1. Beginning Policy Debate: I ain’t scared ! NSDA Nationals 2014 Jane Boyd Grapevine HS, TEXAS

2. CBS NEWS

3. Policy debate is about the need for change. Policy for change vs. the status quo Oldest debate event Teams of two Year-long topic Very evidence-based Refutation and clash of opponents NUTS AND BOLTS OF POLICY DEBATE

4. Yearly topic – voted on by the national community  A statement of why the federal government ought to address a pressing national problem.  Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China.  A particular debate is usually a subset of the topic Resolution

5. Two students propose a specific plan to enact the resolution and the two opponents argue that the plan is a bad idea.  Specific plans could be: *respecting human rights *space cooperation *Military *South China Sea *Energy and Resources *Trade RESOLUTION

6.   Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China..  Agent/Actor: The United States federal government  Direction: increase  Policy directive or means:  Economic and/or Diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China  Limitations: “substantially” “its”  “People’s Republic of China.” BREAKING DOWN THE RESOLUTION

7.  A team of two is Affirmative – advocate a plan that supports the resolution  A team of two is Negative – supports the status quo  Lasts for about ninety minutes  Each debater gives two speeches and participates in two questioning periods. WHAT DOES A DEBATE LOOK LIKE?

8.  The Affirmative plan is the focus of policy debates.  --Most plans just present a basic mandate of the plan in 1-2 sentences. However, an Aff must be able to defend all aspects of the plan.  --Parts of the plan include:  --Mandates—the policy proposed by the Aff  --Administration—an agency or administrative procedures that will oversee the implementation and functioning of the mandates  --Funding—explains where any money necessary for the plan will come from  --Enforcement—explains how violations of the plan will be dealt with THE PLAN

9. All debaters give 2 speeches – a constructive (8 mins) and a rebuttal (5 mins)   Constructive – the first 4 speeches. Debaters initiate the key arguments that they plan to make.   Rebuttal - the last 4 speeches. Debaters refute points made by the other side and explain how they win the debate. THE SPEECHES

10. 1AC (first affirmative constructive)—8 min  1A stays standing, CX by 2N—3 min  1NC (first negative constructive)—8 min   1N stays standing, CX by 1A—3 min  2AC (second affirmative constructive)—8 min   2A stays standing, CX by 1N—3 min  2NC (second negative constructive)—8 min   2N stays standing, CX by 2A—3 min  1NR (first negative rebuttal)—5 min  1AR (first affirmative rebuttal)—5 min  2NR (second negative rebuttal)—5 min  2AR (second affirmative rebuttal)—5 min MAP OF THE ROUND – COLOR- CODED BY SPEAKER

11.  1AC 8 min Establish affirmative advocacy of resolution. Prewritten speech. There is a problem that could be solved (significance, harms). The status quo is not going to solve this problem (inherency). Give a specific proposal of what ought to be done (plan). Show that the plan will solve the problem (solvency).  CX 3 min 2N Cross-examines 1A. Ask questions to clarify their arguments. Ask questions to set up our arguments to come. Be polite.  1NC 8 min Attacks affirmative and begins laying out additional issues. Make arguments against the specifics of the case (case arguments). Argue that if the plan is adopted bad things will happen (disadvantages). Argue that the fundamental assumptions of the affirmative team are flawed (critique). Argue that the plan is not a representation of the topic (topicality). Argue that there would be a better alternative to the plan (counterplan).  CX 3 min 1A cross-examines 1N.  2AC 8 min Defend affirmative positions, attack negative positions, last chance to introduce new issues for the affirmative. Argue that the disadvantages are really reasons to vote affirmative. (turns) Argue that the counterplan and the affirmative plan can co-exist (permutation).  CX 3min. First negative cross-examines second affirmative.  2NC 8 min Attack affirmative positions; defend negative positions. Last chance to introduce new issues for the negative. 2NC and 1NR should cover different issues (division of labor).  CX 3 min 2A cross-examines 2N.  1NR 4 min Attack affirmative positions. Defend negative positions  1AR 4 min Answer all negative issues. Defend all positions.  2NR 5 min Weight the issues.  2AR 5 min Weight the issues. Speaker responsibilities

12. One of the KEY skills to winning debates  Note-taking in debate – should resemble a grid  Winning in debate is about refutation – you have to know prior arguments – you cannot win if you don’t flow!  FLOWING

13. X One piece of paper for each major arg.  Pre-marked columns for each speech  Everyone flows every speech  Abbreviate. NO LONG HAND SENTENCES EVER!  Flow negative block in one column  Flow in pen sample abbreviationssample abbreviations: http://atlantadebate.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/AUDL-2k8-Policy-Debate- Manual-ver-1.1.pdf http://atlantadebate.org/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/AUDL-2k8-Policy-Debate- Manual-ver-1.1.pdf TIPS FOR EFFECTIVE FLOWING

