Policy Debate at a Glance Also called Cross Examination, Cross-X, or CX debate. Plan debate. Evidential debate. One topic per all year. Approx. 1 ½ hour debates. Partner debates. Postings show sides.

Lincoln Douglas Debate at a Glance Also called LD. Value/Criterion debate. Philosophy/Ethics debate. New topic every 2 months. Approx. 45 minute debates. No partners. Postings show sides.

Public Forum Debate at a Glance Also called Po-Fo, PF, or Ted Turner debate. Pro/Con debate. One topic per month during the debate season. Approx. 45 minute debates. Partners. Coin flip for sides.

Lincoln Douglas Debate Please take notes and ask questions.

Resolution Examples. Resolved: Truth seeking ought to take precedence over attorney client privilege in the United States criminal justice system. Resolved: Developing countries should prioritize environmental protection over resource extraction when the two are in conflict. Resolved: Placing political conditions on humanitarian aid to foreign countries is unjust. Resolved: A just society ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased. Resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified. The Aff (Affirmative) has the burden of proving the resolution. The Neg (Negative) has the burden of disproving what the Aff says. You need an Aff and a Neg for every topic.

Structure of a Constructive Case. 1.State resolution. Say that you affirm or negate. Reserve the right to clarify. 2.Framework (FW)/resolutional analysis (RA)/observations/definitions. (Optional) 3.Value 4.Criterion 5.Contentions 6.Thus I affirm/negate

Framework/RA/Observations/Definitions Framework is like setting rules for a round of debate. Define Terms. Clarify the resolution. Encourage a mindset. (Can be a “”) (Analogy) (Simplification) Bring up information that will be important to the debate. Define the burdens of the round. State the role of the ballot or judge in the round. Say that someone needs to prove X to win. If not, they lose. Give the judge something to look for to decide who wins. (Paramount value) (Pragmatism) Lead into a contention. *Always justify your framework!

Standards If you don’t want to accept your opponent’s framework, or if they don’t accept yours, debate it using standards, Especially if your opponent is being abusive by pinning an unfair burden to you. Standards are reasons to prefer one interpretation over another. Some standards include: Brightline Defines ground Education Fairness Literal Logical Predictable Anything else you want.

Values Criterions Something with innate or instrumental value that is good, or at least that you’re prepared to argue is good. Your entire case supports and leads up to your value. Life, justice, societal welfare, education, freedom. Something with instrumental value that you can use to measure your value by. Think of it as a way to achieve your value. Consequentialism, deontology, utilitarianism, cost-benefit analysis, pareto efficiency, veil of ignorance. *Your value and criterion can be anything that you want. They are by no means limited at all to a word or phrase.

Contentions The substance of your case. They support your criterion, and/or value, and/or address the resolution directly. It’s where you lay out your logic, and your evidence, proving our case. No minimum or maximum number of contentions for a case. Probably about 90% of cases however, have 2-4 contentions. A single contention can have multiple subpoints.

Value Criterion Contentions Framework

An LD round 1.AC 6 minute Aff constructive speech. 2.NCX 3 minute CX Neg to Aff. 3.NC&1NR 7 minute Neg constructive and rebuttal. (4-5 minutes to read constructive, and 2-3 minutes to attack Aff recommended) 4.ACX 3 minute CX Aff to Neg. 5.1AR 4 minute Aff rebuttal. 6.2NR 6 minute Neg Rebuttal 7.2AR 3 minute Aff Rebuttal 8.Each debater has 3 minutes of prep time to use between any two speeches. (you can split prep time.) Use it to prepare arguments on your flow and if needed, ask for your opponent’s case. Before the round, ask the judge’s paradigm and other questions about their judging style. Before every speech ask your opponent and judge if they are ready. Remember: 6,3,7,3,4,6,3.

Flowing Flowing is basically note taking during a debate. It helps you address things in order, and not miss any arguments. Use 2 colors of pen. One for what the Aff says, and one for what the Neg says. Use abbreviations and a lot of paraphrasing. Often, you only need their contention or sub point tagline to flow the argument.

