1. Introduction to CX Debate: Part I
Stefanie Rodarte-Suto
Canyon High School

2. Why is debate important?
Increased test scores and grades
Teaches students:
Research skills
Logic & Reasoning
Public speaking
Professional presentation
Social, political, economic realities
Engagement
There are always multiple ways to view any topic
Think on their feet
Gives students a place to fit
There are many reasons to debate. The greatest reason is the benefits that debate offers. – Debate is linked to increase in SAT & ACT scores due to the vocabulary used. – Debate increases a person’s notetaking ability, which usually translates into improved grades . – Debate teaches research skills, logic, reasoning, public speaking abilities, and future career options. – Over 50% of the members of Congress and a majority of today’s lawyers were high school debaters.

3. Also Know As…
Policy Debate: US policy at home and abroad is the central issue of the topic/resolution. Debaters role play by acting as a policy maker, playing out possible scenarios. Evidence driven
CX Debate: Cross-Examination Debate
Team Debate: Two members constitute a team; Two teams of Two constitute a debate

4. The Game
“At the beginning, though, it is important to understand that, whatever else debate is, it is a game. It has teams, points, winners, losers, tournaments, and trophies. Like many games, it is not always fair (even though we try hard to make it fair). Most importantly, debate is supposed to be fun.” - Dr. Joe Bellon, Director of Debate Georgia State University 2006
Just like any game, there are rules and a basic structure to learn and understand.

5. Rules of the Game

6. Topic
Resolution
Topic to be debated- Selected each year by a national vote
Debated across the US throughout the academic year
Wording is important: Each word has meaning (Topicality) Providing boundaries for each team
Resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales of arms from the United States.

7. Positions Negative Ground AFFIRMATIVE Ground
Resolved:
The United States federal government
should substantially reduce
Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales
of arms
from the United States.
AFFIRMATIVE
Ground
Positions
Affirmative: Uphold the resolution by affirming and defending the topic. Advocate for change.
Negative: Negates/opposes the resolution, preferring the Status Quo
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales of arms from the United States.

8. Time Structure (8-3-5) Constructives Rebuttals Debate vs. Argue
8 min. 1st Affirmative Constructive (1AC)
3 min. CX by 2nd Negative
8 min. 1st Negative Constructive (1NC)
3 min. CX by 1st Affirmative
8 min. 2nd Affirmative Constructive (2AC)
3 min. CX by 1st Negative
8 min. 2nd Negative Constructive (2NC)
3 min. CX by 2nd Affirmative
Rebuttals
5 min. 1st Negative Rebuttal (1NR)
5 min. 1st Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR)
5 min. 2nd Negative Rebuttal (2NR)
5 min. 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR)
*8 minutes of prep time for each team
Debate vs. Argue
Structured format (Time allotment and Speech type) to allow for fair argumentation

9. Terms Resolution: the topic to be debated.
Constructives: the first four speeches in a round. Evidence is presented to build the basis for your case and establish clash.
Rebuttals: the last four speeches in a round relying heavily on analysis.
Focus the round on most important issues. Why do you win?
New evidence is OK but NOT new arguments.
Negative Block: 13 minute block of Negative speaking time (2NC & 1NR)
Prep Time: 8 minutes per team given in round for the team to prepare responses to their opponents arguments.
CX Time: 3 minute time period after each constructive speech in which a team asks question of the person who just spoke.

10. More Terms
Framework: the way that the debaters are asking the judge to view the round.
Paradigm: the way the judge will adjudicate the round. Judging preference.
Offense: arguments given by debaters that provide a reason for you to support a vote for them or their side
Defense: arguments given by debaters that negate arguments by the other team (only a mitigator)
Status quo: current system- Affirmative advocates change; Negative typically defends SQ.
Stock Issues: core issues in a debate round. Affirmative responsibility.
Clash: responding directly to your opponents arguments.
Flowing: taking notes in a structured fashion in a debate round.
Stock Issues: are the basic yet essential questions that must be answered by any affirmative team who is attempting to change the status quo.

11. Status quo is presumed to be sufficient ‘as is’
Argument Basics
Status quo and presumption
Status quo is presumed to be sufficient ‘as is’
Affirmative responsibility:
“Burden of proof” lies with the Affirmative. They must show why status quo policies are insufficient to solve a particular harm, thus overcoming presumption.
Negative responsibility:
Clash with affirmative propositions, showing why the status quo is preferable to change (doing so meets the negative “burden of rejoinder”)Presumption lies with the negative.
Purpose of the debate: win each contention of clash

12. Stock Issues
1AC: Affirmative team will present a structured case with a plan text to include all stock issues.
Stock Issues are how the affirmative meets the burden of proof; together, the stock issues are:
Harms (H): Evidence demonstrating the problems within the status quo.
Inherency (I): Evidence demonstrating barriers exist within the SQ making the current system unable to resolve the problem.
Attitudinal, Structural, Existential
Topicality (T): Affirmative case must *reasonably* fall under the terms of the resolution.
Significance (S): Evidence demonstrating the harms create BIG, BAD issues that justify a change to the SQ. (Often included with the harms. Impact of the harms.)
Solvency (S): Evidence demonstrating that the Affirmative plan will overcome the inherent barrier to solve for the significance and harms.
(1AC) speech is the easiest one in the debate. As the Affirmative team, you get to define the specific issues that will be discussed � that�s an advantage that the Negative team lacks. More importantly, you can map out the 1AC speech in detail before the debate even begins.
Harms can describe specific drawbacks of the status quo (political, economic, military, social and humanitarian concerns) or the systemic issues underlying those harms (racism, sexism, militarism, capitalism, etc.).
Structural Inherency (often called “legislative”) refers to a specific law or policy that exists in the status quo and prevents a change from occurring. This is the most easily defended form of inherency since the affirmative can simply remove the roadblock.
Existential Inherency (often called “gap”) refers to the absence of a law or policy that would achieve the affirmative solvency. This type of inherency is defended by arguing that solvency is obtained by adding a new component to the government’s current policies.
Attitudinal Inherency refers to an attitude that exists preventing the plan from going into effect. This is the most difficult form of inherency to argue because it is often vague and difficult to prove in real tangible terms.
Significance: The affirmative team must prove not only that status quo harms exist but also that those harms are important and worthy of adopting a policy to change them.
Prima Facie: At first glance, the Affirmative team appears to be within the topic and they have presented a complete case: HITSS