14. To win, the Aff must win that the plan is a better option than the status quo  The first speech will present the plan and an Affirmative case that outlines the problems and how the plan solves them. Traditional 1AC Sample outline:  1. Inherency  2. Harms  3. Plan  4. Solvency  5. Advantages AFFIRMATIVE BASIC BURDENS

15. Topicality – does the Aff plan fit under the resolution? Harms – does the Aff prove that there are problems in the status quo? Inherency – Is the Aff plan being done in the Status Quo? The plan must be a change. Significance – does the Aff prove that their harms are significant? Solvency – does the Affirmative plan solve for the harms the case outlines? THE 5 BURDENS OF THE AFF CASE – STOCK ISSUES

16. Topicality -—claims the aff violates one or more terms of the resolution  Disadvantage—claims that the affirmative plan will cause bad consequences to happen  Counterplan—provides a competitive alternative to the affirmative plan  Kritik (or Critique)—attacks the philosophical assumptions of the affirmative case  Solvency—claims that the plan cannot solve for the advantages claimed  Straight Refutation—line-by-line attack on case KEY NEGATIVE ARGUMENTATIVE WEAPONS

17. 1NC can present a topicality argument   All-or-nothing for the Aff   Topicality is all about setting predictable limits   1NC argument will include a definition of term, why the Affirmative violates it, and why their term should be preferred TOPICALITY topical

18. A. Interpretation (definition of a word in the resolution) B. Violation (short explanation of why the plan does not meet the interpretation) C. Voting issue  1) Reasons it is fair for the affirmative (explain why the affirmative team still gets predictable ground)  2) Reasons why it is fair for the negative (explain what core positions the interpretation enables the negative to run and what fringe cases get excluded)  3) Predictable limits are key to a fair and educational debate. WHAT DOES A TOPICALITY ARGUMENT LOOK LIKE?

19. The Neg will argue that undesirable consequences will happen due to the plan. The Neg will argue that the DA has a bigger impacts than the Aff case. Impacts: Magnitude, timeframe, probability DISADVANTAGES

20. Magnitude of impact: Size of the impact! (Often measured in terms of lives saved or lost). Probability of impact: Likelihood of impact. Time frame of impact: When the impact occurs. Risk Calculus= magnitude X probability. IMPACT COMPARISONS

21. Pair up and create the answer using Impact comparison vocab… use one of the new terms in each of your responses:  Why would your Mom be happier to see a friend picking you up in a car than on a motorcycle (knowing that people have died using both types of vehicles)?  Assuming that you had to lose a limb, would you rather lose one tomorrow or in 50 years? Why?  Why don’t you stay awake at night worrying about human extinction as a result of diseases in Africa?  Would you rather trip on the sidewalk or fall off of a 5 story building? PRACTICING IMPACT COMPARISONS

22.  Components of a DA argument:  1 – Uniqueness – the DA must not be occurring in the status quo  2 – Link – how does the argument apply to the Aff plan?  3 – Internal Link – how does the link connect to the impact?  4 – Impact – the “so what?” DISADVANTAGES

23. Counterplans are COMPETITIVE policy options.  Neg may not want to defend the status quo.  The goal of most counterplans is to solve for part or all of the Affirmative case but avoid a Disadvantage.  CPs must be a FORCED CHOICE.  A CP is competitive if it is better than the Affirmative plan AND better than the combination of the Affirmative plan and the CP. (permutation) COUNTERPLANS – WHAT ARE THEY?

24.  A counterplan can compete if it is mutually exclusive – you can’t do both the Aff plan and the CP at the same time. COUNTERPLAN COMPETITION *A CP can compete if it is net-beneficial – you don’t want to do the Affirmative plan and the CP at the same time. There is typically a DA to the Aff plan in this world that does not link to the CP.

25.  An advanced negative strategy based on a type of philosophical thought originated by German philosophers.  Kritiks attack the philosophical assumptions of the aff case and usually argue that we need to rethink our approach to specific ideas, language, or actions  A kritik asks the judge to change the way he/she views the round. The negative will argue that is the only true impact that can occur from the debate. KRITIKS

26.  A.LINK – there is some assumption, action, or language choice that the Aff advances that is objectionable.  B.Implication – this is the “impact” or the “so what?” to the Kritik – why is the action taken by the Aff objectionable?  CAlternative – how should we (both as competitors in the round and as a global society) act or think in order to avoid the implications of the kritik – typically, the negative calls on the judge to embrace a different mindset. What does a Kritik look like?

27.  Google docs, word, verbatim Paperless Debate

28. NSDA website – http://www.speechanddebate.org/http://www.speechanddebate.org/ National Debate Coaches Association website – lesson plans, Open Evidence project – http://www.debatecoaches.org National Federation of High Schools http://www.nfhs.orghttp://www.nfhs.org Debate Central: http://debate-central.ncpa.org/http://debate-central.ncpa.org/ China focus: http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/ http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/18902.htm Google camp videos for lectures, practice debates, etc. Useful links