Policy Debate
| Missing image Merge_articles.png | It has been proposed that 1AC be merged and redirected into this article.
This request may be discussed on the article's talk page. |
Policy Debate (also known as Cross-Examination Debate) is a form of speech competition in which teams of two debate whether or not a specific policy action should be enacted. See Debate for other types of debate competition.
High school policy debate is sponsored by the National Forensic League, the National Catholic Forensic League, the National Christian Forensics and Communication Association, or one of the regional speech organizations. Collegiate debates are generally competed under the guidelines of the National Debate Tournament (NDT), the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA), or the National Educational Debate Association (NEDA).
Debate topics (resolutions) are selected annually by coaches affiliated schools, and a single topic is debated by affiliated students nationally for the entire season. The resolution addresses a broad topic, such as United Nations Peacekeeping, and the affirmative team generally is expected to present a policy option (plan) that is able to support the normative statement of the resolution. However, there are many different interpretations on what is and is not expected in debate.
| Contents |
|
|
Style and Delivery
Speed
Policy Debaters' speed of delivery will vary from league to league and tournament to tournament. In many tournaments, debaters will "spread", or speak very quickly (and, in theory, clearly) in order to read as much evidence and make as many arguments as possible within the time-constrained speech. The fastest speaking debaters in the nation speak at around 320-330 words per minute.
This rapid-fire delivery is a major source of controversy in the debate community. Rapid delivery and broad coverage is generally encouraged by those who see debate primarily as a game to be won. A more oratorical style, attractive and comprehensible to unprepared community members, is generally favored by those who see debate's purpose as to train persuasive speakers to use evidence in public forums. In most cases, the rate of delivery will change depending upon the audience and the circumstance.
For unskilled debaters, speaking quickly can cause the debater's speech to become unclear; debaters refer to this effect as blur. Often, a fast speaker will also employ debate jargon, increasing the speech's blur.
See the following for a discussion of the issues.
- De David M Chester (2003). "Debating Faster Teams". The Rostrum 77 (5): unumbered. avalible at [1]
- Paul Harens (2003). "To exist or not exist- that is the question". The Rostrum 77 (7): 55. available at [2]
Diction
Because debate is a persuasive event, some schools of thought believe that debaters should be emphatic and persuasive with their arguments. Some judges will prefer one well-articulated argument over several poorly-worded ones. However, in other circuits, cohesion and logic of arugments is considered more important than emphasis.
Flowing
Debate rounds consist of many different arguments, and debators must keep track of all of them in order to properly argue. A specialized form of notetaking, called 'flowing' has evolved over the years to aid debaters. Different schools teach different methods of flowing but the most common style incorporates columns of arguments made in a given speech which allows the debater to match the next speaker's responses up with the original arguments.
Theory
Burdens of the Affirmative
Stock Issues
Traditional debate theory states that the affirmative plan must fulfill certain issues, called the stock issues:
- Topicality: The affirmative case must affirm the resolution as stated.
- Harms: The affirmative must present a case that solves for a problem.
- Significance: The affirmative must present a case that includes evidence that the problem they are solving is significant.
- Inherency: The case must not already be in effect, and the harms must not already be solved for.
- Solvency: The plan must adequately solve for the harms stated.
Advantages
Other external benefits that are created in addition to solving the harms addressed by the affirmative are called advantages. While an affirmative team isn't required to present any advantages in their case in order to fulfill the affirmative burdens, they are often included.
Theory
Often times debaters will point out the that the affirmative is required to fulfill all the stock issues by utilizing a table analogy which lists the four major burdens: Harms, Topicality, Inherency and Solvency as being analogous to table legs. Under this analogy Significance is said to be the tabletop since four table legs without a surface attached is obviously insignificant because it has no utility. If a table lacks any of its four legs (the other four stock issues) then it obviously isn't suitable since it will collapse under its own weight.
Negative Strategy
After the affirmative presents its case, the negative can attack the case with many different arguments, which include:
- Stock Issues: The negative can claim that the affirmative does not uphold any of the above burdens. Certain judges believe that the affirmative must uphold each of the issues, or they lose the round.
- Disadvantages: The negative can claim that there are disadvantages, or adverse effects of the plan, which outweigh any advantages claimed.The basic structure of a Disadvantage includes the Uniqueness, or the current situation, the Link, which usually says the plan will cause the adverse reaction, and the Impact, which is the terminal effect of the Affirmative plan. The weakest part of a Disadvantage tends to be the Link, because if the Negative's Disadvantage has no link, there is no chance of the impact from passing the affirmative plan.
