Welcome to Introduction to Policy Debate

Blue Book Curriculum: Stoa Edition, Assignment #1

Due: Week 2

Name: ______Date:______

Read Blue Book Chapter 1-3. Answer the following questions in the space provided.

1. Which speaker did you think you would be (both Aff and Neg)? After reading Chapter 2, did your opinion change at all?

2. Match the following duties with one of the following speakers: 1A, 2A, 1N, 2N.

____ a) Deliver the Affirmative Case

____ b) Answer the 1A's cross-examination.

____ c) Cross-examine the 2NC.

____ d) Cross-examine the 2AC.

____ e) Deliver the 2nd Affirmative Constructive.

____ f) Answer the first CX from the Negative Team

____ g) Deliver the 1st Negative Constructive.

____ h) Deliver the 2nd Negative Rebuttal.

____ j) Deliver the 1st Affirmative Rebuttal.

____ k) Deliver the 2nd Negative Constructive.

____ l) Deliver the 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal.

____ m) Deliver the 1st Negative Rebuttal.

____ n) Cross-examine the 1AC.

____ o) Prepare CX questions for he first Negative speaker

____ p) Answer the second cross-examination from the affirmative team.

3. Why does the Affirmative team get the first and last word in the debate round?

4. What is the "negative block"? How are negative teams supposed to divide the labor between the 2NC and 1NR?

1A or 2A:

1N or 2N:

ACTIVITY: Take the time to register for Google News Alerts. This is an easy way for you to be notified of current events that happen surrounding foreign military presence and/or commitments. Follow these steps:

a) Make sure you are logged into their Google account. b) Go to http://www.google.com/alerts. c) Type in search terms that are appropriate to the year’s topic. d) Select the criterion you would like to receive email notifications.

In the space below, list the search terms you used for foreign military presence and/or commitments. Be ready to share these with class next week.

Due: Week 3

Name: ______Date:______

Read Blue Book Chapter 4. Answer the following questions in the space provided.

1. Define "topicality" =

Consider this year's Stoa resolution on foreign military presence and/or commitments. What would be an example of a policy change that would not be topical to the resolution, but may sound like a topical resolution?

2. Define "significance" =

Of the news issues that you've been reading about from your Google News Alerts, what are some policy concerns you would consider insignificant?

3. Define "inherency" =

4. Define "solvency" =

5. Define "disadvantage" =

Consider one of the news items you have been discussing in class. Explain a proposed solution to the news item and a possible disadvantage to the proposal.

6. Define "Minor Repair" =

Read Blue Book Case #1, "Graveyard of Empires: The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan." You may want to read the accompanying summary in Chapter 8 to familiarize yourself with the case. This is a good practice to apply for all the case studies. Answer the following questions.

B. One of the plan advocates admits that civil war will break out when we pull out of Afghanistan. Explain:

- Why would this be a good thing?

- Why would this be a bad thing?

ACTIVITY: Next week we will be venturing into evidence. In one of the articles you read this week, attempt to cut a card that is similar to the cards in the case you just read. Bring it to class next week.

Due: Week 4

Name: ______Date:______

Read Blue Book Chapter 5 and 6, the history chapters.

1. Memorize Stoa’s team-policy resolution. Be able to recite it from memory in class. Your coach and your classmates will expect this from you.

2. What was the first foreign war authorized by Congress? How did this war start and end?

3. How did the Monroe Doctrine help ensure limited foreign military commitments? What was the military focus for America for the next 75 years?

4. How was America provoked to get involved in World War I? How did this change the viewpoint of America’s involvement in world conflicts?

5. What proposal did President Wilson give in response to WWI? What was strange about its implementation?

6. Explain how World War II radically changed to this day the policy of isolationism and the resistance to foreign wars.

7. What is NATO, when was it formed, and what was it designed to do? Does it still serve a purpose today? Why or why not?

8. What was the purpose of the Korean War in 1950? Was America successful or not? Explain.

Ironman Curriculum © 2012 Monument Publishing 9. Richard Nixon claims that the Vietnam War is grossly misunderstood in American history. Explain how you have been brought to understand it in your home. Compare it to how Blue Book explains the history. What are the differences or similarities?

