DOCSLIB.ORG

EXTENDING TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS David Cheshier

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EXTENDING TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS David Cheshier THE D G E EXTENDING TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS by David M. Cheshier It has become rather difficult to win topicality arguments on the high school national policy circuit, for several reasons. The topic wording commit- tee has tended in recent years to prefer more open-ended terminology, which makes it more difficult to make convincing grammatical claims. And the major terms have not lent themselves to conservative interpretation; this season, for example, it has proved virtually impossible to win arguments that would limit the meaning of terms like “foreign policy.” Even the most precise term on this resolution –– “weapons of mass destruction” –– has not enabled much suc- cessful topicality argumentation. There is also the fact of accumulated skepticism about the value of topicality debating. Today winning a topicality violation on many circuits requires an all-or-nothing investment of rebuttal time, and some prominent judges regularly broadcast their hostility to T debates. Still, the perceived tactical benefits of initiating topicality arguments remain. The time tradeoff often favors the negative, since violations can be cut down to fifteen seconds or so while it usually takes longer to convincingly respond. And despite some sporadic efforts to defend “reverse voting issue” claims against underdeveloped violations, the risks remain one way. Only the affirmative can lose the debate on topicality. The result is the odd situation now characteristic of the national circuit: while topicality violations are ad- vanced in as many as 95% of first negative constructives, they remain a part of the second negative rebuttal perhaps only 5% of the time. In what follows, I offer some tips for arguing topicality, whether you’re trying to win a violation on the negative or simply trying to keep the position alive in the negative block as a way to pressure with yours. And debate carefully. Topicality is ing" arguments. Debate "as if." Topicality de- the 1AR. Think about these factors: one argument requiring line by line refutation bating centers on questions of semantic inter- You can go for other arguments in the (the only exception is the situation where none pretation or grammatical construction. Often 2NR. There are senses in which topicality is an of a group of responses is relevant to the viola- the decisive arguments do not reference specific “all or nothing” issue (for example, a plan’s topi- tion, and you’re grouping simply to point this pieces of evidence. Given this, topicality de- cality is a bit like being pregnant or infected –– fact out). bate often reduces to “yes” versus “no” claims – either it is or it isn’t). But I disagree with those Make the original violation as complicated – “they over-limit,” “breadth is better than who believe topicality requires an all or nothing as necessary, and your extensions as simple as depth,” and so on –– which are not decisively commitment of time, either in the block or the possible. The common judging predisposition resolvable for either side. Even talented debat- last rebuttal. While obviously some judges feel to give affirmatives latitude on topicality is en- ers can fall prey to this problem by failing to this way, and for them you should play to the hanced when the original violation is under-de- argue as if their opponent will win any of her prejudice, most topicality arguments are simply veloped. It closes potential 2AR escape routes claims. That is, even passionately and carefully not so complicated as to require a full five-minute to put a little extra effort into the original struc- argued violations end up a mess for the judge explication in the 2NR. I cannot imagine a topi- ture –– preempt where you can –– so that when when both sides fail to integrate any fall back cality argument necessitating the total dedica- the time comes, you’re able to point out that positions into their extensions. Here more than tion of a constructive speech. Often, over-ex- they have “missed this from the very beginning.” on any other issue it is important to build in tension of a violation can actually backfire –– On the other hand, do not make your extension such fallback arguments –– “even if they win either by inducing repetitively excessive expla- of the position needlessly complicated. Avoid that ‘limits’ is the most important standard, they nation, or revealing just how simple (or foolish) absurdly intricate overviews (they only provide lose because….” Where possible, provide the the T argument is. Give the violation only the 1ARs with a hook on which to hang their new judge with clear paths out of the thicket of as- time it requires. If answering the three 1AR arguments), and don’t add new explanations es- sertion and counter-assertion. arguments only takes two minutes in the 2NR, sentially making the violation new or different. Avoid repetition. Topicality debates are that’s plenty, and an extra three minutes of ora- Start with a detailed position, and then simply often tedious because the same point is so fre- tion will not enhance the argumentative power reiterate it later in the round. quently repeated. As you prep you may find of the violation. Carefully explain the violation in an over- that you’re often writing down the same expla- I’ve heard many answers to this point view if necessary. Some violations are basic and nation or argument. When you do, move the over the years. Some say, “making T the exclu- well understood by all, and they do