- Kritiks: The negative can claim that the affirmative assumes a certain mindset or assumption that should be rejected if the plan is passed. Kritiks are a reason to reject the entire plan without evaluating its policy. Some kritiks include ones against racism, centralized government or anthropocentric viewpoints.
- Counter-plans: The negative can reject the status quo in favor of a different policy action, which provides better advantages, or fewer disadvantages than the plan, also known as net benefits.
- Narrative: Narratives are emotionally delivered speeches generally given at the opening of a speech. They are usually personal in nature, and call for the judge to approve of a specific policy option based on a situation. A case that would solve for world hunger might include a narrative about a starving African child.
- Performance: A song, dance, or other method of expression other than rhetoric that is used in the round, usually with justification. For example, a dance about freedom may better represent freedom than actual discourse.
- Theory: Sometimes the subject matter of the affirmative's case will create an uneven playing field from the beginning. In these cases, the negative can resort to making objections as to the procedure, content, or delivery of the affirmative team. These objections often are "theoretical" in that they try to make objections based upon what bad can/has come to debate from the infraction, or what would make debate better if it were true.
Evidence
Evidence in debates is organized into units called cards. Cards are designed to condense an author's argument so that debaters have an easy way to access the information. A card is composed of three parts: the tag, the cite, and the body. The tag is the debater's summary of the argument presented in the body. A tag is usually only one or two sentences. The cite contains all relevant citation information (that is, the author, date of publication, journal, title, etc.). Although every card should contain a complete citation, only the author's name and date of publication are typically spoken aloud in a speech. The body is a fragment of the author's original text. The length of a body can vary greatly—cards can be as short as a few sentences and as long as two or more pages. Most cards are between one and five paragraphs in length. The body of a card is often underlined or highlighted in order to eliminate unnecessary or redundant sentences when the card is read in a round. In a round, the tag is read first, followed by the cite and the body.
Judging
Judging policy debate can be challenging. The total time available is short, the issues are complex and the judge may have personal beliefs that cloud impartiality.
Judge qualifications
Some circuits see lay or inexperienced judges recruited from the community as an important "part of the game." Debators in these circuits must be able to adapt from presentations to individuals with no debate experiance at all, to judges who have themselves been debators. This use of lay judges signifigantly impacts delivery and argumentation as the rapid-fire style and complex debate-theory arguments are frequently incomprehensible to lay judges. For this reason, other circuits restrict policy debate judging to qualified judges, generally ex-debators. The use of lay judges, and its impact in speed, presentation and argumentation is a source of great controversy in the US high school debate community. See the following for recent reviews of the issue.
- Bob Bilyeu (April 2004). "An Army of One - A challenge to Debate Coaches". The Rostrum, 78, 72–86. available at [3]
- John Durkee (April 2005). "DEBATING ABOUT DEBATING". The Rostrum, 79, 49-52. available at [4]
Paradigms
Experianced debate judges (who were generally debaters in High School and/or College) generally carry a mindset that favors certain arguments and styles over others. Because of this, it is customary for debaters to ask a judge what their experience and paradigm is for judging. Judging paradigms include:
Stock Issues
A stock issues judge believes that the affirmative plan must fulfill all their burdens (see Stock Issues under Theory). 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.
Tabula Rasa
From the Latin phrase that translates to clean slate, tabula rasa judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. Tab judges expect for teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. While a generalization is unfair, most tab judges will be comfortable with fast speeches, along with counter-plans, disadvantages, and kritiks. However, it is best to ask a tab judge on his or her preference in regards to specific types of arguments.
Policymaker
Policymaker judges tend to take the theoretical viewpoint that they are the "policymaker," and as such, they vote for the side that presents the best policy option. Typically, Policymakers vote heavily on disadvantages and counter-plans, and may not vote on kritiks or topicality arguments.
Gamer
Gamer judges are becoming more common, especially among young college debaters judging High School rounds. 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. Gamer judges will have no qualms about voting for a policy that vaporizes the moon, disbands the U.S. government, or any other policy action that would normally be considered "absurd."
Competition and Debate Life
Tournaments
Most high school debaters debate in local tournaments in their city, state or nearby states. Hundreds of such tournaments are held at high schools throughout the US each weekend during the debate season.
A small subset of high school debaters, mostly from elite public and private schools, travel around the country to tournaments in what is called the 'national circuit.' Major national circuit tournaments include the Glenbrooks at Glenbrook North and Glenbrook South High Schools in North Shore, Chicago, the Barkeley Forum at Emory University, and the Heart of Texas tournament at St. Mark's School of Texas in Dallas.