10. What is the Carter Doctrine? What major wars have been fought since its invocation in 1980?

11. What two wars happened in response to September 11, 2001, bombing of the Pentagon and the World Trade Centers? Which war was fought by NATO, and which unilaterally by the US? Why?

12. What interventions have happened under President Obama’s watch? Do you believe these conflicts have been justified?

A. Has the Carter Doctrine brought stability and peace to the Persian Gulf? Is the US needed to ensure the safeguard oil transports?

B. Would the situation in the Persian Gulf be worse without the US military security provided by the Carter Doctrine?

Due: Week 5

Name: ______Date:______

Read Blue Book Chapter 7.

1. Of the following scenarios, list as (A) fraudulent, (B) legitimate, or (C) questionable.

_____ a. You find a piece of evidence that is rather old (1998), but you are certain a piece of evidence exists somewhere that is more recent that says the same thing. You read it when searching last week, but now you are not able to find it. Rather than waste any more time, you simply change the card you have from 1998 to 2008.

_____ b. You write a case with the criterion of "Financial Viability." A case that is financially viable is a case worth passing, you argue. You have a piece of solvency evidence that comes very close to making this conclusion. Inserting the prepositional phrase "with financial viability" would make it perfect, but you know that would be fraudulent. Instead, you place the phrase with brackets around it: [with financial viability].

_____ c. You pull together a piece of evidence from a chapter of a book. The parts you would like to read in a round are from the beginning of the chapter and the end, with a lot of needless data in between. Rather than type out the entire chapter and underline the beginning and the end, you merge the two parts with an ellipses (...).

_____ d. You find a piece of evidence from a website that has no date affixed to it. You place the day you accessed it on the citation of the card.

_____ e. You need a card that shows US revenue generation is lower than all European nations. You find a website that shows this in a chart that compares US taxation policies with other countries, and on the same site (different page) shows the amount of revenue generated is, in fact, lower than most other countries. You combine the data from the two charts with a tag line, "US revenue generation is lower than most other countries." Everything is fully cited and links to both web pages are in the citation.

Ironman Curriculum © 2012 Monument Publishing _____ f. You use a card from a brief that you received online from another debater. The opposing team makes the claim that it is a fraudulent piece of evidence and turns it in to tournament adjudication. It turns out the evidence is fraudulent. Is this technically fraudulent when you did not write it?

2. Is it possible to unintentionally run fraudulent evidence? Can you be penalized in a tournament even though my fraudulent evidence was not intentional? Whose responsibility is it to make sure your evidence is legitimate?

Read two Blue Book Cases #3 and #4 and answer the following questions.

 Attack of the Drones: The Case for Reforming Drone Warfare  Let My People Go: The Case for Reforming Military Aid to Egypt

A. What is drone warfare? What are the various problems with new drone warfare capabilities?

B. What three solutions does the Drone Warfare case provide?

C. Explain the change of power in Egypt in 2011. How has Egypt changed since, even since the publishing of Blue Book in March?

D. Was the Peace Treaty at Camp David, a treaty still in effect today, a good idea? Explain.

1. List as much harm as you can that show the effects of the status quo. Write these harms in such a way that they will lead to the topic (or plan) you will want to propose. (Refer to the evidence you have been gathering from your news discussions.)

2. How or why are these harms significant?

3. Why are these harms not able to be solved in the status quo? Or, why is a "substantial change" needed in the status quo to solve these problems?

4. What plan do you propose to solve these harms?

5. List the ways this plan solves the problems you listed in question #1.

Assignment Analysis

You have filled in the blanks of a traditional affirmative case. Bring this to class ready to explain it to the others in your club. While these blanks did not provide room to fill in with evidence, be prepared to defend your "case" with pieces of evidence you find in Blue Book or evidence found independently.

Due: Week 6

Name: ______Date:______

Write your case

Monument Publishing provides free templates of debate case formats, one being the “Traditional Affirmative Case Template.” (See www.monumentpublishing.com/downloads). Using the data you put together for last week's assignment, write your case in this template. When finished, share it with your coach by printing a copy to bring to class.

Read Blue Book Cases #5 and #6 and answer the following questions.

 With Friends Like These: The Case for Reform in Honduras  Blowing the Horn: The Case for Disengagement from the Horn of Africa

A. America has had a long history of military involvement with Honduras, and President Obama wants to increase aid to the country. Why is there a desire to change this relationship?

