Meet the Players
Court Room Analogy
Question: Did John Doe kill Sally Sue?
Prosecution
•Witnesses
Defense
CX
•Weapon
•Motive
•Witnesses
•Evidence
CX
•Alibi
Court Room Analogy
Resolved: Mandatory drug testing of student athletes is justified.
Affirmative
Negative
•Facts
•Expert
Testimony
•Logical
Reasoning
CX
CX
•Facts
•Expert
Testimony
•Logical
Reasoning
Court Room Analogy
Prosecution’s
Case
Defense’s Case
CX
2
CX
1
3
Defense
Prosecution
Closing
Arguments
Closing
Arguments
5
6
4
Court Room Analogy
Affirmative
Constructive
Case
CX
2
Negative
Constructive
Case and
Refutation
1
Affirmative
Rebuttal
5
CX
4
3
Negative
Rebuttal
Affirmative
Rebuttal
6
7
Decision
Lincoln Douglas Format
1st Affirmative Constructive
Cross Examination by Negative
(Prep Time by Negative)
1st Negative Constructive
(includes refutation of affirmative)
6 minutes
3 minutes
Cross Examination by Affirmative
3 minutes
7 minutes
(Prep Time by Affirmative)
1st Affirmative Rebuttal
(Prep Time by Negative)
4 minutes
1st Negative Rebuttal
(Prep Time by Affirmative)
6 minutes
2nd Affirmative Rebuttal
3 minutes
What is a policy debate?
A policy debate consists of two teams, the
Affirmative and the Negative, debating the
national debate topic, or resolution. Each
team consists of two debaters.


The Affirmative team supports or advocates
the policy direction prescribed by the
resolution.
The Negative team opposes the resolution.
Some Key Debate Concepts

Burden of proof:

Status quo:

Presumption: Absent proof of a need for change, presumption
The Affirmative team has the burden of
proof. They must prove the need for change or the need for the
resolution.
The present system or the ways things are now.
says that things should remain as they are, or status quo. The
Negative team and the status quo have presumption.

Fiat: The basic assumption that the Affirmative plan will be
adopted.

Prima Facie:
The requirements that the Affirmative case must
fulfill to prove a need for change and to support the resolution.
The Prima Facie or Stock Issues

Topicality: Is the Affirmative case germane to the resolution?

Harm: Is there a problem? What is wrong with the status

Significance: Is the problem qualitatively or quantitatively

Inherency: What is causing the problem? What barrier

Solvency: Can the problem be solved? Will the solution
quo?
significant?
prevents change or prevents the SQ from solving the harm?
create more serious problems than the ones it resolves? Is the
solution advantageous?
Prima Facie: Topicality


The resolution limits the topics or issues
that the Affirmative may argue; the
Affirmative must stay within the bounds
of the topic.
If the Affirmative plan does not fall
within the bounds of the resolution,
then it is Not Topical.
Prima Facie: Harm & Significance

To warrant adoption of the resolution, there must be
a reason to change; there must be a problem with
the present system.

Harms may be physical, economic, or philosophical.

The problem, or Harm, must also be significant.


Quantitative significance (statistics, numbers)
Qualitative significance (values, quality)
Prima Facie: Inherency


There must be a reason that the present
system can not solve for the Harm; there
must be a barrier to change.
Types of Inherency (3)



Structural inherency (law or policy)
Attitudinal inherency (attitudes)
Existential inherency (harm simply exists)
Prima Facie: Solvency

AFF must eliminate or reduce the Harms.

The AFF plan is the mechanism of solvency.

The plan should be more advantageous than
the SQ.
The Prima Facie or Stock Issues
An easy phrase for recalling the Prima Facie
requirements:

T= Topicality

H= Harms (Brink-Link-Impact)

I= Inherency

S= Solvency (Advantages)
Harms:

_______________
The Structure of a Debate




High School policy debate uses the 8-3-5 format.
Each debater delivers a 8-minute constructive
speech, which is followed by a 3-minute questioning
period (Cross-X) by the opposing team.
Each debater delivers a 5-minute rebuttal or closing
speech.
Each team also has 8-10 minutes of prep time to use
between speeches.