not require point into the issue overview –– say it once, and sive focus of the 2NR communicates one’s seri- overview explanation in the block. This advice then refer to your introductory analysis later on ousness.” But there are other ways to commu- to overview pertains to the more intricate posi- as necessary. nicate seriousness, including smart extension, tions, where the plan may appear to meet the In the block, extend the violation in the forceful and passionate expression, and sequenc- violation but fails because of a technicality bur- 2NC if possible. Or, the 2NR should at least ing the violation at the top of the rebuttal. Oth- ied in the 1NR definition. If this is so, a quick flow the partner’s 1NR on topicality. This ad- ers say, “of course don’t overkill –– but it is all overview explanation of exactly how the plan vice may seem a bit counter-intuitive, since mis- or nothing –– so take the two minutes you need, falls short is a good idea. matched teams (where the 2NC is more experi- and then sit down.” I find that point of view a Stay focused on the specifics of the plan. enced that the 1NC) often use the strategy of bit absurd, a concession outright of valuable time Another basic point, but one often forgotten: it having the 1NR extend T. The logic is that the that might either be used productively to extend is the plan we are testing for topicality pur- 1NR will do no real damage –– if they don’t other winning arguments, or divert the 2AR from poses, not the rhetoric of the case or the 2AC. cover everything the round will not be lost (since the T argument you really love. At every point, keep your eyes (and debating) topicality isn’t normally a position the affirma- Be prepared to go for the topicality argu- centered on what the plan says. Feel free to tive can turn), and the 1NR can orate for as little ment depending on the affirmative answers. An quote its mandates, and explain how they fall or much time as they want to use. But this obvious point, I suppose, but I’m surprised at short of meeting your definition (or, for that strategy is often a giveaway that the 2NR will how often I see topicality arguments initiated in matter, their own). not extend the violation, and many 2NCs com- the first negative where the team communicates Rely on "topicality tests." When a judge pound the problem by not flowing their part- their utter disinterest in going for it. They’ll decides topicality at round’s end, she or he will ners on T. As a result of this conventional wis- cheerfully admit to the 2AC as she preps that often lay your definition down side-by-side with dom, you can sometimes get mileage simply by they haven’t flowed their own violation. Or, the text of the plan. The judge faces the simple extending topicality in the 2NC. It doesn’t have and this is worse, while the 1NR fights his way task of determining if this plan meets this defini- to take very long, and should not divert from the through the violation, the affirmative will see tion. Your debating must provide the judge with major position(s) extended in the 2NC (critical with their own four eyes that the 2NC isn’t a test (or tests) for making such a determination. argument, counterplan, etc.). And since the 2NC flowing her colleague on the argument. Such In the law these are often called “bright line tests,” is a constructive speech, there won’t be any risk behaviors needlessly give away the game, and since ideally they produce clear-cut determina- the arguments run there will be “new.” Leave they deny you the possibility of actually going tions. In topicality debates, such tests can be topicality for the constructive’s end–– if every- for the violation if the 1AR screws it up. Even simple. “Does the plan’s plain language reduce thing isn’t covered, the 1NR can take care of the if you imagine the T position as a time-waster, weapons of mass destruction by 50% or not? – rest.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • A Student's Guide to Classic Debate Competition
    Learning Classic Debate A Student’s Guide to Classic Debate Competition By Todd Hering © 2000 Revised 2007 Learning Classic Debate 2 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Understanding the Classic Debate Format Chapter 3: Argumentation & Organization Chapter 4: Delivery Chapter 5: Research & Evidence Chapter 6: Writing Your Case Chapter 7: The Rules of Classic Debate To The Reader: Welcome to “Learning Classic Debate.” This guide is intended to help you prepare for Classic Debate competition. The Classic Debate League was launched in the fall of 2000. The classic format is intended to produce straightforward debates that reward competitors for their preparation, argumentation, and delivery skills. If you find topics in this guide to be confusing, please e-mail the author at the address below so that you can get an answer to your question and so that future editions may be improved. Thanks and good luck with your debates. About the author: Todd Hering debated for Stillwater High School from 1989-1991. After graduating, he served as an assistant coach at Stillwater from 1991-1994. In 1994, Hering became head debate coach at Stillwater, a position he held until 1997 when he moved to the new Eastview High School in Apple Valley, MN. Hering is currently a teacher and head debate coach at Eastview and is the League Coordinator for the Classic Debate League. Contact Information: Todd Hering Eastview High School 6200 140th Street West Apple Valley, MN 55124-6912 Phone: (651) 683-6969 ext. 8689 E-Mail: [email protected] Learning Classic Debate 3 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Competitive interscholastic debates have occurred in high schools for well over a century.
