DOCSLIB.ORG

Policy Debate Manual

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Policy Debate Manual The National Debate Project's Policy Debate Manual Dr. Joe Bellon Director of Debate, Georgia State University with Abi Smith Williams NDP 2006, version 1.2 National Debate Project © 2006 Dr. Joe Bellon for questions concerning copyright permission, electronic copies, and permission to post this publication online contact Dr. Bellon at: [email protected] Contents What Is Debate? ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2 Speech Cheat Sheet ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5 The Constructive Speeches ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 8 The Rebuttals ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9 Flowing Tips ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������10 Symbols and Abbreviations ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������11 This Is What It Sounds Like In a Speech �����������������������������������������������������������������������12 This Is What It Looks Like On the Flow �������������������������������������������������������������������������13 Introduction to Speaking Style �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������14 Delivery and Staying "In Shape" for Debate ���������������������������������������������������������������17 Cross-Examination ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������20 Case Attacks �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������25 Disadvantages ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������26 Answers to Disadvantages ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������28 Topicality ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������29 Answering Topicality ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������31 Critiques ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������33 Answering Critiques ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������35 Running Counterplans ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������36 Answering Counterplans ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������37 How to Give Good Rebuttals ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������38 The First Negative Rebuttal ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������39 The First Affirmative Rebuttal ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������40 The Second Negative Rebuttal ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������41 The Second Affirmative Rebuttal �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������43 Strategic Considerations for Rebuttals ���������������������������������������������������������������������������44 Checklist for Winning and Losing ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������45 Cutting Cards and Citing Evidence ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������47 Guidelines for Briefing ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������48 A Sample Brief ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������49 Glossary: Boring Words You Need to Know �������������������������������������������������������������������50 National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page What Is Debate? Everyone knows what a debate is. You see The Players debates every day. Presidential candidates A single debate team is have debates, senators have debates, sports composed of two people. commentators have debates, and even normal That means that you will people at parties have debates about important work with a partner. A round topics like whether potato chips are better than of debate competition involves French fries. And what about you? You have two teams competing against debates too, whether you know it or not. You each other. The winner of the and your friends might debate about a favor- round is determined by at ite athlete, or which rapper is better, whose least one judge who watches fashion sense is the best, or whose momma the debate. Sometimes there is fattest. will be more than one judge, This manual is not about those kinds of and there will almost always debate (though the experience you already be an odd number of judges. The debaters have at debating with your friends will be are usually students, and the judge might be a very useful). The point of this document is teacher, debate coach, graduate student, former to teach you about competitive policy debate, debater, or some other person (like a parent which is a formal kind of debate that deals or a community member). Judges may or may with questions of change. One of the most im- not have extensive debate experience (although portant questions we ask ourselves (and each most college judges do). other) every day is “what should we do”? We ask what should be done about simple issues, The Topic like finding something to eat for dinner, and At the beginning of the year, a policy debate we ask what should be done about complex topic is chosen for the entire country. One topic social questions like racism or war. Policy de- is chosen for college, and one for high school. K- bate tends to be about those larger kinds of 8 debaters usually debate about the high school questions. Still, this doesn’t necessarily tell you topic. How are these topics chosen? The pro- what debate is. It’s time for a real definition cesses differ from high school to college, and of policy debate. there are many committees, procedures, and votes. In the end, representatives from the de- Debate Is a Game bate community pick a topic that is timely and Wait, that’s it? That’s the great definition we deals with an issue of national concern. promised you? Yes. Oh, don’t worry, we’re going The point is that there is one topic for every to say more about what debate is later. At the debate season (starting in the Fall at the begin- beginning, though, it is important to understand ning of school and ending in the Spring or Sum- that, whatever else debate is, it is a game. It has mer). Students debate about this one topic for teams, points, winners, losers, tournaments, and the entire school year, which may seem like a trophies. Like many games, it is not always fair long time, but the topic is designed to be inter- (even though we try hard to make it fair). Most esting and flexible enough to keep you involved importantly, debate is supposed to be fun. Keep for a long time. The debate topic is called “the that in mind. resolution” because it takes the form of a kind The easiest way to begin understanding