This is a total of 8-10 minutes, not 8-10 minutes between
each speech.
The Structure of a Debate

Constructive Speeches

First Affirmative Constructive (1AC): 8 Minutes


First Negative Constructive (1NC): 8 Minutes


Cross-Examined by 1N: 3 Minutes
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): 8 Minutes


Cross-Examined by 1A: 3 Minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): 8 Minutes


Cross-Examined by 2N: 3 Minutes
Cross-Examined by 2A: 3 Minutes
Rebuttal Speeches




First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): 5 Minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR): 5 Minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): 5 Minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): 5 Minutes
Constructive Speaker Burdens

1AC: Presents a “Prima Facie” Case



Harm, Significance, Inherency, Solvency, Plan
Topicality is granted until challenged by the
Negative team
1NC: Presents the Negative Attack


Traditionally attacks the 1AC
May also present “off-case” arguments such as
Topicality, Disadvantages, Counterplans, and/or
Kritiks
Constructive Speaker Burdens

2AC: Re-Defends Against 1NC



Rebuilds the Affirmative case presented in the 1AC
Follows 1NC point-by-point or applies the 1NC
points to the 1AC structure
2NC: Answers 2AC positions/continues
Negative attack


Presents any additional Negative arguments not
presented by the 1NC
Answers some, but not all, 2AC positions (divide
positions with the 1NR)
Rebuttal Speaker Burdens



No new arguments in the rebuttals
(new evidence to further a previous
argument is OK)
1NR: Answer remaining 2AC arguments
not covered by the 2NC
1AR: Answer all 2NC & 1NR arguments
Rebuttal Speaker Burdens


2NR: Extend winning Negative arguments
(pick and choose, do not “go for”
everything); tell the judge why she should
vote “Negative”
2AR: Answer all remaining Negative
arguments & claim all Affirmative positions
that are no longer contested; tell the judge
why he should vote “Affirmative”
Resolved:.The United States
federal government should
substantially increase its
exploration and or
development of space
beyond the earth’s
mesosphere
What is a resolution?



The resolution is always a proposition of
policy.
The resolution specifies what action should
be taken and by whom.
Sample policy resolution:
Resolved: that the United States federal
government should substantially change its
foreign policy toward Israel.
The 2011-2012 High School Resolution
Resolved:.The United States federal
government should substantially
increase its exploration and or
development of space beyond the
earth’s mesosphere
Initial Questions about the Topic
What is “The US federal Govt, What is the
mesosphere, ”?
What does should mean?
What constitutes “Substantially, increase, ”?
What are “areas that need to be explored and
or developed”?
Why is it important that we do it?
Space Exploration on the Affirmative

Space beyond the Mesosphere?



The Planet Earth is a terminal entity.
BOOM!!! We’re gone
Resources on earth are limited (Electricity) Space
The benefits of exploration are infinite. (GPS,
maintenance of satelites and space stations.
Colonization. Inventions for earth, Medical
breakthroughs and experimentation.
Space Exploration on the Affirmative

Solar Satelites:
Reliance on fossil fuels puts the US at a crossroads –
Transition to SPS is key to ensure access to carbon
neutral technologies

Oil shocks coming now because of supply disruptions –
perception of instability in the mid east and supply
disruptions causes oil prices to soar – that tanks the
global economy


Additionally, the resulting oil competition
causes US China war
China US war escalates and causes nuclear war

SPS solves the economy – creates multiple jobs and
saves the space industry

Space Exploration/Development
on the Affirmative

Balistic Missile Defense:
The US Federal Government should
deploy a constellation of kinetic energy
ballistic missile interceptors in space
above the mesosphere.