B. The negative team won’t argue that human rights abuses are justified. How will the negative team argue for Honduran military support?

D. On face value, it appears that nothing good can come of the status quo in Somalia. How should the negative team respond?

ACTIVITY: In our club, integrity of evidence is expected. There will be no excuse for fraudulent evidence used in a debate round. You vow here that, if ever discovered with fraudulent evidence, whether intentional or not, that you will apologize to those you offended (tournament directors, coaches, opponents, etc.) and take the consequences without complaint or malice.

Signed: ______Date: ______

Due: Week 7

Name: ______Date:______

Getting Ready for Affirmative

1. You and your partner are ready to go Affirmative. Decide who will be 1A and who will be 2A.

“I will be ______(1A or 2A) for the next tournament.”

In your own words, explain what your affirmative responsibility will be:

2. Each of you have one case. Discuss the case you would like to run at the next tournament. Which case will it be?

3. 1A: Type the case up neatly for review by your coach. Read the case aloud to make sure it is possible to read within 8 minutes. 2A: Prepare 2A evidence briefs for your 2AC. Practice reading these aloud and pretend you are responding to the 1NC.

Read Blue Book Cases #7 and #8 and answer the following questions. Note: There is a typo in the case summaries of Blue Book. Case #7 is incorrectly slotted as Case #11. To keep things in order, consider Case #7 in the summaries Case #12 instead.

 Pie in the Sky: The Case for Canceling NATO Missile Defense  Lethal Legacy: The Case for Removing NATO’s Tactical Nuclear Weapons

A. Europe’s Missile Defense system is claimed to be in existence for defense against rogue states like Iran. What non-rogue state has a problem with that? Why?

C. What harmful scenarios could result with just leaving the tactical nuclear weapons in Europe?

D. What strategic advantages are there for keeping TNWs in Europe?

Due: Week 8

Name: ______Date:______

Summary of this assignment

It is time to switch hats a bit and play the Negative. First, you will read up on developing a negative strategy. Second, you will make the best case against your case as possible. Finally, you will create extension arguments to defend the best negative attacks you can come up with.

Read Keys to Team-Policy Debate Chapter 13 "Key #13: Never Stop Negative Briefing."

1. Does your case make the mistake of assuming significance? How can your case be strengthened to prove significance?

2. Are there policies in the status quo that are already in existence that are similar to your case? (Inherency)

3. What are some typical disadvantages that could be run against your plan?

4. Consider the solvency claims in your case. Do these claims appeal to expert witnesses, pilot projects, or history?

6. What alternatives—either minor repairs or counterplans—can be implemented to take the fire out of your case?

7. Find negative briefs to your case in Blue Book downloadable briefs. How can you counter these briefs if met up in a debate round?

8. Practice pulling negative briefs by hearing an Affirmative case (coach can help drill you) and then pulling negative briefs to create a negative philosophy against those cases.

Strategies for Negative Briefs

Ironman Curriculum © 2012 Monument Publishing There are many methods for writing negative briefs. Coach Trefethen writes them by collaborating stacks of evidence that argue stock issues against common cases. Being that you already brainstormed some negative attacks in the previous pages, you are now going to prepare negative briefs against your case. This system for preparing negative briefs will be used for other debate cases.

In summary, you will zero in on your harms, develop a list of negative cross-examination questions you'd ask yourself, and you will attempt to prove this harm wrong. Your brief should have as much evidence as possible with as many arguments as possible. You also should be able to find evidence, since you already know so much about your topic. The brief can be used in an actual debate round, and you can cut back parts of it if you need to.

Read the Negative Brief against one of the cases we have already studied in class. Read this brief pretending you are preparing to negate this case in a debate round. Prepare a series of CX questions that you will ask after the 1AC.

Using the same format, write a brief attacking your own case. Remember, play the Negative side, in that you do your best to penetrate your own case. Pretend you are cross-examining yourself and ask questions that will stump you.

For next week: At least one of you (you or your partner) should have all the 2A and negative briefs from Blue Book digital copy printed and 3-hole punched for your binders.

Read Blue Book Case #9 and answer the following questions.