    [Show full text]
  • POLICY DEBATE: “Two Versus Two” Debate
    WNDI 2014 p. 1 of 12 Policy Debate http://www.whitman.edu/academics/whitman-debate POLICY DEBATE: “Two versus two” Debate. CONDUCTING THE DEBATES THEMSELVES Each debate will have four constructives, four rebuttals, and four cross-examination periods. In a single debate, each student will deliver two speeches—a constructive and a rebuttal. 1AC: 5 minutes First Affirmative Constructive : This speech is almost fully prepared before the debate starts. The First Affirmative constructive speech is expected to defend the resolution in the most compelling way possible. This means at least 3 (and probably 4) components should be part of the 1ac: The existence of a problem, the consequences (impact of significance) of that problem, the need for a solution provided by the proposition, and (optional) arguments against what the negative side might say. In other words, the task of the 1A is to explain the resolution and provide arguments defending the resolution. The format is flexible, but most good 1As will defend an interpretation of the resolution and then establish 3-5 arguments in favor of the resolution. Each argument should have a claim, data, and warrants. Each argument should independently prove that the resolution is valid or true. Each argument should be given weight (significance)—why does that argument matter? Each argument should also link itself directly to the wording of the resolution. Most importantly, each argument should have evidence to back it up—quotations from experts, statistics, narratives, other reasoning, etc. CX of 1AC: 3 minutes The negative team cross-examines the affirmative speaker. These 3 minutes can be used to clarify information, set up future arguments, expose weaknesses in the speech, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Lincoln-Douglas Debate Textbook
    © National SpeechDebate & Association LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE Dr. Seth Halvorson & Cherian Koshy LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE Dr. Seth Halvorson & Cherian Koshy © NATIONAL SPEECH & DEBATE ASSOCIATION LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE 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 About the Authors . iv About This Text . v. Unit 1: Introduction to LD Debate . 01 Unit 2: How do I write a case? . 09 . Unit 3: During the debate round . 25 Unit 4: Refutation . 33 Unit 5: Rebuttal Speeches . 43. Unit 6: Go with the flow: taking notes and tracking arguments . 51 Unit 7: Delivery . 55 Unit 8: Sample Affirmative Case . 61 Unit 9: Sample Negative Case . 69 . Unit 10: The Debate Round: A Timeline . 73 . Unit 11: Practice suggestions and drills for debaters . 77 APPENDIX A: Glossary of commonly used debate terminology .
    [Show 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
    [Show full text]
  • Introducing Parliamentary Debate
    Introducing Parliamentary Debate A resource for teachers and students Compiled and written by Kate Shuster & John Meany Claremont Colleges Debate Outreach [email protected] Table of Contents Introduction to Parliamentary Debate ---- 3-6 Basic Rules of Parliamentary Debate ---- 7 Speaker Responsibilities ---- 8-14 Types of Motions ---- 15-17 Constructing a Case for the Motion ---- 18-20 Making the Most of Your Preparation Time ---- 21-22 Points of Information ---- 23 Taking Notes ---- 24-25 Web Sites for Further Information ---- 26 Glossary of other terms ---- 27-31 2 Parliamentary Debate Guidelines and Conventions I. Parliamentary debate is a formal contest featuring critical analysis and rhetorical skill. Participants represent the advocates for and against a motion for debate (also known as a resolution or topic). One or more judges deliberate on the outcome of the contest. II. A motion is presented as the subject for debate. A different topic is used for each round of debate. Two teams, each with two persons and designated as “Proposition” (also known as “Government”) and “Opposition”, prepare to debate the topic. The teams have twenty minutes of preparation time from the announcement of the motion to prepare for each debate. Students may consult other students, dictionaries, reference materials, and prepared notes during the preparation period. There is no preparation time once the debate commences. No prepared materials may be brought into the debate round for the debater’s use. Debaters are not permitted to read published material in the speeches of the debate to support their argument claims. III. There are two types of formal speeches in each round of debate: constructive speeches and rebuttal speeches.
