POLICY DEBATE

WHAT IS POLICY DEBATE? A structured format for fairly arguing a topic of policy TEAM DEBATE: two teams of two students each 8 speeches in each round Two types of speeches: the constructive and the rebuttal Each debater presents one constructive and one rebuttal Each constructive is followed by a cross-examination

SO WHAT DO WE DEBATE? A topic is selected annually that is debated across the United States The topic is written in the form of a resolution, “the action of solving a problem, dispute, or contentious matter.” 2015 – 2016 Resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government (USFG) should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance The team that defends the statement is the affirmative – example? The team that opposes the statement is the negative - example?

SETUP OF A ROUND 1ACCX1NCCX2ACCX2NCCX1NR1AR2NR2AR Negative Block

CONSTRUCTIVE VS. REBUTTAL SPEECHES CONSTRUCTIVES 4 constructives in a round BUILDS the argument Presents evidence (i.e. “cards”) Establish clash – what is it that we’re actually debating about in this round? REBUTTALS 4 rebuttals in the round SHRINK the round – focus on what is most important Using evidence (cards) from constructives, analyze and compare Tell the judge WHY YOUR TEAM WINS

THE BASICS Affirmative responsibility: show why STATUS QUO policies are not working to solve a particular problem – known as meeting the “burden of proof” Negative responsibility: CLASH with the affirmative’s plan – show why the status quo is preferable to the particular change they are arguing for

THE STOCK ISSUES Essential questions that MUST be answered by any affirmative team who is attempting to change the status quo HIPS HARMS INHERENCY PLAN SOLVENCY RESOLVED: The USFG should substantially reduce restrictions on energy production in the United States

H - HARMS Evidence that demonstrates problems that are occurring in the status quo Must prove: 1. The problem is occurring in the status quo 2. The problem is important and change is needed RESOLVED: The USFG should substantially reduce restrictions on energy production in the United States Harms: 1.Economy – cost of energy from other countries is high 2.Global warming – using “dirty” energy leads to catastrophic environmental impacts

I - INHERENCY Evidence that demonstrates the status quo’s current inability to resolve the issue It creates a NEED to do the affirmative plan RESOLVED: The USFG should substantially reduce restrictions on energy production in the United States Harms: 1.Economy – cost of energy from other countries is high 2.Global warming – using “dirty” energy leads to catastrophic environmental impacts Inherency: 1.Our country has a huge debt to pay right now 2.The Earth is currently undergoing global warming

P - PLAN Written text that communicates how to affirmative team will solve for their harms What are we going to do? Who is going to do it? RESOLVED: The USFG should substantially reduce restrictions on energy production in the United States Harms: 1.Economy – cost of energy from other countries is high 2.Global warming – using “dirty” energy leads to catastrophic environmental impacts Inherency: 1.Our country has a huge debt to pay right now 2.The Earth is currently undergoing global warming Plan: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase financial incentives for thorium fuel cycle nuclear power generation

S – S0LVENCY Evidence that shows how the affirmative plan will overcome the inherent barrier and SOLVE the harms RESOLVED: The USFG should substantially reduce restrictions on energy production in the United States Harms: 1.Economy – cost of energy from other countries is high 2.Global warming – using “dirty” energy leads to catastrophic environmental impacts Inherency: 1.Our country has a huge debt to pay right now 2.The Earth is currently undergoing global warming Plan: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase financial incentives for thorium fuel cycle nuclear power generation Solvency: 1.Evidence from other countries that use Thorium discussing their economy 2.Evidence from scientists that states clean energy is the answer to global warming

ADVANTAGES When the Inherency, Harms, and Solvency are combined into a scenario/story they are known as advantages

ON CASE VS. OFF CASE ARGUMENTS

ON CASE VS. OFF CASE ON CASE Evidence that directly refutes the harms, inherency, plan, or solvency of the aff case Topicality (T) OFF CASE Disadvantage (DA/Disad) Counterplan (CP) Kritik (K) Framework

TOPICALITY (T) Focuses on how the plan relates to the topic (the resolution) The aff will argue that the plan is topical, the negative will argue it is not RESOLVED: The USFG should substantially reduce restrictions on energy production in the United States Topical: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase financial incentives for thorium fuel cycle nuclear power generation Not Topical: The United States Federal Government should mandate that 50% of the Congress be females.

TOPICALITY (T) Organized into four sub-arguments: 1. Interpretation – offering a definition of one or more of the words in the resolution 2. Violation – arguing that the aff case does not fall within the interpretation (definition) 3. Standards – Why the neg’s interpretation should be preferred over any that the aff gives 4. Voters – If the aff’s case is judged as not topical the aff should lose the round

DISADVANTAGE (DA/DISAD) Reasons why the aff’s plan would actually make society worse Arguing for the status quo to stay as it is 3 main parts of a Disad: 1. Uniqueness – describe that there is something good about the status quo (i.e. risk of nuclear war is low now) 2. Links – connects the aff’s plan to the favorable description of the status quo (uniqueness). It shows that the plan causes a change in society that is harmful (i.e. Thorium is a nuclear power and will lead to war) 3. Impact – what terrible disaster will occur if the aff’s plan is put in place (i.e. Nuclear war will lead to the end of life) *Disadvantages won’t matter UNLESS the neg argues and proves that the Disad outweighs the plan’s advantages

COUNTERPLAN (CP) Propose an alternative policy (plan) that would solve for the harms of the aff RUN WITH A DISAD – the CP would solve for the harms of the aff PLUS would avoid the disadvantage = NET BENEFIT OF THE CP 3 parts: 1. Text – communicates what the alternative plan is (i.e. the USFG should increase the use of wind power through financial incentives) 2. Solvency – How the CP solves for the harms of the aff plan (i.e. Economy – US wind farming would increase, Global warming – it’s clean energy) 3. Net Benefit – the reason why the counterplan is better than the plan (i.e. Wind power is not nuclear – no nuclear war!)

KRITIK (K) An argument that challenges the premises/root of the aff’s case Tend to be based on philosophies – feminism, capitalism, etc. They are broader than just if the aff’s plan is good or bad 3 main parts: 1. Alternative – proposes a different method, phrase, or worldview (i.e. We should reject the aff’s plan and embrace an ecofeminist mindset) 2. Link – how this argument connects to the aff’s case (i.e. the aff is using the Earth to gain power in the world) 3. Impact – undesirable effects of voting for the aff (i.e. destruction of the Earth and all feminized others)

FRAMEWORK An argument that tells the judge how to evaluate the round and all arguments discussed (i.e. we must put the act of thinking before doing) Often ran along side Kritiks

QUESTIONS???