POLICY DEBATE Cross-Examination (CX)
POLICY DEBATE Purpose of policy debate is to compare policies and decide which is best Affirmative: Supports the resolution Negative: Supports the status quo
AFF & NEG Responsibilities AFF: Defends resolution by giving a plan- specific proposal that fits within framework of resolution; case with reasons why the plan should be enacted (advantages over the status quo) NEG: Explains why AFF plan is not good May make problem worse or cause more problems than it solves Can agree that there is a problem with status quo, but that there is a better way to solve it than AFF’s plan Can argue AFF plan does not fit within framework of resolution
CX Debate Format 8 minutes each constructive speech 3 minutes cross-examination after each constructive 5 minutes each rebuttal 8 minutes prep. time per team
More on CX format The CX is done by the person not doing the next constructive AFF speaks first and last; to balance this out, NEG gets Negative block
Five Stock Issues Topicality- AFF must meet each term in resolution; plan has to fit within framework Harms- AFF shows status quo as bad Inherency- cause of problem cited by AFF (why status quo can’t solve); barrier that prevents present policies from reducing harms Solvency- AFF plan resolves significant part of harm Advantages- AFF has to produce advantages to solve harms; NEG argues adoption of AFF plan creates more problems that outweigh any advantage it offers
Counterplan Basics Compete against AFF policy Parts: Text- explanation of what it does; just like AFF plan Competition- explanation of why counterplan should be preferred over the plan Solvency- explanation of how the counterplan fixes the affirmative problem Net benefits- reasons why the counterplan is better than the plan