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. 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. Resolved:

The United States Affirmative: Uphold in the United federal States. the resolution by government affirming and defending the AFFIRMATIVE topic. Advocate for Ground change. of elementary should and/or secondary substantially education increase Negative: Negates/opposes the resolution, its funding and/or regulation preferring the Status Quo § Resolution: the topic to be debated. § Constructives: the first four speeches in a round. Evidence is presented to build the basis for your and establish clash. § Rebuttals: the last four speeches in a round relying heavily on analysis. § Focus the round on most important issues. Why do you win? § New evidence is OK but NOT new arguments. § Negative Block: 13 minute block of Negative speaking time (2NC & 1NR) § Prep Time: 8 minutes per team given in round for the team to prepare responses to their opponents arguments. § CX Time: 3 minute time period after each constructive speech in which a team asks question of the person who just spoke. § Framework: the way that the debaters are asking the judge to view the round. § Paradigm: the way the judge will adjudicate the round. Judging preference. § Offense: arguments given by debaters that provide a reason for you to support a vote for them or their side § Defense: arguments given by debaters that negate arguments by the other team (only a mitigator) § Status quo: current system- Affirmative advocates change; Negative typically defends SQ. § Stock Issues: core issues in a debate round. Affirmative responsibility. § Clash: responding directly to your opponents arguments. § Flowing: taking notes in a structured fashion in a debate round. Status quo is presumed to be sufficient ‘as is’

§ Affirmative responsibility: § “Burden of proof” lies with the Affirmative. They must show why status quo policies are insufficient to solve a particular harm, thus overcoming Status quo and presumption. presumption § Negative responsibility: § Clash with affirmative propositions, showing why the status quo is preferable to change (doing so meets the negative “burden of rejoinder”)Presumption lies with the negative.

§ Purpose of the debate: win each contention of clash 1AC: Affirmative team will present a structured case with a plan text to include all stock issues. § Stock Issues are how the affirmative meets the burden of proof; together, the stock issues are: § Harms (H): Evidence demonstrating the problems within the status quo. § Inherency (I): Evidence demonstrating barriers exist within the SQ making the current system unable to resolve the problem. § Attitudinal, Structural, Existential § Topicality (T): Affirmative case must *reasonably* fall under the terms of the resolution. § Significance (S): Evidence demonstrating the harms create BIG, BAD issues that justify a change to the SQ. (Often included with the harms. Impact of the harms.) § Solvency (S): Evidence demonstrating that the Affirmative plan will overcome the inherent barrier to solve for the significance and harms. § Prima Facie case: Latin term which means “first glance”; it refers to a case that meets all of the stock issues; a prima facie case overcomes presumption § A plan is a written text that demonstrates a step-by-step explanation of how the affirmative will change the Status Quo to achieve solvency for the Impacts they claim. § Typically placed before solvency in the 1AC. § “Plan Planks” can include: § Mandates: are the basic provisions (action steps) of what the plan should accomplish. § Administration: planks define who is to operate the Affirmative plan. § Enforcement: provisions identify the penalty will be for violating any laws proposed by the Affirmative mandates; these planks may also specify what agencies will prosecute cases. § Funding: provision to pay for plan. § Spikes: plan components which serve to avoid a that the rest of the plan would otherwise cause. § Intent: "The Affirmative team reserves the right to establish legislative intent based on speeches presented in this round." Traditional needs (Problem/Solution format) § Contention I. Harms/Significance § Contention II. Inherency § Plan--the affirmative must present a solution for the problem identified § Contention III. Solvency § Contention IV. Advantages § Beyond solving for the BIG, BAD problem(s) identified in Contention I, these are the additional benefits to adopting the Affirmative Plan. Comparative advantage (Case formatted to show that adopting the policy would have advantages over the SQ):

§ Observation 1. Observations are usually general statements about the problem area which are important but do not readily fit into the analysis structured in the advantages. These are optional. § Observation 2. Some cases will have one, others may have none. § Plan--this format states the policy, then explains why it would be advantageous § Advantage 1. The affirmative does something better than the status quo § A. Significance § B. Inherency § C. Solvency § Advantage 2. The affirmative does something else § A. Significance § B. Inherency § C. Solvency Fiat: Latin- ’let it be done’ § Affirmative has this implied power to put the plan into effect LMGTFY § https://lmgtfy.com/

CX Tools & Resources § https://goo.gl/z8owYY

Up Next… Negative argumentation and the progression of the round