1. Introduction to Debate

2. Debate
The definition of a debate is a regulated discussion of a proposition by two matched sides. It provides reasoned arguments for and against a given proposition.

3. What can debate do for you? It will improve your…
Leadership skills
Investigation and analysis
Critical thinking skills
Open-mindedness
Thinking on your feet
Speaking skills
Organization
Critical listening skills
Self-confidence
Teamwork and cooperation
Fun

4. There are two main types of teams in a debate
Affirmative team
Negative team

5. Affirmative Team
Argues that a change should be made in the present system
Case formats
The Need-Plan Case
Basically says “there is a problem, and here is the solution”
The Comparative Advantage Case
Argues that there is a problem and the present system may be trying to solve the problem, but that the affirmative plan can solve the problem better than the present system can.
It focuses on comparing the affirmative plan to the solutions of the present system.

6. Negative Team
Defends the present system and says any minor problems can be solved without major change.

7. Proposition
A proposition is a statement that is open to interpretation. It is a statement about which reasonable people may accept arguments on either side.
Policy debate proposition involves resolutions that urge taking acting. Almost always include the words “should” or “ought to.” Emphasizes objective arguments backed by evidence.
Value debate proposition involves resolutions that have to do with evaluating ideas or actions. Based largely on subjective reasoning and persuasion. Emphasis is on analysis and persuasion, rather than on evidence.
Propositions must possess certain characteristics:
Significance
Controversy
Single idea
Debatability
Durability

8. 1. Significance Should affect a large number of people
For example, the problem of how to provide jobs for all employable US citizens would be the basis for a significant proposition because the problem affects most Americans.
Inflation, access to medical care, toxic wastes, pollution, national defense, and world hunger are all significant problem areas and would be good candidates for debate propositions.

9. 2. Controversy There must be a difference of opinion
For example, the proposition “RESOLVED: That the Constitution provides for a separate church and state” is not controversial. It is a fact and can be verified. However, the proposition, “RESOLVED: That President John F. Kennedy was killed by a single assassin” is open to a great deal of controversy.

10. 3. Single Idea Only one topic/idea should be expressed
For example, “RESOLVED: That the United States should become energy independent and work to purify the air and water” presents two subjects for argument. Trying to debate both would lead to poorly developed arguments and a great deal of confusion.

11. 4. Debatability
Propositions should be stated as impartially and unemotionally as possible. Emotional language can give the affirmative or the negative and unfair advantage.
For example, “RESOLVED: That rehabilitation programs should be established for hardened, dangerous criminals” is stated with a slant to the negative. The wording implies that rehabilitation would be difficult, if not impossible.
Propositions should be worded so that they favor neither the affirmative nor the negative.
For example, “RESOLVED: That all US citizens have a right to clean drinking water” places a heavy burden on the negative. It is not a reasonable negative position to argue that people do not have a right to clean drinking water. A more debatable proposition would be “RESOLVED: That the federal government should establish a comprehensive national policy to protect the quality of drinking water in the US.” This wording provides a better balance of issues and arguments for the affirmative and the negative.

12. 5. Durability The problem needs to exist throughout the debate season.
For example, the proposition “RESOLVED: That students should be allowed to leave campus during their free class periods” would be risky if the school administration is already considering adopting such a proposal. The affirmative would have little to debate if the proposal actually went into effect during the debate season.
A proposition should be timely, but its adoption in the immediate future should be unlikely.

13. Proposition/Resolution
Sometimes a proposition is also called a resolution.
National debate teams have a yearly topic that is covered.
For example: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its domestic surveillance.
In every debate, two students propose a specific plan to enact the resolution and their two opponents argue that their plan is a bad idea.
Can you brainstorm a list of possible surveillance programs that could be decreased?

14. Problem Area
General question of some concern to a community or group of people (pollution, poverty, medical care, etc.)
All problem areas are too vague, so they must be turned into a proposition.
For example, in the area of medical care, you might start with the question: “Should adequate medical care be guaranteed?” But this is still fairly broad. Who should get the medical care? At what cost? What type of care should be provided? A must more specific question would be “Should medical care for major illnesses be provided for everyone?” This question is much more focused and could be debated. Put in the form of a debate proposition, it would read: “RESOLVED: That the federal government should guarantee medical care for those with catastrophic illnesses.”

