DOCSLIB.ORG

Aguide to Debate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Aguide to Debate A GUIDE TO Cross- E amination XDEBatE W.E. Schuetz and David Gardiner Co–Authors Jana M. Riggins, Editor Revised Summer 2020 UNIVERSITY INTERSCHOLASTIC LEAGUE Notice of Non-Discrimination The University Interscholastic League (UIL) does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, or age in its programs. See Section 360, Non-Discrimination Policy, UIL Constitution and Contest Rules. https://www.uiltexas.org/policy/constitution/general/nondiscrimination The following person has been designated to handle inquiries regarding the non- discrimination policies: Dr. Mark Cousins University Interscholastic League Director of Compliance and Education 1701 Manor Road, Austin, TX 78722 Telephone: (512) 471-5883 Email: [email protected] For further information on notice of non-discrimination, visit http://wdcrobcolp01.ed.gov/CFAPPS/OCR/contactus.cfm or call 1-800-421-3481 or contact OCR in Dallas, Texas: Office for Civil Rights U.S. Department of Education 1999 Bryan Street, Dallas, TX 75201-6810 Telephone: 214-661-9600, Fax: 214-661-9587, TDD: 800-877-8339 Email: [email protected] Preface This publication serves to provide contest rules, procedures and theoretical background to assist you in being successful in UIL CX Debate competition. You will, of course, want to consult debate texts for expanded information on theory. My special thanks to the co-authors of this endeavor, Bill Schuetz and David Gardiner. Both are talented educators and successful coaches who freely give the priceless gift of mentoring. They are individuals who have unselfishly shared their personal time to serve as contest officials for the UIL CX Debate State Meet, to teach workshops at Student Activities Conferences, to serve on League committees, author study reports for the National CX Debate Topic Selection process and to serve in other valuable consulting capacities. They give of their time and energy because of their love for young people and their commitment to the art of argumentation. Their support of the UIL is deeply appreciated. In addition, special appreciation is expressed to Dr. Rich Edwards of Baylor University who, for many years, has provided the section over Internet Debate Research written specific to the current debate resolution. Dr. Edwards’ contribution to high school policy debate in Texas and across the nation is unparalleled. UIl was proud to nominate him to be inducted into the Hall of Fame of the National Fed- eration of State High School Associations. He currenlty serves as the UIL debate consultant. As you read this manual, remember that debate is an ever-evolving discipline. Paradigms and theory continue to evolve, and though you may initially find academic debate confusing, I challenge you to persevere. Debate is much like learning to drive a car — all the instruction in the world doesn’t have meaning until you sit behind the wheel, turn the key in the ignition, and put the car in motion. Then, it all comes together! The same is true for debate — commit yourself to the study of debate texts, use this manual as a guide to success in UIL competition, and be sure to enter the tournament arena to test your skills. As you become your own advocate, you’ll realize why so many high school debaters have become significant leaders in society. Best of luck! Jana Riggins, Editor UIL State Speech & Debate Director About the Authors W.E. Schuetz is a speech and debate teacher at Gregory–Portland High School in Portland, Texas, where he has taught for over four decades. During his teaching career, he has coached numerous award-winning competitors in extemporaneous speaking, cross-examination debate and Lincoln-Douglas Debate. He has earned certification not only in speech, but also in history, English, earth science, biology, physical education and health. Active in UIL, Mr. Schuetz has served as contest director for the Conference A CX Debate State Tournament, and he is a certified One-Act Play judge. He also presents workshops at the UIL Capital Conference in the summer and at Student Activities Conferences during the fall. Mr. Schuetz has received numerous prestigious awards, including the National Federation Citation Award and Outstanding District Chair for the National Speech and Debate Association. He has also received the Texas Speech Communication Association Teacher of the Year award. He has authored several study reports for the National Debate Topic Selection process, has chaired the National Debate Topic Selection Wording Committee and is a vital contributor to LD Debate resolutions, serving on the UIL State Advisory Committee. Mr. Schuetz holds a Bachelor of Science from Texas A&M University in College Station and a Master of Arts from Corpus Christi State University. David Gardiner is a speech and debate teacher at for the Corpus Christi Independent School District where he has coached students to UIL State and NSDA Nationals honors multiple years. Mr. Gardiner has served as District Director of extemporaneous speaking, cross-examination debate and Lincoln- Douglas Debate contests, Region Clerk for UIL Congress and has been appointed to the Regional Speech Advisory Committee. Nominated for the Texas Speech Communication Association Teacher of the Year Award, he has also been a contest official for the UIL CX Debate State tournament. He has presented several study reports at the National Debate Topic Selection meeting, with his topics advancing to the final national ballot and he has served on the National Wording Committee. He was a high school and college debater, and also participated in UIL One-Act Play. Mr. Gardiner holds a Speech Communica- tion degree from Texas A&M University at Corpus Christi. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1 — Foundations Advocacy ............................................................................................................ 5 Resolutional Analysis ......................................................................................... 5 Researching the Topic ......................................................................................... 6 The Stock Issues ................................................................................................. 9 Section 2 — Structures Debate Format .................................................................................................. 10 Writing an Affirmative Case ............................................................................. 11 Negative Strategy ............................................................................................. 12 Speaker Responsibilities ................................................................................... 25 Flowing the Debate ........................................................................................... 26 Cross-Examination Period ................................................................................ 29 Section 3 — Details Tournament Practice and Procedure ................................................................. 31 UIL Rules .......................................................................................................... 31 Debater’s Code of Ethics .................................................................................. 40 How to Judge the Judge .................................................................................... 42 Misunderstood UIL Rules ................................................................................. 44 Debate Jargon ................................................................................................... 45 Improving Debate Skills ................................................................................... 46 Debate in Texas ................................................................................................. 47 Selecting a Resolution ...................................................................................... 48 Section 4 - How to Run the Meet Preparing for the tournament ............................................................................ 52 Computer Guidelines ........................................................................................ 55 Substitutions ..................................................................................................... 55 Pairing/Power Matching/Tabulation ............................................................55-56 Appendix .................................................................................................................... 61 SECTION 1 — FOUNDATIONS WHY SHOULD YOU DEBatE? The answer is advocacy. Webster’s Dictionary defines advocacy as speaking or writ- ing in support of something. An advocate is someone defending or promoting an issue or position. When you debate, you advocate adoption of the debate resolution through implementation of your affirmative case or you defend a negative strategy as being the best in the round. Through advocacy, you appeal to the judge by offering evidence and argumentation to support your position. It is important to be the best advocate under these circumstances. It is even more important to learn the process of advocacy because after debate, you have the rest of your life to live, and the skills you learn from debate will be invaluable. On a personal level, you need to be your own best advocate. You will probably have to sell yourself to an employer to obtain that “once-in-a-lifetime” job. At some point in your career, you might request a salary increase. You may be called upon to support and campaign
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Debate Tips & Tricks
    Debate Tips & Tricks – Rhode Island Urban Debate League 2019/02/14 623 Home About Us ∠ For Debaters & Coaches ∠ News & Events ∠ Join the Movement Debate Tips & Tricks Partners & Partner Supporters: Schools: Alvarez Central Click Here to download Debate 101: This is a helpful guide to Policy Debate written by Bill & Will Smelko detailing everything 3 you need to know from Rudiments of Rhetoric to Debate Theory. E 5 tips to help you win Juanita every debate round: Sanchez 1. Think as if you were your judge, not yourself. Remember, the only person whose opinion matters at Mount the end of the round is the judge’s, not yours! A Pleasant common mistake everyone in public speaking makes is assuming that because you understand the argument that your audience does as well. Take into account the Paul Cuffee judge’s debate experience before using a lot of debate http://www.riudl.org/debate-tips-tricks/ Page 1 of 4 Debate Tips & Tricks – Rhode Island Urban Debate League 2019/02/14 623 lingo, and make sure you look up at your judge while making a key point. This will both reinforce your argument because of the eye contact you will make, and it will allow you to look for signals from the judge (ie, Woonsocket shaking her head) that she understands you. 2. Always think comparatively. Every argument that you make, at the end of the round, will be compared against something the other team said. If you’re affirmative, for example, you should always be thinking in the mindset of “how does my plan compare to the status quo?” [i.e., doing nothing, what the negative frequently advocates].