de- of proposal for change that might be made by bate is for us to describe how the game is played a politician or a diplomat in congress or the – its basic structure and rules. United Nations. This means that the resolution National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page (the topic) does not look or sound like a question es. The first speech each Speeches — it looks and sounds like a statement. Instead person gives is called a In a Debate of asking “what should we do about racism?” “constructive” speech, (for example) a debate resolution would say “we because it is the speech should pass better laws to punish businesses that where each person con- 1AC have racist hiring practices.” Just to make sure structs the basic argu- Cross-Ex that you know a debate resolution when you see ments they will make 1NC it, we start every topic with the word “resolved.” throughout the debate. Cross-Ex So, continuing the example above, a debate reso- The second speech is 2AC lution might be something like “Resolved: that called a “rebuttal,” be- Cross-Ex the United States Federal Government should cause this is the speech enact a policy to eliminate racist hiring practices where each person tries 2NC in the United States.” Some resolutions deal with to rebut (or answer) the Cross-Ex problems within the U.S., while others deal with arguments made by the 1NR international issues or foreign policy. other team, while using their own arguments 1AR The Structure of a Debate Round to try to convince the The two debate teams who are competing judge to vote for their 2NR against each other have specific jobs to do. One team. team’s job is to argue that the resolution — the The affirmative has statement that we should make some specific to convince the judge to 2AR change to address a national or international vote for a change, which problem — is a good idea. We call that team “the makes their job hard since people are usually affirmative”
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CX Firm Foundation I
    Stefanie Rodarte-Suto Canyon High School [email protected] §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 § “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. Constructives § 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 §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 § 2017-2018 Resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use and Abuse of Risk Analysis in Policy Debate
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 354 559 CS 508 069 AUTHOR Herbeck, Dale A.; Katsulas, John P. TITLE The Use and Abuse of Risk Analysis in Policy Debate. PUB DATE Oct 92 NOTE 16p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association (78th, Chicago, IL, October 29-November 1, 1992). PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)(120) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Debate; Debate Format; Higher Education; *Probability; Rhetorical Criticism; *Risk IDENTIFIERS *Policy Debate; Rhetorical Strategies; *Risk Assessment ABSTRACT The best check on the preposterous claims of crisis rhetoric is an appreciation of the nature of risk analysis and how it functions in argumentation. The use of risk analysis is common in policy debate. While the stock issues paradigm focused the debate exclusively on the affirmative case, the advent of policy systems analysis has transformed debate into an w,aluation of competing policy systems. Unfortunately, the illusion of objectivity masks several serious problems with risk analysis as it is presently used in academic debate. Risk analysis artificially assigns probability to arguments and overvalues arguments with large impacts. Four suggestions can dramatically improve the use of risk analysis in policy debate:(1) some risks are so trivial that they are not meaningful;(2) the increment of risk must be considered; (3) debaters must not become enslaved to large impacts; and (4) debaters must rehabilitate the importance of uniqueness arguments in debate. (Twenty-one notes are included.) (RS) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * from the original document.
    [Show full text]
  • DEBATING AGENT of ACTION COUNTERPLANS (I): MORGAN POWERS & EXECUTIVE ORDERS by David M
    DEBATING AGENT OF ACTION COUNTERPLANS (I): MORGAN POWERS & EXECUTIVE ORDERS by David M. Cheshier By the end of last year's academic wider than those few discussed here. This Court enforces, then the counterplan to sim- achievement season, agent of action essay does not review the merits of state ply have the Court initiate action which it counterplans were well established as a legislative or judicial action, although those then enforces as it would other decisions generic of choice, and the early indication will obviously be viable strategies in cer- might well be plan inclusive. Or is it? Even if is that they will have a similarly dominant tain debates. It does not review the compli- the outcome is very similar, one might ar- influence in privacy debates. While the cated literatures surrounding the Congres- gue the mandates of the plan are essentially summer experience of students at the sional delegation power, though in some different from the counterplan. And if we Dartmouth Debate Institute may be atypi- debates the delegation/nondelegation issue decide otherwise, wouldn't every cal, almost every round there came down to will arise. Nor does it review the range of counterplan become plan-inclusive, if only an agent counterplan, a Clinton popularity/ potential international action counterplans because both the plan and counterplan political capital position, a privacy critique, available on this topic, most of which would share similar language regarding "normal and associated theory attacks. The strate- presumably involve either consultation or means", "enforcement," and "funding"? gic benefits are plain to see - agent harmonization of American privacy policy Since there is, in certain quarters, a counterplans often capture the case advan- with the European Union - it was only little growing hostility to plan-inclusiveness, and tage and open the way for political process more than a month ago that U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Tackling UK Poverty and Disadvantage in the Twenty-First Century