Chinese
expansion
into
challenges US national security

space
US and China likely to go to war over
hegemony and security competition

Space Exploration on the Affirmative

Other Topics:




Asteroid
Mining


Aliens
Asteroid
Detection
China
Cooperation


Colonize
Mars
Lunar
Mining
Nuclear
Waste
Disposal
Space
Tourism.
http://www.debatecoac
hes.org/page/openevidence-project
Space Exploration/Development
on the Affirmative



You will be constructing an Affirmative Case
and building evidence files on the Negative
side.
Your job is not to come up with something
from scratch.. But to locate and organize your
files.
Team Approach so you are not on your own.
Selecting the Affirmative Case




The best cases are found only after you have done
extensive preliminary research on the topic.
Begin by looking for Solvency evidence –try to find
recommendations for topical action.
Once you have a “plan” gather the Harms and
Inherency evidence.
Summer debate workshops and some tournaments
will produce case lists.
Selecting the Affirmative Case
Some thoughts about case selection:
 Think Strategically
Does the case position you to refute obvious
Negative DAs and CPs?
Big changes/impacts to outweigh or minimal change
to avoid the links

What are your research abilities?
Big cases central to the topic are easier to research.
Cases inadequately researched will not win.

Pick a case that is interesting to YOU
Organizing the Case (the 1AC)

There are 3 types of cases:

The Needs Case

The Comparative Advantage Case

The Goals Criterion Case
The Traditional Needs Case



Remember: All cases must meet the prima
facie requirements regardless of
organizational structure.
Based on a problem-solution theme
The Affirmative explains the cause and the
extent of the problem and then presents a
plan and demonstrates that it solves the
problem.
The Traditional Needs Case
Contention 1: SQ will not solve the problem
(Inherency)
Contention 2: The inherent problem results in a
significant problem (Harms & Significance)
Plan
Contention 3: Implementation of the plan will
solve the problem (Solvency)
The Traditional Needs Case
Cont 1: SQ Fishing Policy Fails
Cont 2: Overfishing is Destroying Our Oceans
Plan: establish marine reserves system
Cont 3: Reserves restore our oceans
The Comparative Advantage Case



Focuses on comparing the SQ and the
Affirmative alternative
Begins by describing the nature of the SQ
(inherency)
Presents the plan and compares it to the SQ
by illustrating the plan’s Advantages
The Comparative Advantage Case
Observation: SQ will not implement the plan
Plan
Advantage 1
A. Harm
B. Solvency
Advantage 2
A. Harm
B. Solvency
The Comparative Advantage Case
Observation: SQ Fishing Policy Fails
Plan: establish marine reserve system
Advantage 1: Ocean Environment
A. Overfishing is Destroying Our Oceans
B. Reserves Protect Ocean Ecosystems
Advantage 2: Economy
A. Overfishing will collapse fisheries
B. Reserves economically benefit fisheries
The Goals Criterion Case
Argues that we have a goal and that the
AFF plan better meets the goal than does
the SQ

Must win two arguments




The goal(s) exists and is a worthy goal
The Plan better meets the goal
Prima facie requirements are addressed by
the second argument.
The Goals Criterion Case
Obs: Reducing juvenile crime is a national priority (the
goal)
Plan: increase funding for runaway shelters; nondisclosure statutes for shelters; repeal 15-day limit
for staying in shelters
The Goals Criterion Case
Contention 1: SQ policies promote juvenile crime by
runaway youths
 A. SQ lacks a comprehensive policy to deal with
runaway youths
 B. Runaway youths increase juvenile crime
 C. Runaway youths increase prostitution leading to
the spread of AIDS
Contention 2: Aff plan better reduces teen runaways
 A. Increased funding for expanding training and
expanding youth shelters solves
 B. Non-disclosure statutes ensuring confidentiality
solves
 C. Repealing 15-day-stay limit solves
Writing the Affirmative Case

Do not over-structure the case.
Every piece of evidence does not need to be labeled
as a subpoint. Some substructure (A, B, C) may
be necessary or desirable.