15. Presumption
Means that the policy now in effect should remain in effect.
Presumption usually favors the Negative.

16. Burden of Proof Sufficient reason for adopting the proposition.
It always rests with the Affirmative team.

17. Prima Facie French term meaning “on face value” or “at first sight”
The Affirmative in debate must present a case that is complete “at first sight”
Debate operates under the assumption that the affirmative can overcome presumption and thus meet the burden of proof only by presenting a prima facie case.
The Affirmative must do more than state a justification, describe a plan, and list its advantages. The affirmative must support each of these issues with enough evidence and analysis to make a case both qualitatively and quantitatively. The case must be established strongly enough in the mind of the judge to justify a favorable decision. It must be strong enough to stand alone until it is weakened or refuted by the negative.
In debate, a prima facie case is the minimal argument required to support the proposition without refutation.
Unless the affirmative team establishes a prima facie case, it cannot win a debate.

18. Refutation Attacking and destroying the arguments.
The Negative refutes the affirmative in 3 general areas:
May want to deny any harm exists. The affirmative harm is an undesirable impact caused by the present system.
Challenge affirmative’s inherency, or justification for change, by claiming their proposition won’t solve the harm.
Attack the affirmative’s plan by saying it could be circumvented by outside factors or internal flaws. Claiming disadvantages will outweigh the advantages by the affirmative plan.
The Negative needs to win only ONE argument (harm, inherency, or disadvantages) to win the debate.

19. Types of Debate Formats
Standard Debate
Cross-Examination Debate
Lincoln-Douglas Debate

20. Standard Debate Two members on each team Has two types of speeches:
Constructive speech: 8-10 minutes to present each team’s major points
Rebuttal speech: 4-5 minutes used to refute or extend major arguments that were raised in the constructive speeches.
Format:
First affirmative constructive speech – 7 minutes
First negative constructive speech – 7 minutes
Second affirmative constructive speech – 7 minutes
Second negative constructive speech – 7 minutes
First negative rebuttal – 4 minutes
First affirmative rebuttal – 4 minutes
Second negative rebuttal – 4 minutes
Second affirmative rebuttal – 4 minutes
Altered to fit within the class period
(44 minutes total)

21. Cross-Examination Debate
Two members on each team
Similar to Standard Debate with the addition of question periods after each constructive speech. The question periods provide an opportunity for direct confrontation between opposing members of the two teams.
Format:
First affirmative constructive – 6 minutes
Negative cross-examination of first affirmative – 2 minutes
First negative constructive – 6 minutes
Affirmative cross-examination of first negative – 2 minutes
Second affirmative constructive – 6 minutes
Negative cross-examination of second affirmative – 2 minutes
Second negative constructive – 6 minutes
Affirmative cross-examination of second negative – 2 minutes
First negative rebuttal – 3 minutes
First affirmative rebuttal – 3 minutes
Second negative rebuttal – 3 minutes
Second affirmative rebuttal – 3 minutes
Speaking time is altered to fit our class period.
(44 minutes total)

22. Lincoln-Douglas Debate
Only two participants (one on each side)
A value proposition is used instead of a policy proposition.
Debate values and attitudes rather than policies and actions.
Time is allocated differently but is equal for both teams
Format:
Affirmative constructive – 4 minutes
Negative cross-examination of affirmative – 2 minutes
Negative constructive – 5 minutes
Affirmative cross-examination of negative – 2 minutes
Affirmative rebuttal – 3 minutes
Negative rebuttal – 4 minutes
Affirmative rebuttal – 2 minutes
Speaking time is altered to fit our class period. We will fit two debates in per day. (22 minutes total)

23. Speaker Responsibilities

24. Affirmative vs. Negative
The Aff’s job? To prove that their proposal is a good idea.
The Neg’s job? To prove that the affirmative proposal is either a bad idea or does not fit under the resolution.
The judge votes for whichever team does a better job of proving their point.

25. First Affirmative Constructive Speech
Usually all-inclusive. It includes contentions, plan, and advantages. Thus, all of the affirmative reasons for change are set out at the beginning of the debate. This leads to better development of arguments, clearer definitions of issues, and a great opportunity for both teams to analyze and extend arguments.
Strategy: to present the strongest possible case for the proposition and to leave the affirmative in a strong offensive position.
Duties:
Give a brief, pleasant introduction that capsulizes the affirmative’s approach
Give a statement of the resolution (proposition)
Define the key terms of the resolution (proposition)
Present the affirmative’s justification for a change. List needs and harms if applicable.
Present the affirmative’s plan (proposed solution to the problem presented)
Present the advantages of the affirmative’s plan
Give a brief summary of the affirmative’s case

26. First Affirmative Constructive Speech
Outline for the first affirmative constructive speech:
Introduction
Statement of the resolution
Definition of terms
Inherency
Significance (harms)
Presentation of the plan
Advantages of the plan and how it will solve the problems outlined

