Breaking the Code

Terminology CX Debate

—Cross Examination Debate

—Also called Policy Debate

—Partner debate which focuses on advancing a specific policy within the resolution. Resolution

— The topic of a debate

— A stand in an issue that the affirmative supports

— The proposition up for debate

— Is debated all year – both fall and spring Resolved:

— The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States. Affirmative — the side which supports (affirms) the resolution in the debate

— called the “Aff”

— Begins and ends the debate round

— Develops a specific plan which addresses the problems of the status quo and offers a viable solution Negative

— The side which rejects (negates) the resolution and/or the affirmative case

— Called the “Neg”

— Has a 13 minute block of time in the middle of each round (the negative block)

— Common Arguments Run: Topicality, Disadvantage, Counterplan, Kritik, and “On-Case” Status Quo

— The present system of government

— The present method or policy

— The Aff is advocating for a change to the Status Quo.

— Status Quo is defended by the Negative (Neg). FIAT

— The right of the affirmative to assert its plan will go into effect.

— Is Latin for “Let it be done”

— Is based off the word “should” within the resolution

— Allows the debate to be centered around the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the aff plan rather than the likelihood it would actually be passed Round Elements Constructive

— The first four speeches of the round

— Constitutes about 2/3 of the time allotted

— Portion of the debate in which initial positions and arguments are presented

— Only portion of round where CX is allowed Rebuttal

— 2nd portion of the round

— Constitutes approximately 1/3 of the time allotted

— Arguments made in the constructives are crystallized, extended and/or defended

— NO NEW ARGUMENTS can be presented! CX — The only time during the round where the Aff and the Neg speak “to” one another

— Purpose: — Clarify points within the opponent’s case and/or arguments — Ask questions that set up Neg arguments or Aff responses Prep Time

— The amount of time each team is given to prepare their respective remarks/arguments

— 8 minutes per team per round

— Can be used in any configuration – but – time allocation is a crucial part of strategy

— Prep time is typically NOT TAKEN before CX Time Allocaon

st 11 Affirmative Constructive 8 Minutes

Negative CX (2NC) 3 Minutes st 1 Negative Constructive 8 Minutes

Affirmative CX (1AC) 3 Minutes nd 2 Affirmative Constructive 8 Minutes

Negative CX (1 NC) 3 Minutes nd 2 Negative Constructive 8 Minutes

Affirmative CX (2 AC) 3 Minutes Neg Block

st 1 Negative Rebuttal 5 Minutes st 1 Affirmative Rebuttal 5 Minutes nd 2 Negative Rebuttal 5 Minutes nd

Rebuals 2 AffirmativeRebuttal 5 Minutes Stock Issues — T – Topicality

— H – Harms

— I – Inherency

— S – Solvency

— S - Significance Topicality

— The issue in debate of whether the affirmative (aff) plan supports the resolution

— The affirmative MUST run a case that falls within the boundaries set by the resolution!

— The negative is NOT bound by the same restrictions. (Counterplans do not have to be topical.) Harms

— An undesirable result of a problem, policy, or value

— The “bad things” that will happen if the Aff plan is not adopted – according to the Aff

— The Affirmative (Aff) must show that the present system (status quo) can not solve for the harm(s) Inherency

— The issue of whether the present system (status quo) will or can solve the problem

— The aff needs to make sure a major change must take place in the status quo in order to solve for the harms.

— Is sometimes referred to as the “Inherent Barrier” Solvency

— The issue of whether or not the affirmative plan will/can “take care” of the problem (harms).

— The affirmative must show their plan covers for the harms listed in their plan text!

— Best if the solvency does not create a larger problem than the harms presented Significance

— The issue of whether or not there are important problems and/or harms in the present system

— Shows if there is a true need for a plan or action

— Is the “So what?” of the round

— If the problem is too small, there is no real need for a change. Advantage

— A benefit gained or maintained by a policy

— a good or positive consequence of a plan

— Usually includes arguments for solvency, significance and inherency

— Is either what is achieved when the harms are solved, or creates an additional plan benefit Common Neg Arguments Topicality Shell – Neg Arg.

