1. Introduction to Debate -Affirmative- To access audio: Skype: freeconferencecallhd and enter 511898# Or call 951-262-4343 and enter 511898# © 2009-10 L. Husick, Esq.

2. Policy Debate Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey. Two-person team 4 “constructive” speeches (each with cross-examination period) and 4 “rebuttals” 8-3-5 timing Relies on extensive research, presentation of formal “evidence” and formal theories of argumentation All debaters must argue both sides

3. Round Structure Constructive Speeches (8 min to give a 12 minute speech!) Cross Examination (3 min) Rebuttals (5 min) Preparation Time (5 min per side)

4. Resolution Usually introduced through a brief (15 sec.) introduction setting forth a harm, “and thus, my partner and I stand resolved that…” Must be supported by the AFFIRMATIVE through a CASE that argues for a PLAN Outside District 10, forget that intro and just write the resolution on the board.

5. Vocabulary Affirmative, Aff, 1AC, 2AR Negative, Neg, 1NC, 2NR Evidence: quotation to prove a point Card: Tag, Source, Evidence Spread: to speak very fast Prima facie burden - what the aff must carry to win the round

6. Stock Issues Harms Inherency Solvency Significance Topicality (sometimes not considered stock)

7. How to Remember Significance, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, Solvency = S.H.I.T.S.

8. Harms What’s the Status Quo, and what’s wrong with the Status Quo? May be present problems or unavoidable future problems unless we change things. Who’s being harmed? How? Presented as a series of numbered “contentions” supported by evidence

9. Contention 1 The United States presently has a police presence in South Korea. “35,000 troops remain” Dallas Evening News, October 1, 2010: “as of September 2010, more than 35,000 US troops remain on duty in S. Korea, enforcing the nearly 60 year old UN mandate.” Structure of evidence: Tag, Source, Quote

10. Harms Outline 1. Lots of troops in X. 2. They are expensive. 3. They are not effective to accomplish Y. 4. They do bad things and hurt the US.

11. Inherency What is it about the Status Quo that is keeping the problem (harms) from being solved (mitigated or eliminated)? Types: Structural inherency: Laws or other barriers to solving the problem. Attitudinal inherency: Beliefs or attitudes which prevent solving the problem.

12. Inherency Examples Alternative X has been proposed, but never enacted. Powerful interest X opposes a change. Other important things are keeping X from pushing this change. Other changes in the past have failed, making USFG gunshy.

13. Thus, the PLAN: Usually a brief (1 sentence) statement of what will be done differently, and by whom. “The USFG will, over the course of the next two years, at the discretion of the President, withdraw substantially all forces from S. Korea. We reserve the right to clarify. Any questions, just ask.”

14. Solvency To what degree does the Affirmative’s Plan solve the harms identified? When does it do so? Under what conditions? What are the Advantages of the Plan? (some teams don’t do harms at all, just state advantages after the plan.)

15. Significance How important are the harms/advantages? How big is the problem? Is it getting worse? How much better is the plan than the SQ?

16. Topicality Does the Affirmative Plan fall within the scope of the resolution? The Affirmative case must argue within the bounds of the resolution as defined by appropriate definitions. When the resolution appears vague, the probable intent of the resolution framers is considered and upheld. definitions Usually addressed in 2AC, as this is an “off-case” attack by the 1NC

17. Neg T Attack Definition (which term in the resolution has the aff team violated?) Violation Standards (why is neg’s def. better?) Voters (Why the judge should vote on topicality in the round.)

18. Aff T Response 1. We Meet - “no, we don’t violate your standard and here’s why.” 2. Counter-interpretation - refuting the interpretation and standards. Present your counter-interpretation, provide your own reasons to prefer (standards), and refutation against the opposing team’s standards. All three steps are crucial. 3. Non-voter - “who cares.” Use this response when the opposing team has failed to provide any valid voters/impacts. 4. Reverse-voter - the neg is so abusive in running T that if we win it, they should be punished with an automatic loss (not very likely!)

19. Fiat Literally, “let it be so” – means that the Affirmative Plan is assumed to be put into effect. Only the actor specified in the resolution may be fiated. (USFG or some agency of USFG) Means that the Negative may not argue about whether the Plan would be enacted, just whether it is a good idea.

20. Burden of Proof The Affirmative must support the resolution over the status quo. The Negative may negate the resolution or merely support the status quo as the better alternative. In a counterplan, the Negative assumes the burden of proof for the CP.

21. Next Sessions 14-OCT-10@8:00-9:00pm - CX Negative Case Structure TBD - L-D TBD - PFD