27. First Negative Constructive Speech
Is in direct response to the first affirmative constructive speech. Here the negative must decide if it agrees with the affirmative definition of terms and choice of topic area. The negative must decide at this juncture what its position as a team will be against the affirmative case.
Strategy: to maintain the validity of the present system, to take the offensive away from the affirmative, and to expand the debate beyond the arguments presented in the first affirmative constructive speech.
Duties:
Give a brief introduction and explanation of the negative’s philosophy in the debate.
Provide the negative’s organization for analyzing the affirmative’s arguments.
Challenge the affirmative’s definition of terms. This usually requires both explanation and evidence. However, when need be it can be done with explanation alone.
Challenge the affirmative’s topicality. This is a challenge of the specific affirmative case area.
For example, an affirmative team that argues for educating school children about AIDS and its causes on the topic “RESOLVED: That the federal government should establish minimum educational standards for schools in the US” may be challenged on topicality. Does educating out children about AIDS fall within the scope of such resolution?
Defend the present system by summarizing its aims and effectiveness in meeting its goals.
Argue that the affirmative team has not presented an adequate justification for changing the present system.
Give a brief summary of the negative’s position in the debate.

28. First Negative Constructive Speech
Outline for the first negative constructive speech:
Introduction and statement of the negative philosophy. It should state the negative position with regard to the particular affirmative case being run in the round and should constitute a negative constructive argument that can be an issue later in the debate.
Definition of terms. If the negative is going to disagree with the affirmative’s definitions, this is the time and place for it. The disagreement should be developed as an argument. There should be counter evidence or authorities to support the negative position. How the definition affects the affirmative case should be shown.
Topicality. If the negative is going to challenge the affirmative’s topicality, this is the time and place for the argument. Care should be taken to explain carefully why the affirmative case does not fall within the bounds of the resolution.
Each refutation should be structured. The following format will serve for each point:
State the affirmative point to be refuted. Use the affirmative’s labels.
State your position relative to the affirmative contention.
Present evidence for the negative point
Explain the impact on the affirmative case. What damage does your point do to the affirmative case?
Restate your position
A restatement of the negative philosophy or a summary of the negative impact on the affirmative case overall can make a strong appeal for the negative position.

29. Second Affirmative Constructive Speech
Has three primary purposes: to reestablish the affirmative position in the debate, to refute the major arguments presented by the first negative speaker, and the extend affirmative arguments and present any remaining constructive materials for the affirmative.
Strategy: to uphold the affirmative’s burden of proof, to remain on the offensive, and to narrow the range of arguments.
Duties:
Give a brief introduction
Prove that the affirmative case justifies the topic by reestablishing the affirmative definition of terms and topicality, if challenged.
Reestablish the affirmative justification for change
Prove that the harm exists, is significant, and is likely to grow worse in the future if nothing is done.
Demonstrate that the harm is caused by the present system or that the advantages are unique to the affirmative plan.
Review affirmative arguments that have not been attacked up to this point.
Provide a brief summary
The second affirmative constructive speaker should be ready to refute anything the first negative brings up. The second affirmative may also present additional advantages. However, this should not be done at the expense of an adequate case defense.

30. Second Affirmative Constructive Speech
Outline for the second affirmative constructive speech:
Introduction that overviews the debate thus far, showing the relationship between the affirmative case and the negative philosophy.
Defense of the definition of terms and topicality, if necessary
Reestablishment of the affirmative inherency (harm or advantage and its significance)
Attack on the negative philosophy or negative arguments defending the present system
Presentation of additional advantages of necessary
Summary that emphasizes arguments dropped by the negative and arguments being carried by the affirmative.

31. Second Negative Constructive Speech
The primary purpose of the second negative constructive is to deal with three issues: plan workability, plan solvency (the issue of whether the affirmative plan will really solve the problem), and plan disadvantages.
Strategy: to outline plan workability and solvency problems and disadvantages to adopting the affirmative plan.
Duties:
Give and introduction that outlines what the second negative speaker will cover in this speech. This is important because the structure of this speech departs from the affirmative case structure.
Show why the affirmative’s proposal is unworkable or impractical. This might involve three or four separate and numbered arguments.
Show why the affirmative’s plan will not solve the problems of the present system outlined by the affirmative on case (the justification for change.)
Detail disadvantages of the affirmative’s plan. This might involve as many as five or six specific harmful side effects of the plan, but it is better to have tow or three well-developed disadvantages than six poorly developed ones. Disadvantages must have supporting evidence.
Give a very brief conclusion. This may involve contrasting the advantages offered by the affirmative with the disadvantages and demonstrating that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