    [Show full text]
  • "Permanent Adaptation" - the NDT's Last 50 Years Allan Louden
    Speaker & Gavel Volume 50 Article 5 Issue 2 50th Anniversary Issue January 2013 "Permanent Adaptation" - The NDT's Last 50 Years Allan Louden Follow this and additional works at: http://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/speaker-gavel Part of the Speech and Rhetorical Studies Commons Recommended Citation Louden, A. (2013). "Permanent Adaptation" - The NDT's Last 50 Years. Speaker & Gavel, 50(2), 18-28. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. It has been accepted for inclusion in Speaker & Gavel by an authorized administrator of Cornerstone: A Collection of Scholarly and Creative Works for Minnesota State University, Mankato. Louden: "Permanent Adaptation" - The NDT's Last 50 Years Speaker & Gavel, 2013, 50 (2) 18 “Permanent Adaptation” – The NDT’s Last 50 years Allan Louden It remains a surprise I have been involved with competitive debate for five decades, a sobering self- reflection. Viewed more charitably, participating in history imparts a certain authority, a wisdom reserved to longevity, even as one’s memory reconstructs. This essay purports to provide a history of the Na- tional Debate Tournament for roughly the last 50 years. Doing justice to the historical sweep would be a book-length project, this summary much more mod- est.1 The essay is inevitably selective, recounted from a particular point of view. History never allows more. It has been my experience that there are enduring prospects for organiza- tions across time, especially those defined by competition. A historic lens dis- closes how the NDT has changed and what that may suggest for the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Answers to FAQ's for Debate Students/ What to Expect / What to Bring What Are the Goals of the Camp? What Will the Class Sched
    WNDI 2014 p. 1 of 5 Speech & Debate http://www.whitman.edu/academics/whitman-debate Answers to FAQ’s for Debate Students/ What to Expect / What to Bring Updated June 2014 Welcome to Debate Camp! It’s also commonly referred to as “Debate Institute,” “Debate Workshop,” or simply “The WNDI.” Keep an open mind and work hard and you will learn a lot, meet some great people, and have lots of fun. This is an experience you will value and remember for a long time—many students who attend the WNDI or a similar workshop say it was the most significant training they ever received in terms of argumentation and research. We hope you will say the same thing after this summer. What are the goals of the camp? We hope you will learn a lot and have fun, all while getting used to a college atmosphere for your future endeavors. In terms of the instruction and the improvement that will occur here, we do not think you could find a debate workshop more oriented toward helping students to become better speakers, more effective advocates of real-world policy, and the type of researcher who can apply critical thinking to a complex problem. In short, whether you come to learn policy, Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, or Extemporaneous Speaking, the faculty will have an emphasis and communication skills and effective forms of expression. The days will be well-balanced between work on general skills, focus on particular topics, guided research in small groups led by an experienced faculty member, and rigorous practice debates.
    [Show full text]
  • Donaldson UTA Getting Started in CX Debate
    GETTING STARTED IN CROSS – EXAMINATION DEBATE UT ARLINGTON SAC | MICHAEL ALLEN DONALDSON | COBA 245E “IMMIGRANT SONG” – LED ZEPPELIN WHO AM I? ¡ Michael Allen Donaldson ¡ Speech, Debate, and Journalism Coach ¡ UIL Academic Coordinator ¡ China Spring HS (District 18 – 4A) ¡ Contact Me: ¡ [email protected] Not a 12 year old, but just as immature as one. WHAT ARE OUR GOALS? ¡ What the UIL says: “Policy debate is challenging but produces lifelong skills that will benefit you. Come listen to CX debate made user-friendly. Learn CX debate format, speaker responsibilities, and basic terminology.” ¡ What Donaldson says: We’re gonna’ take a quick look at the structure of CX debate: the arguments, the terms, and the structure. We’re going to move quickly, but deliberately. I’m not saying that this is going to be the greatest hour and a half of your life, but it probably will. LET’S BEGIN WITH A QUOTE FROM A FAMOUS MODERN PHILOSOPHER: “Esketit.” - Lil Pump WHAT IS POLICY DEBATE? ¡ Policy Debate (also known as Cross-Examination Debate or CX Debate) is a partner debate event that tasks teams of 2 students with debating a year-long topic concerning a matter of policymaking or governmental affairs. ¡ Each year a resolution is selected by a national delegation of coaches and other authority figures. The 2018 – 2019 resolution is – Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its restrictions on legal immigration to the United States. ¡ Fun fact: This topic was authored by Nicole Cornish of Athens ISD here in Texas! She’s pretty awesome. WHAT IS POLICY DEBATE? ¡ Each team in the debate has an assigned job that is (usually) assigned on the round posting.
    [Show full text]