Championships
High School
- The high school debate tournament generally considered to be the national circuit championship is the Tournament of Champions held at the University of Kentucky.
- For non-national circuit debaters the national championship is generally considered to be the national tournament of their sponsoring organization, either
- the National Speech and Debate Tournament of the National Forensic League or
- the Grand National Tournament of the National Catholic Forensic League .
College
There is no single unified national championship in college debate; the National Debate Tournament (NDT), the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) and the American Debate Association (ADA) all host national tournaments.
Institutes
Highly competitive debaters attend summer institutes ranging from one or two weeks to two or more months. Prestegious institutes exist at Dartmouth, Northwestern, and the University of Michigan amongst others.
Resolutions
Recent NFL high school resolutions
- Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its authority either to detain without charge or to search without probable cause. (2005-2006)
- Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a foreign policy substantially increasing its support of United Nations peacekeeping operations. (2004-2005)
- Resolved: The United States Federal government should establish an ocean policy substantially increasing the protection of marine natural resources. (2003-2004)
- Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase public health services for mental health care in the United States. (2002-2003)
- Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a foreign policy significantly limiting the use of weapons of mass destruction. (2001-2002)
- Resolved: The United States federal government should significantly increase protection of privacy in the United States in one or more of the following areas: employment, medical records, consumer information, search & seizure. (2000-2001)
- Resolved: The federal government should establish an education policy to significantly increase academic achievement in secondary schools in the United States. (1999-2000)
- Resolved: The United States should substantially change its foreign policy toward Russia. (1998-1999)
Recent CEDA-NDT intercollegiate resolutions
(2004-2005) Resolved: The United States federal government should establish an energy policy requiring a substantial reduction in the total non-governmental consumption of fossil fuels in the United States.
(2003-2004) Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enact one or more of the following:
- Withdrawal of its World Trade Organization complaint against the European Union’s restrictions on genetically modified foods;
- A substantial increase in its government-to-government economic and/or conflict prevention assistance to Turkey and/or Greece;
- Full withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization;
- Removal of its barriers to and encouragement of substantial European Union and/or North Atlantic Treaty Organization participation in peacekeeping in Iraq and reconstruction in Iraq;
- Removal of its tactical nuclear weapons from Europe;
- Harmonization of its intellectual property law with the European Union in the area of human DNA sequences;
- Rescission of all or nearly all agriculture subsidy increases in the 2002 Farm Bill.
(2002-2003) Resolved: The United States Federal Government should ratify or accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
- The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
- The Kyoto Protocol;
- The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;
- The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
- The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
(2001-2002) Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase federal control throughout Indian Country in one or more of the following areas: child welfare, criminal justice, employment, environmental protection, gaming, resource management, taxation.
(2000-2001) Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its development assistance, including government to government assistance, within the Greater Horn of Africa.
Specific wording and spelling of terms used in the CEDA-NDT resolutions can be found here: http://www.wfu.edu/organizations/NDT/HistoricalLists/topics.html
Event Structure
The exact procedure of the debate may vary depending on the sponsoring body. The order of speeches is invariant. The speeches description, and the speech times (under NFL rules) are as follows:
| First Affirmative Constructive Speech (abbreviated 1AC) | 8 minutes |
| Cross-Examination of First Affirmative by Second Negative | 3 minutes |
| First Negative Constructive Speech (1NC) | 8 minutes |
| Cross-Examination of First Negative by First Affirmative | 3 minutes |
| Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) | 8 minutes |
| Cross-Examination of Second Affirmative by First Negative | 3 minutes |
| Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) | 8 minutes |
| Cross-Examination of Second Negative by Second Affirmative | 3 minutes |
| First Negative Rebuttal (1NR) | 5 minutes |
| First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) | 5 minutes |
| Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR) | 5 minutes |
| Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) | 5 minutes |
In college debates, constructive speeches are nine minutes, and rebuttals are six minutes.
In addition to speeches, policy debates may allow for a certain amount of preparation time, or "prep time," during a debate round. NFL rules call for 5 minutes of total prep time that can be used. College debates typically have 10 minutes of preparation time. The preparation time is used at each team's preference; they can use different amounts of preparation time before any of their speeches, or even none at all.
References
- Dana Hensley and Diana Carlin (2005). Mastering Competitive Debate 7th Ed.. Perfection Learning. ISBN 0931054702.
See Also
Inter-Collegiate policy debate