    Tackling UK poverty and disadvantage in the twenty-first century An exploration of the issues Edited by David Darton and Jason Strelitz JR JOSEPH ROWNTREE FOUNDATION Using this report This book is primarily designed to be accessed as a pdf document. It contains internal links that can be followed by hovering over the underlined text with your cursor. You can return to your original place in the text using marginal arrow/page number boxes (e.g.▲ 9 ). This publication is also available in hard copy form. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has supported this project as part of its programme of research and innovative development projects, which it hopes will be of value to policy makers, practitioners and service users. The facts presented and views expressed in this report are, however, those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Foundation. Joseph Rowntree Foundation The Homestead 40 Water End York YO30 6WP Website: www.jrf.org.uk © Joseph Rowntree Foundation 2003 First published in 2003 by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation All rights reserved. Reproduction of this report by photocopying or electronic means for non-commercial purposes is permitted. Otherwise, no part of this report may be reproduced, adapted, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise without the prior written permission of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. ISBN 1 85935 070 4 (paperback) 1 85935 090 9 (pdf: available at www.jrf.org.uk) A CIP catalogue record for this report is available from the British
    [Show full text]
  • Debate Association & Debate Speech National ©
    © National SpeechDebate & Association DEBATE 101 Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Bill Smelko & Will Smelko DEBATE 101 Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Bill Smelko & Will Smelko © NATIONAL SPEECH & DEBATE ASSOCIATION DEBATE 101: Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Copyright © 2013 by the National Speech & Debate Association All rights reserved. Published by National Speech & Debate Association 125 Watson Street, PO Box 38, Ripon, WI 54971-0038 USA Phone: (920) 748-6206 Fax: (920) 748-9478 [email protected] No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, now known or hereafter invented, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, information storage and retrieval, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the Publisher. The National Speech & Debate Association does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, gender identity, gender expression, affectional or sexual orientation, or disability in any of its policies, programs, and services. Printed and bound in the United States of America Contents Chapter 1: Debate Tournaments . .1 . Chapter 2: The Rudiments of Rhetoric . 5. Chapter 3: The Debate Process . .11 . Chapter 4: Debating, Negative Options and Approaches, or, THE BIG 6 . .13 . Chapter 5: Step By Step, Or, It’s My Turn & What Do I Do Now? . .41 . Chapter 6: Ten Helpful Little Hints . 63. Chapter 7: Public Speaking Made Easy .
    [Show full text]
  • Beg. CX Robertson-Markham
    Jonathan Robertson, Sudan H.S. and James Markham, Anton H.S. An Introduction to UIL CX Debate UIL WTAMU SAC - September 23rd, 2017 Beatriz Melendez and Jose Luis Melendez, 2-A UIL CX Debate State Champions 2016 “You can do it!” -The Waterboy Introduction - Brief video as students and coaches enter: (Debate class video) What is CX Debate? Policy debate. Policy = evidence. Lots of evidence. This event will change your life. One student’s story that ends submerged. So, are you ready to “Suit Up”? The Resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States. “Debate is blood sport, only your weapons are words.” 2 - Denzel Washington in The Great Debaters The Speeches and their Times: 1st Affirmative Constructive (1AC=8 min) CX (3 min by the 2NC) (never use prep time before CX periods) 1st Negative Constructive (1NC=8 min) CX (3 min by the 1AC) 2nd Affirmative Constructive (2AC=8 min) CX (3 min by the 1NC) 2nd Negative Constructive (2NC=8 min) (2NC + 1NR = Negative Block) CX (3 min by the 2AC) 1st Negative Rebuttal(1NR=5 min) 1st Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR=5 min) 2nd Negative Rebuttal (2NR=5 min) 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR=5 min) Each team receives 8 minutes of prep time that may be used according to their strategy. Citation of evidence Evidence must be contiguous. And, citations done correctly, i.e.: Frank, 2015 [Walter M. Frank (legal scholar, attorney), “Individual Rights and citation → the Political Process: A Proposed Framework for Democracy Defining Cases,” 3 Southern University Law Review 35:47, Fall, 2015, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Liqcolq-Douglas Debate: Tqeory Aqd Pracfice
    Liqcolq-Douglas Debate: Tqeory aqd Pracfice Compiled and edited by Tom Pollard, University of Kansas Diana B. Prentice, University of Nebraska Edited and produced by Independent Study Division of Continuing Education University of Kansas Lawrence, Kansas Copyright 1981 University of Kansas Graphics by Charli Frederick Contents INTRODUCTION..................... v ABOUT THE AUTHORS ix UNIT I: A RATIONALE The Importance of Values in Debates About Public Policy - Erwin Chemerinsky . • . 3 A Step Toward Sanity - Dennis Winfield . 7 Lincoln-Douglas Debate: A Re-Introduction of the Listener - Robert Kemp . 11 UNIT II: THE THEORY ............................................. 15 An Approach to Analyzing and Debating Lincoln-Douglas Debate Topics - Diana B. Prentice and Bill Davis . 17 Constructing the Lincoln-Douglas Debate Resolution - Richard 8. Sodikow. 25 Johnson County Community College Applications of Lincoln-Douglas Debate - Richard Stine . 29 Aspects of Coaching Lincoln-Douglas Debate - Dale McCall . 33 UNIT Ill: THE PRACTICE ........................................... 39 The Lincoln-Douglas Debate Experience - Mary C. Ambrose . 41 Judging Lincoln-Douglas Debate - Rev. Raymond Hahn . 47 Strategy of Lincoln-Douglas Debate - Alex L. Pritchard . 53 iii APPENDIX . 59 First Affirmative Constructive in Final Round: NFL Tournament, June 1980 - Mary C. Ambrose . 61 Bibliography . 63 iv Introduction In August, 1858, the race for a vacant seat in the U.S. Senate in Illinois attracted national attention. A reporter for the New York Tribune stated at the time that "no local contest in this country ever excited so general or so profound an interest as that now waging in lllinois."1 The race was between Democrat Stephen A. Douglas and Republican Abraham Lincoln. The contest was dramatized by a series of debates between these politicians - one a defender of states' rights and popular sovereignty, the other an opponent of slavery and the Kansas.Nebraska Bill.