13. Affirmative Burden Present a Case with all Stock Issues
Prima Facie case: Latin term which means “first glance”; it refers to a case that meets all of the stock issues; a prima facie case overcomes presumption

14. Plan Text
A plan is a written text that demonstrates a step-by-step explanation of how the affirmative will change the Status Quo to achieve solvency for the Impacts they claim.
Typically placed before solvency in the 1AC.
“Plan Planks” can include:
Mandates: are the basic provisions (action steps) of what the plan should accomplish.
Administration: planks define who is to operate the Affirmative plan.
Enforcement: provisions identify the penalty will be for violating any laws proposed by the Affirmative mandates; these planks may also specify what agencies will prosecute cases.
Funding: provision to pay for plan.
Spikes: plan components which serve to avoid a disadvantage that the rest of the plan would otherwise cause.
Intent: "The Affirmative team reserves the right to establish legislative intent based on speeches presented in this round."
Tip: Find the evidence first and then write the plan text.
The plan should be based on the advocacy of a solvency author—This person is generally referred to as a Solvency Advocate; an author that supports the exact action that the affirmative plan takes.
Mandates  They are the reforms that the Affirmative team is proposing; they are the actions that will put the Affirmative resolution into effect. Often the mandates are very complex, with many subpoints and details.
Administration Often, the Affirmative will want to set up a special federal office or governmental agency, and will offer an Administration plank to specify how many people will be elected or appointed, the length of their terms, and so forth. In many cases, the Affirmative is content to rely on a status quo agency; this plank could be omitted.
Enforcement In many cases, it’s sufficient to say "Enforcement will be by civil and criminal penalties."
Funding. Often funding is the most controversial plank of the plan. Not all plans need funding, but most need some source of money to put the mandates into effect. Funding planks are controversial because Negative teams will argue that any means the Affirmative uses to raise money is going to be counterproductive. Of course, Affirmatives are always free to spend money without raising funds elsewhere, thereby increasing the federal debt. But the hazards of such action are known widely, and Negatives will be prepared to crush any Affirmative that deficit-spends. So most Affirmative teams opt to offset their new spending plans with some form of revenue-raising.
Spikes. They are parts of the plan that do not implement the resolution directly, but rather make the rest of the plan function better. While you cannot claim an advantage from a plan spike, it can prevent you from losing the debate to a persistent Negative team. For example, a plan to provide free food for the hungry might lead to dramatic inflation; a plan spike to counter this might impose wage and price controls on the U.S. economy. Instead of merely proving that the Affirmative plan would be inflationary, the Negative would also have to prove that the price controls would be ineffective or undesirable; the Affirmative, of course, would have evidence on hand to show that price controls are just great.
Intent: That phrase, or a close variation of it, is now fairly standard as the final part of every plan.

15. 1AC Formatting: Option 1 Traditional needs (Problem/Solution format)
Contention I. Harms/Significance
Contention II. Inherency
Plan--the affirmative must present a solution for the problem identified
Contention III. Solvency
Contention IV. Advantages
Beyond solving for the BIG, BAD problem(s) identified in Contention I, these are the additional benefits to adopting the Affirmative Plan.

16. 1AC Formatting: Option 2
Comparative advantage (Case formatted to show that adopting the policy would have advantages over the SQ):
Observation 1.
Observation 2.
 Plan--this format states the policy, then explains why it would be advantageous
Advantage 1. The affirmative does something better than the status quo
A. Significance
B. Inherency
C. Solvency
 Advantage 2. The affirmative does something else
Observations are usually general statements about the problem area which are important but do not readily fit into the analysis structured in the advantages. These are optional. Some cases will have one, others may have none.
The comparative advantage format approaches the topic from a slightly different perspective. This organizational approach argues that any (topical) policy that is better than the present system should be adopted. The case is then formatted to show that adopting the policy would have advantages over the present system
While there a subtle variations in the burdens involved in each format, it is important to note that the stock issues must be presented in each in order to be prima facie and overcome presumption.
This format allows the affirmative more flexibility in their analysis and justification of the topic. Most affirmatives will argue that if there is any advantage of the proposed policy over the present system, then it is a superior policy and should be adopted. In other words, when compared with our present system, if the new policy would be advantageous in any way, then it justifies adopting the resolution. An affirmative may present a number of advantages to the plan.
Most cases debated today are hybrids which combine elements of both structural formats. Many begin with an inherency contention, followed by advantages, plan, and a general solvency contention.

17. Affirmative Power Fiat: Latin- ’let it be done’
Affirmative has this implied power to put the plan into effect
Q: What would happen in the round if the Aff didn’t have this power?
(the affirmative doesn’t have to prove that the plan would be adopted, only that it should be done)
Why would this be important to the debate?

18. CX Tools & Resources https://goo.gl/z8owYY
Helpful Resources
CX Tools & Resources
Up Next… Negative argumentation and the progression of the round
Let Me Google That For You
“Senate Health Care Bill”