Sample Flow (On the whiteboard)

General Argumentation The only way to have a valid conclusion from an argument is to have a valid argument structure, and valid information put into it. If the structure and/or information of an argument is not valid, the conclusion is not guaranted to be true. Fallacies are flaws in argumentation. Formal fallacies are when an arguments structure is bad. Informal fallacies are where the information put into an argument is bad.

Contention Argumentation Tagline: A short phrase saying what your contention or subpoint is about. Warrant: Connects your evidence to your claim. It is often implicit. Evidence/data: The information that you use with your logic to make a claim. Impact (!): A positive or negative impact of affirming or negating the resolution. Claim: The conclusion that comes from your argument. Example mini-contention: Contention 1. Lives. Evidence saying that increased organ donation could save a million lives a year. (Implicit: We must do things that save a million lives.) We must affirm.

Evidence/Cutting Cards Surveillance is key to national security. Dershowitz, 14 (Alan Dershowitz, Harvard University, Debate with Michael Hayden, Alexis Ohanian, and Glenn Greenwald, Toronto, transcript available at The Atlantic, dershowitz/361694/, May 5, 2014.) Our enemies, especially those who target civilians, have one major advantage over us. They are not constrained by morality or legality. We have an advantage over them. In addition to operating under the rule of law, we have developed through hard work and extensive research technological tools that allow us to monitor and prevent their unlawful and lethal actions. Such technological tools helped us break the German and the Japanese code during the Second World War. They helped us defeat fascism. They helped us in the Cold War. And they are helping us now in the hot war against terrorists who would bomb this theater if they had the capacity to do so. You're going to hear again that there are only excuses that are being offered, that terrorism is really not a serious problem, or that American policy is as terroristic as the policy of al-Qaeda. I don't think you're going to accept that argument. Cards need a tagline, citation, and text. Citations must have authors, dates, credentials, article/book/work. The only parts of the citation that you need to read initially are the author and date. You don’t need to give the rest unless your evidence is asked for. Underline, bold, and sometimes, highlight everything you will read.

CX (Cross X)(Cross Examination) After Each constructive speech. The speaker’s opponent gets to ask them questions for 3 minutes. Use CX to: Catch anything that you missed when flowing their speech. Have them clarify anything that they said. Get them to concede key things. Ask questions that will lead into your arguments.

Rebuttals Before every rebuttal give an untimed roadmap. A roadmap helps your judge and opponent keep track of your arguments on their flow. A typical roadmap will say: My roadmap is Aff, Neg or Neg, Aff down the flow. If means that you will address the Aff case, and then the Neg case going in order.(Framework, Value, Criterion, Contentions) If you forget to defend one of your arguments, or attack one of theirs, the point is dropped and conceded. You cannot bring up a dropped point in a later speech. It is unfair because it doesn’t give your opponent sufficient time to address the point.

Common Refutation Tools Always make sure to explain why your claim against their argument applies. Point out that they use a logical fallacy. Use evidence to counter their evidence or argument. Cross apply framework or one of your contentions. Show that your impacts outweigh theirs. Show that their argument is non-topical and irrelevant because it doesn’t apply to the resolution or debate. Point out that they are inconsistent. Show that their value, criterion, or argument actually supports your case. Show that their evidence is faulty, out of date, biased, or untrue. If they say that your side of the resolution would result in something bad, point out possible solvency through other means. Show that their advocacy would lead to something bad. Show that there are alternatives to what they propose that have the same affects but don’t have so many drawbacks. Show that something about their debating or case assumes and promotes something bad. It’s called a Kritik or a K. But don’t worry about them. They are only usually run in varsity Policy. Show that their argument is abusive, a time skew, or a strat skew.

Voters At the end of your last rebuttal speech give and explain your voters. Voters are reasons for the judge to vote for you. Example voters: Values. I’m winning the value debate. Criterions. I’m winning the criterion debate. Impacts. I have greater impacts. Paradigm. I better satisfied the judge paradigm. Fairness. My opponent was unfair. Education. I allowed for a more educational debate. Topicality/relevance. My opponent was non-topical. Consistency. My opponent was inconsistent. Courtesy and ethics. My opponent was rude.