1. POLICY DEBATE Training Tomorrow’s Leaders How to Think Today!

2. WHAT IS A DEBATE? A debate is an organized discussion with rules. Debate has been popular since the days of Greek democracy. It is essential to democracy. All open societies have lively debates about politics, morals, economics, culture and other current issues.

3. WHAT IS POLICY DEBATE? Two, two-person teams argue A policy topic - a statement suggesting a course of action that has two reasonable sides One side – AFFIRMATIVE – argues in favor of the topic The other side – NEGATIVE – argues against the topic

4. THE 2015/2016 POLICY TOPIC RESOLVED: THAT THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD SUBSTANTIALLY CURTAIL ITS DOMESTIC SURVEILLANCE

5. WHAT SHOULD THE AFFIRMATIVE DO? PART ONE The AFF should define/interpret the topic’s terms The AFF should demonstrate significant, quantifiable harms in the present system and that AFF proposal is significantly more advantageous than the PS The AFF should demonstrate that the PS is incapable of fixing the harms

6. WHAT SHOULD THE AFFIRMATIVE DO? PART TWO The AFF should demonstrate that the harms are inherent in topic’s PS policies by – Structural inherency – laws, regulations, court decisions AND/OR – Attitudinal inherency – public opinion, social or political movements, polls, etc.

7. WHAT SHOULD THE AFFIRMATIVE DO? PART THREE The AFF should present a plan that will: – Implement the topic – Overcome the inherent barriers in the PS – Solve for the harms in the PS – Accrue quantifiable, unique advantages over the PS

8. WHAT SHOULD THE AFFIRMATIVE DO? PART FOUR The Affirmative plan should: – Describe the actions to be taken and who will implement them – Explain how the plan will be enforced – Explain how the plan will be funded

9. WHAT SHOULD/COULD THE NEGATIVE DO? PART ONE The NEG should attack the AFF case and plan The NEG could demonstrate that the AFF harm is not significant The NEG could demonstrate the AFF is using flawed evidence and analysis The NEG could demonstrate there are no inherent barriers to the PS solving the harms The NEG could demonstrate that the PS is already working to solve the harms

10. WHAT COULD/SHOULD THE NEGATIVE DO? PART TWO The NEG could argue that the AFF plan: – Won’t solve the problems the AFF cites – Is unworkable or impractical – Is untopical, i.e., does not actually implement the topic fully

11. WHAT COULD/SHOULD THE NEGATIVE DO? PART THREE The NEG could argue the AFF plan has significant disadvantages: – That those DAs outweigh the claimed AFF advantages – That the DAs are worse than the claimed AFF harm – That the DAs are unique to the AFF plan and would not occur in the PS

12. OTHER THINGS THE NEGATIVE COULD DO Propose a counterplan. CPs should: – Be presented in the first negative speech – Be non-topical – Achieve the AFF’s advantages/solve for PS harms without implementing the topic – Describe the actions to be taken, who will take them, how the plan will be funded and enforced

13. EVEN MORE THINGS THE NEGATIVE COULD DO! Argue a critique (kritik) A kritik re-directs the policy focus of the debate from the AFF plan to a focus on the morality of the topic. It is a Lincoln/Douglas debate overlay on policy debate. A kritik asks why, if the AFF plan will never be implemented in the real world, we should discuss it

14. KRITIK TO THE MAX! Kritiks attack the debate’s underlying philosophical, political, moral or economic assumptions and show their harm Harms can be defined in philosophical or moral terms Harm can be demonstrated in psychological terms (dehumanization) or physical terms (mass extinction)

15. HOW IS A KRITIK FORMED? Thesis statement explaining why the topic is problematic and the K’s philosophy Should include criterion for judge to evaluate round Arguments why the NEG’s desire to discuss the K are important

16. MORE KRITIK-Y THINGS A kritik should demonstrate that it links specifically to the AFF and is not generic to the topic A kritik should demonstrate the specific harms caused by the AFF plan A kritik should demonstrate the impact of the AFF plan harms

17. A CAP K EXAMPLE U.S. current economic/social system is capitalistic The AP is a reflection of that capitalistic system Capitalism is evil - it dehumanizes people; treats them as only consumers Capitalism manipulates peoples’ desires and needs, creating an inherently unequal society

