 million of them children – and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands.”

Debate Format

Constructive Speeches 1AC (First Affirmative Constructive Speech): 8 Minutes

Cross-Examined by 2NC: 3 Minutes

1NC (First Negative Constructive Speech): 8 MinutesCross-Examined by 1AC: 3 Minutes

2AC (Second Affirmative Constructive Speech): 8 MinutesCross-Examined by 1NC: 3 Minutes

2NC (Second Negative Constructive Speech): 8 MinutesCross-Examined by 2AC: 3 Minutes

Rebuttal Speeches1NR (First Negative Rebuttal Speech): 5 Minutes1AR (First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech): 5 Minutes2NR (Second Negative Rebuttal Speech): 5 Minutes2AR (Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech): 5 Minutes

Each team has 8 minutes of total preparation time

Eight Speeches – 80 Minutes

Speaker Responsibilities

1AC: Present a “Prima Facie” CasePlan, Harm, Inherency, Solvency

1NC: Present the Negative AttackTopicality arguments (if any), Disadvantages, Case

2AC: Re-Defends Against 1NCFollows 1NC point-by-point

2NC: Answer 2AC positionsDivide positions with the 1NR (division of labor)

Constructive Speaker Responsibilities

Rebuttal Speaker Responsibilities

No new arguments in rebuttal (new evidence OK)

1NR: Answer remaining 2AC arguments

1AR: Answer all 2NC & 1NR arguments

2NR: Extend winning negative arguments

2AR: Answer all remaining negative arguments & claim all affirmative positions that are no longer contested

Keeping a Flowsheet

Purposes of Flowing

Essential to an organized presentation

Enables direct clash

Becomes your notes during a speech

Basic Flowing Technique

One argument per page

Two colors

Labels first, Evidence second

Lots of Room (especially at top)

Shorthand symbols (T=Topicality, DA=Disadvantage, etc.)

Flowsheet Example

I. Near-Earth objects (NEOs) threaten catastrophic damage.

A. Asteroid collision caused the extinction of the dinosaurs

B. Many uncharted NEOs threaten to collide with the Earth

C. A large NEO collision could destroy all life on Earth

Such an event happens only about every 26 million years or so

1. Since the last event was about that long ago, we may be due for another catastrophe

2. Why take the chance?

NASA admits that it lacks the resources to do an adequate survey.

Why take a chance with so much at stake?

How can we know when they have not all been charted

An airburst from even a small NEO could destroy a major city and kill millions of people

It is not just the media; physicists such as Stephen Hawking are also worried.

1.NASA has already charted all large NEOs

2. Other nations are actively charting NEOs

3. No large NEOs threaten Earth for at least the next 100 years1. Most NEOs are

small and burn up in Earth’s atmosphere

2. The risk has been exaggerated by the popular media

Tournament Format

Preliminary Rounds

District

District 12 AA UIL TournamentRound 1: 4:00 p.m.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE ROOM JUDGE

Newton CG Ames RE 1024 Edwards

Marshalltown RR Ogden DC 1041 Rollins

Denver City BB Bentonville TR 1046 Jackson(When the above system is in use, the initials following the school name represent the first letter of the last names for the two students – Newton CG would stand for Newton students Amy Charles and Juan Garza)

District

District 12 AA UIL TournamentRound 1: 4:00 p.m.

AFFIRMATIVE NEGATIVE ROOM JUDGE

10A 13C 1024 Edwards

11B 15A 1041 Rollins(If codes are in use, you will be given a registration form identifying your teams)

Elimination Rounds

District

District 12 AA UIL Tournament

1. Newton CG

4. Marshalltown RR

2. Ames RE

3. Bentonville TR

Newton CG

Newton CG

Ames RE