 Aurevior: The Case for Leaving NATO

A. What is NATO? How many countries are in NATO? Is the alliance we have with these countries good or bad?

Due: Week 9

Name: ______Date:______

This week's assignment has to do with developing a method for categorizing and organizing research. There are many different ways to organize research. Some use tote boxes and stack them up on a dolly; others use simple 3-ring binders that can fit in a briefcase; Coach Vance likes to reminisce about the "old days" (a.k.a. before computers) when evidence was handwritten on 3x5 index cards. Truth be known, there is no right or wrong way to filing the evidence, as long as the following principle is kept: retrieval is the reason for filing, NOT filing. Many a round is lost not because the debate team doesn't have the evidence, but because the team couldn't retrieve it in a moment's notice.

Read Keys to Team-Policy Debate "Key #9: Run the Best Evidence."

1. What are the elements of a good evidence citation?

2. Go through Blue Book evidence quotes and find ellipses and brackets. Explain how they are used and what they add or subtract from the evidence.

3. With the same evidence look up the original source. How do the ellipses and/or brackets fit the context of the original quote?

Activity: Build Your Evidence Binder(s)

As already mentioned, there are many ways to organize your evidence. The best way to figure out which way is best for you is to first type out the outline of briefs. You should naturally block these briefs in a system that both you and your partner understand. Consider the following:

 Negative Briefs Against Specific Affirmative Cases. You will want to tab or file negative evidence against the cases you hear. Blue Book provides 12 cases for you to organize, the downloads include 2As and Negative Briefs, and downloads III and IV are set to come out in August and January.  Generic Negative Briefs. Some briefs will not attack any specific case, but will be helpful attacking particular arguments in someone's case.

Ironman Curriculum © 2012 Monument Publishing  Affirmative Extensions. The 2A particularly will want to utilize affirmative extensions. Extensions are used to refute the arguments that the negative team throws at the Affirmative case.  General Affirmative Extensions. Just like there can be generic negative evidence, there can also be general affirmative extensions to blanketed arguments given by the negative. Blue Book has several such extensions.  Full Articles. It is helpful to have full printouts of a few of your juiciest articles. While most briefs only pull the quotes to make a good argument, sometimes there is an article that "says it all"—a paper from the White House, or a report from a noted government agency. Keep these in entirety in your binder or box

When finished with your printed list, review it with your partner. Then share it with the entire debate class. Before the next class session, everyone should have a copy of their listing to distribute for the others in the club.

Filling your debate binders or boxes is a process that will develop throughout the year. What is due for next week is this: Completed list of how they will be organized, and get started. By the first tournament, you will need to have it finished.

Read Blue Book Case #10 and #11, and answer the following questions.

 UnPak: The Case for Ending the Alliance With Pakistan  Deal With the Devil: The Case for Reforming the Alliance With Saudi Arabia

A. Pakistan is technically an ally in our war on Al Qaeda and terrorism. What evidence suggests that Pakistan is an enemy?

B. How will the negative team argue that our alliance with Pakistan is a good thing?

D. If we were to withdraw military protection of Saudi Arabia, what have they promised to do? Why would this be a bad thing?

Due: Week 10

Name: ______Date:______

You are either the 1A or 2A, the 1N or 2N. While you have only 16 total minutes of speaking time, you will be busy at work throughout the round doing something. In the spaces below, explain what YOU (not your partner) will be doing during each section.

As Affirmative (circle 1A or 2A ):

1AC –

CX –

1NC –

CX –

2AC –

CX –

2NC –

CX –

1AR –

2NR –

2AR –

As Negative (circle 1N or 2N ):

1AC –

CX –

1NC –

CX –

2AC –

CX –

2NC –

1NR –

1AR –

2NR –

2AR –

Activity: Practice cross-examination with your partner. Read a random contention in Blue Book. Your partner can begin to drill you with questions using the steps you learned in class. Repeat as necessary till you are good at thoroughly casting doubt on any case given.

Read the last two Blue Book cases (#12 and #13) and answer the following questions.

 Less Is More: The Case for Withdrawal from South Korea  Tug of War: The Case for Reforming War Powers

A. How long has it been since the war between North and South Korea ended? Why is it argued that North Korea is no longer a threat?

B. What country has a larger influence and a greater relationship with North Korea than us? How would withdrawal from South Korea shift the burden to them?

D. How does the plan shift the burden of war powers in the status quo? What arguments will the negative give against such a shift?