    [Show full text]
  • Is the Consultant Counterplan Legitimate
    THE D G E IS THE CONSULTATION COUNTERPLAN LEGITIMATE? by David M. Cheshier The most popular category of counterplan on the “weap- ons of mass destruction” (WMD) topic involves consultation. The negative argues that instead of promptly adopting and imple- menting the plan, the United States should consult some speci- fied government beforehand, only moving forward if the plan meets the approval of our consultation partner. Many versions were produced over the summer, including counterplans to consult NATO, Japan, Russia, China, Israel, India, and Canada. On this resolution, the consultation counterplan is often an irresistible strategic option for the negative. Because most plan texts as written advocate immediate implementation (if they don’t the affirmative may be in topicality trouble), the counterplan is mutually exclusive, for one can’t act and consult about acting at the same time. Because the resolution locks the affirmative into frequently defending policies the rest of the world would agree to, the counterplan consultation process would usually culminate in the eventual passage of the plan. Thus, the negative is able to argue there is little or no downside to asking for input. Consulta- tion promises to capture the advantages, with the value added benefit of an improvement in America’s relations with NATO, Rus- sia, or China (from here on I’ll use Russia as my example). The view is also prevalent that the consultation counterplan cannot be permuted by the affirmative, since to do so invariably commits the affirmative either to severance or intrinsicness (more on this shortly). Consultation is here to stay. For the counterplan to work, the negative must include lan- guage, which gives the consultation partner a “veto” over the plan.
    [Show full text]
  • CDL High School Core Files August 2019
    Table of Contents Red/Maroon Conference Argument Limits Blue/Silver Conference Argument Limits Ukraine AFFIRMATIVE (Rookie/Novice – Beginner) Plan Plan: The United States federal government should end all direct commercial and foreign military sales of arms to Ukraine. Contention 1 - Inherency Trump is currently committed to increasing arms sales to Ukraine. Contention 2 is Harms – Ukraine Crisis Arm sales entangle the US and Ukraine. This is bad because Ukraine uses its relations with the US to antagonize Russia. U.S-Russia Military confrontation over Ukraine escalates to nuclear war. Contention 3 is Solvency Ending arms sales reduces tensions with Moscow and stops conflict escalation. Plan solves – ending arms sales respects Russia’s influence. That’s key to better relations. [Optional] Contention 4 is Harms (China-Russia) Relations Tensions with the US push Russia towards China. That improves China-Russian relations. Creation of a Russia-China alliance fuels arctic militarization. 2AC/1AR Ukraine Affirmative—Chicago Debates High School Core Files 2019- 2020 Arctic militarization causes conflict escalation. Arctic conflict escalates to nuclear war. 2AC/1AR Ukraine Affirmative Ukraine 2AC/1AR On Case Answers 2AC – Answers to Ukraine Crisis Harms Frontline #1: Arms sales good turn 1. Extend our Carpenter 2018 evidence - it says___________________________________________ __ 2. The plan solves for Russia’s perceptions – it sees the provision of weapons as a provocation. 3. Arming Ukraine fails to deter Russia and results in entanglement which forces US escalation. 4. Arms won’t deter Russia – they cause conflict escalation and back the US into a corner. 2AC – Answers to Ukraine Crisis Harms Frontline #2: Democracy Turn 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Intergenerational Transmission of Disadvantage: Mobility Or Immobility Across Generations? a Review of the Evidence for OECD Countries
    DELSA/ELSA/WD/SEM(2007)7 Intergenerational Transmission of Disadvantage: Mobility or Immobility across Generations? A Review of the Evidence for OECD Countries Anna Cristina d’Addio 52 OECD SOCIAL, EMPLOYMENT AND MIGRATION WORKING PAPERS Unclassified DELSA/ELSA/WD/SEM(2007)7 Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ___________________________________________________________________________________________ English text only DIRECTORATE FOR EMPLOYMENT, LABOUR AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS EMPLOYMENT, LABOUR AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE Unclassified DELSA/ELSA/WD/SEM(2007)7 Cancels & replaces the same document of 29 March 2007 OECD SOCIAL, EMPLOYMENT AND MIGRATION WORKING PAPERS NO. 52 INTERGENERATIONAL TRANSMISSION OF DISADVANTAGE: MOBILITY OR IMMOBILITY ACROSS GENERATIONS? A REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE FOR OECD COUNTRIES Anna Cristina d'Addio JEL Classification: D31, I32, J62, I2, I38 All social, Employment and Migration Working Papers are now available through OECD's Internet website at http://www.oecd.org/els only text English Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format DELSA/ELSA/WD/SEM(2007)7 DIRECTORATE FOR EMPLOYMENT, LABOUR AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS http://www.oecd.org/els OECD SOCIAL, EMPLOYMENT AND MIGRATION WORKING PAPERS http://www.oecd.org/els/workingpapers This series is designed to make available to a wider readership selected labour market, social policy and migration studies prepared for use within the OECD. Authorship is usually collective, but principal writers are named. The papers are generally available only in their original language – English or French – with a summary in the other. Comment on the series is welcome, and should be sent to the Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16, France.
    [Show full text]
  • Ccofse Policy Debate Glossary Advantage: a Description Used By
    CCofSE Policy Debate Glossary advantage: a description used by the affirmative to explain what beneficial effects will result from its plan. affirmative: The team in a debate which supports the resolution and speaks first and last in the order of the speeches. affirmative case: The initial affirmative position (presented in the Affirmative Constructive) which demonstrates that there is a need for change because there is a serious problem (harm, or need) which the present system cannot solve (inherency) but which can be solved by the affirmative plan (solvency). affirmative plan: The policy action advocated by the affirmative burden of proof: 1) The requirement that sufficient evidence or reasoning to prove a claim should be presented; 2) the requirement that the affirmative must prove the stock issues. burden of rebuttal or clash: The requirement that each speaker continue the debate by calling into question or disputing the opposition's argument on the substantive issues. comparative advantage case: An affirmative case format that argues desirable benefits of the plan in contrast to the present system. It claims advantages in comparison to present policies. constructives: The first four speeches of the debate, the two Affirmative Constructives (1AC, 2AC) and the two Negative Constructives (1NC, 2NC). Arguments are initiated in these speeches and extended in rebuttals. criteria case: An affirmative case format that posits a goal and then outlines the criteria necessary to achieve the goal. cross-examination: a three minute period following each of the constructive speeches in which a member of the opposing team directly questions the speaker. disadvantage (“DA” or "disad"): An undesirable, effect of the plan.
    [Show full text]
  • BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS: the Teacher Materials SAMPLE Policy
    BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS: The Teacher Materials SAMPLE Policy Prepared by Jim Hanson with thanks to Will Gent for his assistance Breaking Down Barriers: Policy Teacher Materials Page 1 BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS: SAMPLE POLICY TEACHER MATERIALS By Jim Hanson TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION TO THE TEACHER'S MATERIALS ................................................................... 3 BASIC SKILLS OF DEBATING: BUILDING TOWARD MINI-DEBATES ....................................... 3 POLICY DEBATING: TOWARD TEAM/CX DEBATES ................................................................. 4 THE MOST ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS ..................................... 5 USING THE LESSON PLANS FOR LECTURES ........................................................................... 6 DEBATE COURSE SYLLABUS .................................................................................................. 7 SUGGESTED SCHEDULE FOR THE BASICS .............................................................................. 9 SUGGESTED SCHEDULE FOR POLICY DEBATING .................................................................. 10 SUGGESTED SCHEDULE FOR ADVANCED POLICY ................................................................. 11 LECTURE OUTLINES ............................................................................................................ 12 BASIC SKILLS OF DEBATE LECTURES .................................................................................. 12 SESSION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE CLASS .......................................................................
    [Show full text]