— Argument which outlines how the affirmative has failed to adhere to the terms within the resolution

— A topicality violation, usually presented in the 1NC, contains the follows:

— Interpretation — Violation — Standards — Voting Issue Interpretaon

— Negative interpretation of a word or words in the resolution – should be supported by evidence.

— Evidence to support an interpretation can come from virtually any source (dictionary, legal dictionary, academic paper, laws, court rulings, etc.)

— Emphasis is placed on both the desirability of the interpretation and the quality of the evidence which supports the interpretation. Violaon — Reason(s) why the plan does not meet the negative interpretation

— Neg must show how the aff fails to meet the boundaries set by the superior definition (that of the neg); thus, the aff case is nontopical.

— Stock Issues judges look at topicality more than other judge styles. Standards

— A. “We meet” invalid — B. Limits — C. Bright Line — D. Framer’s Intent — E. Education — F. Ground — G. Common Man — H. Breadth v. Depth Vong Issue —A. Jurisdiction

—B. Education

—C. Predictability

—D. Tradition Disadvantage – Neg Arg.

— Harmful consequence of a plan –is worse than the harms for which the affirmative is solving

— Must include each of the following: — Uniqueness — Link — Brink — Impact

— Also called a “DA” or a “Disad” Disadvantage – con’t. — Uniqueness and Link — Separate but connected — Link = how the disad connects (links) to the Aff — Uniqueness = how the aff case uniquely links to the disad — Brink — Neg claim that the impact of the disad is not happening now but can happen under certain circumstances — The Aff plan creates those circumstances — Impact — The negative results that will occur Counterplan – Neg Argument

— An alternate plan which achieves the goals of the affirmative plan but DOES NOT link to the disadvantage

— Must solve for the Harms established by the affirmative plan

— Does not have to be topical

— Is considered an off-case argument Paradigms — Refers to the philosophy to which the judge adheres when writing a ballot. — Knowing a judge’s paradigm allows for judge adaptation. — Most common: — Lay Judge — Games Player Judge — Policymaker Judge — Stock Issues Judge — Tabula Rasa Judge (Tab Judge) Lay Judge

— Are not experienced judges and/or have little if any knowledge of debate — Often will judge a round based on appearance and eloquence of speech; though, they do not always realize this is what they are doing. L — Speeding, Kritiks, jargon, and counterplans are strongly discouraged — Disadvantages should be run slowly and with detailed explanation. Games Player Judge

— As the name suggests, these judges believe that debate is a game, and any argument that forms a coherent syllogism is "fair play" in round.

— Syllogism – form of deductive reasoning containing a major premise, minor premise and a conclusion

— Ex: All humans are mortal. – I am human. – thus – I am mortal.

Games Player Judge cont’

— Games judges will have no qualms about voting for a ridiculous policy

— If one team can prove their plan or action holds the largest advantage in the round – they can win the ballot Policymaker Judge

— Policymaker judges tend to vote for the side that presents the best policy option.

— Tend to like disadvantages and counterplans

— Are, however, beginning to accept kritikal arguments.

— Simply put: They tend to decide by weighing the affirmative's advantages against the negative's disadvantages. Stock Issues Judge

— Believes the affirmative plan must fulfill all their stock issue burdens — If the negative proves that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected. — Stock issue judges generally prefer a clear, eloquent presentation of issues in round, and dislike arguments that seem to not relate to the topic on the surface. — …are often referred to as “Old School Judges”. Tabula Rasa Judge

— From a Latin phrase that translates to clean slate. — Tabula rasa judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions or expectations. — Expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. — Most tab judges are okay with speed and will also consider counterplans, disadvantages, and kritiks. — To be safe - ask a tab judge on his or her preference in regard to specific types of arguments. Final Words — Watch out for the “Debate Lingo”. — Beware the “Mind Games”. — There are no freshman or JV debate teams. — Debate is a subjective contest! — You will sometimes lose the round but win the ballot. — You will sometimes win the round but lose the ballot. — Debate is a professional competition! — Two Great Resources: — HAVE FUN!!! J — Otherwise…what’s the point?!? The End! J