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • Page Sub-Page Type Title Learning Goals (Students Will Be Able To...) Attachment One Attachment Two Attachment Three
    Page Sub-page Type Title Learning Goals (Students will be able to...) Attachment One Attachment Two Attachment Three Coaching Coaching 10-Minute Speaker Short Activities Resources Resources Roles Practice Coaching Before, Coaching Coaching Best Practice During, and After Resources Resources Document Tournaments Coaching Coaching Best Practice Coaching Resources Resources Document Fundamentals Coaching Coaching Best Practice Coaching the Resources Resources Document Affirmative Coaching Coaching Best Practice Coaching the Resources Resources Document Negative Coaching Coaching Glossary-of-Debate- Document Resources Resources Terms Coaching Coaching Best Practice Ideas for Culture and Resources Resources Document Norm Building Coaching Coaching Quick Speech Short Activities Resources Resources Activities Short Speaking Coaching Coaching Short Activities Games for the First Resources Resources Few Practices Coaching Student 1NC Block Template Note Sheet Resources Resources for Topicality Coaching Student Template 8.5 11 Flowsheet Resources Resources Coaching Student Template 8.5 14 Flowsheet Resources Resources Coaching Student Debate Observer Note Sheet Resources Resources Debrief Worksheet Coaching Student Debate Terms Document Resources Resources Glossary Coaching Student Guide for Novice Document Resources Resources Policy Debaters Coaching Student Topicality Note Sheet Resources Resources Worksheet Tournament 1 Coaching Student Checklist Checklist for Resources Resources Students Coaching Coach IT Video Edit Student Records Resources Introduction to Coaching Coach IT Video Speechwire for Resources Coaches Coaching Registering for Coach IT Video Resources Tournaments Coaching Coach IT Video Roster Management Resources Team Reporting Coaching Coach IT Video from Tabroom to Resources Your UDL - directly respond to specific arguments. - generate arguments under time constraints. Debate Lesson Argumentation Lesson Chain Debates Library ▪ Respond to oral arguments with direct refutation.
    [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]
  • Finding Your Voice
    FINDING YOUR VOICE FINDING YOUR VOICE A Comprehensive Guide to Collegiate Policy Debate Allison Hahn Taylor Ward Hahn Marie-Odile N. Hobeika International Debate Education Association New York, London & Amsterdam Published by: International Debate Education Association 105 East 22nd Street New York, NY 10010 Copyright © 2013 by Allison Hahn, Taylor Ward Hahn, and Marie-Odile N. Hobeika This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hahn, Allison. Finding your voice : a comprehensive guide to collegiate policy debate / Allison Hahn, Taylor Ward Hahn, Marie-Odile N. Hobeika. pages cm ISBN 978-1-61770-051-4 1. Debates and debating. I. Hahn, Taylor Ward. II. Hobeika, Marie-Odile N. III. Title. PN4181.H24 2013 808.53--dc23 2012042433 Design by Kathleen Hayes Printed in the USA CONTENTS Preface ............................................... vii Chapter 1: Basics of Policy Debate ...................... 1 Chapter 2: The Policy Debate Squad .................... 11 Chapter 3: The Topic Process ........................... 16 Chapter 4: Arguments ................................. 22 Chapter 5: Evidence ................................... 35 Chapter 6: Responsibilities of the Affirmative and Negative .............................................. 59 Chapter 7: Speaking and Flowing ....................... 67 Chapter 8: Speeches ................................... 76 Chapter 9: Cross-Examination ......................... 97 Chapter
    [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]
  • 11. Lincoln-Douglas Debate [Language Approved by Membership at NFA 2013; Incorporated by Executive Council on August 12Th, 2013]
    11. Lincoln-Douglas Debate [Language approved by membership at NFA 2013; incorporated by Executive Council on August 12th, 2013] PURPOSE: A debate event designed to engage the audience through a policy-oriented dialogue. DESCRIPTION: NFA Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a one-person, persuasive, policy debate on the traditional stock issues of policy debate (harms, inherency, solvency, and topicality). It is a communication event, in which competitors will be evaluated on their analysis, use of evidence, and ability to effectively and persuasively organize, deliver and refute arguments. Rapid-fire delivery, commonly called “spread delivery,” is considered antithetical to the purpose and intent of this event. RULES: a. Paradigm for Judging Lincoln-Douglas Debate - The official decision making paradigm of NFALD is that of Stock Issues: Harm (Advantage or Goals), Inherency, Solvency, and Topicality. The affirmative is required to propose a plan that meets four initial burdens. The plan need not be detailed, but should be sufficient to prove the plan’s propensity to solve the problem area. The affirmative must prove: - The harm of the present system or that a comparative advantage or goal can be achieved over the present system; - The inherency which prevents solving those harms or achieving those advantages or goals; - The proposed plan’s propensity to solve the harm or achieve the advantage or goal claimed by the affirmative; and - The topical nature of the proposed plan as an inductive proof of the resolution. If, at the end of the debate, the negative has convinced the judge that the affirmative proposal has violated the parameters set by the resolution, then the decision in the debate should be awarded to the negative.
    [Show full text]