32. Second Negative Constructive Speech
Outline for Second Negative Constructive
Introduction that reviews the negative philosophy and outlines contentions of this speech
New case arguments (only if the second affirmative constructive has created the need to present new arguments on definitions or topicality)
Workability—attacks on specific elements of the affirmative plan
Solvency—demonstrations that the affirmative’s plan is incapable of meeting the need or achieving the advantages claimed
Disadvantages

33. First Negative Rebuttal
This is the first rebuttal speech.
It is delivered right after the second negative constructive and forms part of the negative block.
The first negative rebuttalist should refute, extend, and develop the case arguments that were first introduced by the affirmative constructive speaker.
Duties:
Define terms, if necessary. If the affirmative has adequately defended its definition, drop this argument. If not, explain why the affirmative definitions still are not acceptable.
Refute any second affirmative constructive arguments about topicality, if the negative still feels that the affirmative case is not topical. Extend the negative explanation of why the affirmative case is not topical.
Return to the rest of the arguments in the first negative constructive, refuting the affirmatives objections. Because time may not allow the first negative rebuttalist to return to every point, only the most important points should be developed.
Attack again the affirmative’s justification for change.
Summarize the negative block (second negative constructive and first negative rebuttal)

34. First Affirmative Rebuttal
This is one of the most difficult speeches in the debate, because in only 4 minutes, the first affirmative rebuttalist must respond to two negative speeches—up to 12 minutes of uninterrupted negative arguments (which is a lot of ground to cover!).
Strategy: to ensure the affirmative has met the burden of proof, to validate the affirmative plan, and to narrow the debate, both on case and on plan.
Duties:
Refute the negative’s plan objections. Try to consolidate as many arguments as possible. Point out fallacies in reasoning, as well as missing links in arguments. When possible, try to show how the negative’s disadvantages are really affirmative advantages.
Return to the affirmative’s case to rebuild it at major points of attack. Attempt to narrow the debate by focusing on a few issues.
Consolidate (group together) as many first negative rebuttal arguments as possible, and refute them
Briefly summarize the strengths of the affirmative’s case

35. Second Negative Rebuttal
This is the negative’s last chance to speak in the debate, so the speaker should carefully choose which arguments to extend.
The first and second negative must work together to decide what the voting issues (the reasons to vote either affirmative or negative) are.
Strategy: identify the case arguments the negative views as voting issues, and to demonstrate that the significance of the disadvantages outweighs the advantages or the solvency of the affirmative harm.
Duties:
Give a brief introduction and a road map of the direction of the speech
Briefly reestablish topicality and definition-of-terms challenges, if still applicable.
Reestablish key case arguments as voting issues and extend them.
Review plan objections and disadvantages, refuting the affirmative’s responses and pointing to the issues the affirmative neglected to discuss.
Summarize the negative position, calling for the rejection of the proposition.

36. Second Affirmative Rebuttal
This speech concludes all the arguments in the round.
Like any other rebuttal, the second affirmative rebuttal should not contain new arguments or lines of reasoning.
Strategy: to put the debate in perspective and thus continue to advance the affirmative’s basic strategies.
Duties:
Give a brief introduction and provide a road map of the speech
Extend answers to plan objections, taking special care to refute major disadvantages and to point out those that were dropped by the second negative rebuttalist
Center the speech on the three or four major arguments on which the affirmative’s case depends. If these are different from those identified by the negative, explain why.
Review the basic affirmative analysis and call for the acceptance of the proposition.

37. Debate Briefs
A page of arguments and evidence that can be read as needed in a debate round. A brief is not a prepared speech—the arguments are not completely written out. Debate briefs must be flexible, because you must respond to arguments being made in a specific round.
Each brief centers around a single argument to make it easy to organize your evidence.
Briefs must be precise and clear, flexible, timely, and compatible.

38. Flowsheeting The best way to take notes during a debate.
Debaters take extensive notes during speeches. This is called flowing. Taking careful notes is absolutely essential because you can’t prepare your entire debate prior to the debate.

39. Symbols and Abbreviations
Adv: advantage
Bec: because
2NC: second negative constructive
Circ: circumvention
: causes
1NR: first negative rebuttal
CP: counterplan
w/o: without
I: Impact
W: with
1AR: first affirmative rebuttal
Inh: Inherency
AFF: affirmative
PS: present system
NEG: negative
2NR: second negative rebuttal
T: topicality
1AC: first affirmative constructive
2AR: second affirmative rebuttal
$: money
1NC: first negative constructive
Sig: significance
XX: dropped argument
2AC: second affirmative constructive
???: unclear

40. Flowsheeting
Let’s all make sample flows. Fold your paper the long way 3 times so that you end up with 8 columns. Label each column with the names of the speeches in order.
This is what you will be using for the first debate, which is a standard debate.