18. CAP K CONTINUED Capitalism causes war and other horrible effects – extermination, etc. Promoting capitalism frustrates our efforts to develop more humane socio-economic systems Rejecting the AP allows us to explore more humane ways to develop our society and economy and avoids AP disadvantages

19. SOME AFF RESPONSES TO A KRITIK Explain why discussing a K is inappropriate to the round: – It’s policy debate, not philosophy debate – All arguments are discourse – if the NEG wants to debate, that’s why we have a pre-approved topic – Social contract: we were invited for a policy debate

20. MORE AFF RESPONSES TO A KRITIK The K is not a compelling policy option The K does not apply to the AFF plan The K does not quantify impact of the AFF plan’s DAs The K is poorly constructed, i.e., causal links are unproven If the K’s harms could have happened, they would have

21. EVEN MORE AFF RESPONSES TO A KRITIK The K is untrue The turn - so-called K “harms” are actually advantages (capitalism funds R&D, exploration, the arts, charities, etc.) No NEG solution to capitalism besides arguing it – other systems have serious flaws Any NEG solution to capitalism must be considered a counterplan

22. HOW DOES POLICY DEBATE WORK? Eight speeches – four by each side First four speeches CONSTRUCT each side’s arguments Last four speeches REBUT the opponent’s arguments and CRYSTALLYZE them as voting issues for the judge Each speaker participates in cross-examination

23. POLICY DEBATE FORMAT CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECHES 1 AFF constructive – 8 minutes – 1 AFF cross-ex by 2 NEG – 2 minutes 1 NEG constructive -8 minutes – 1 NEG cross-ex by 1 AFF 2 AFF constructive – 8 minutes – 2 AFF cross-ex by 1 NEG 2 NEG constructive – 8 minutes – 2 NEG cross-ex by 2 AFF

24. REBUTTAL SPEECHES NO NEW ARGUMENTS IN REUBTTALS – NEW EVIDENCE, YES – NOTE NEG BLOCK/AFF HAS LAST WORD 1 NEG rebuttal 1 AFF rebuttal 2 NEG rebuttal 2 AFF rebuttal

25. FLOWING THE DEBATE Just jot! Use/develop shorthand Experiment with styles Use different color ink pens Pace yourself/leave enough room for all arguments Structure/label points

26. JUDGING PHILOSOPHIES – WHO ARE YOU? Stock issues – inherency, topicality, harms, solvency, presumption, significance Policy-maker – compares advantages/ disadvantages of each side Tabla rausa – all about whoever wins the most arguments, no predisposition

27. MORE PHILOSOPHIES Games player – offense vs defense, who wins the most arguments Speaking skills/persuasion Hypothesis tester – what is the best way to deal with this issue – adapt the resolution (vote AFF) or reject it (vote NEG) A blend of some or all of the above!

28. WHY IT’S IMPORTANT – THE BALLOT Helps organize judge’s thoughts Provides a reason for decision Helps debaters and coaches understand reason for decision Educational tool – highlights accomplishments, notes areas for improvement

29. BALLOT TECHNICAL ISSUES Make sure you give speaker points – nothing below 25 unless the speakers were egregious The winning team should have the most points/highest ranks Decide # of points, then work backwards through the boxes to decide how to apportion them Ensure you have right team, right names, points/rank/decision matches

30. OTHER JUDGING CONSIDERATIONS Don’t insert your personal prejudices and beliefs – it’s the debaters’ show Listen carefully, take notes and write down a few reasons for your decision – debaters need to see what judges think of their work Be patient – this is a new activity for you and for many of the debaters, too Let debaters know you’re new to debate

31. FINAL JUDGING CONSIDERATIONS Keep the round courteous and ethical! Make sure the room is returned to its previous state Make sure to take the decision part of the ballot back to the tab room ASAP If you have time and they want it, critique the debaters, but DO NOT reveal your decision

32. WAS THIS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE? If so, shouldn’t we all get credit? Debaters should get at least one credit for debate if they meet certain requirements – attending practices, doing homework, attending tournaments Support debaters’ rights to academic credits – contact your school board representative to let him/her know why debate is important!