Use transition sentences/tag lines:
Each card should be introduced by a sentence that
succinctly summarizes the argument it supports.

Cite the complete source for the evidence.
Writing the Affirmative Case




Use your best evidence in the 1AC.
Use evidence that allows you to refute (or
preempt) commonly run Negative arguments.
Avoid evidence that sets up or makes you
vulnerable to specific Negative attacks.
Make adjustments to your 1AC throughout
the debate season.
Writing the Affirmative Plan


Specify the agent of adoption
Give specific policy mandates
Specific plan mandates should be consistent with the
solvency evidence

Include funding & enforcement mechanisms
F & E may be by normal means, or you may specify
the means. However, you can not claim an
advantage from the specified F & E.


Reserve the right to clarify plan intent
Use “Planks” or write as a paragraph
Sample Affirmative Plan
Plank 1: Mandates
The United States federal government will adopt the May 2003
recommendations of the Pew Oceans Commission regarding
overfishing, including the shift to an ecosystems-based
approach to fishery management and the establishment of a
National Oceans Agency empowered to oversee and
implement a nationally-coordinated system of marine
reserves and marine protected areas within the United States
Exclusive Economic Zone.
Plank 2: Funding and enforcement are guaranteed.
Plank 3: Affirmative speeches shall serve as policy
intent.
Sample Affirmative Plan
The United States federal government will adopt the
May 2003 recommendations of the Pew Oceans
Commission regarding overfishing, including the shift
to an ecosystems-based approach to fishery
management and the establishment of a National
Oceans Agency empowered to oversee and
implement a nationally-coordinated system of marine
reserves and marine protected areas within the
United States Exclusive Economic Zone. Funding and
enforcement are guaranteed. Affirmative speeches
shall serve as policy intent.
Answering Negative Attacks
Generally, you should anticipate the Negative
attacks and prepare briefs with evidenced
and analytical responses.
Answering Topicality attacks:


Provide counter definitions and interpretations
Provide counter standards for evaluating your
definitions/interpretations vs. the Negative’s
Answering Negative Attacks
Answering Case Attacks



Use your 1AC evidence or read new
evidence to counter Negative claims.
Provide analysis about why your evidence
and arguments are better.
Line-by-line vs. Lump & Dump (grouping)
Answering Negative Attacks
Answering Disadvantages






Challenge the arguments uniqueness
Deny/take-out or turn the link
Deny/take-out or turn the impact
Beware of the double turn
Consider whether the NEG inherency
attack disproves the Uniqueness or Link
Does the Harm solved by the plan
outweigh the impact of the DA?
Answering Negative Attacks
Answering Counterplans


Is the CP topical?
Is the CP competitive?



Permutation
Does the CP solve the case Harms?
Does the CP have any Disadvantages?
Negative Debate Strategies

Attack or refute the Affirmative case

Argue that the Affirmative is not topical

Present disadvantages to the Aff Plan

Propose a counterplan
Attacking the Affirmative Case


Attack the Harms/Significance: Prepare briefs
against all the harms that affirmatives are likely to
present such as ocean pollution and species
extinction.
Attack the Inherency: Argue that the present
system does have programs to address the harms or
that the plan has been adopted. Show new ocean
policy initiatives are working to address problems.

Suggest minor repairs
Attacking the Affirmative Case

Attack the Solvency: Deny that the plan will work.
Blame causes outside of the U.S. ocean policy for
environmental problems and then show the plan
won't solve these problems. Show that government
programs fail to help marine natural resources.
Tips for Attacking the Case
 Listen to the 1AC evidence. Does it really say
what they claim it says? Are there any gaps in
their reasoning?
Attacking the Affirmative Case
Tips for Attacking the Case

Attacks may be take-outs or turn-arounds

Apply your arguments to the 1AC case structure

Follow the Steps of Refutation
1. State the opponent’s argument you are
attacking (signpost)
2. State your argument
3. Read evidence to support your argument or
explain your argument with analysis

Number your arguments
Arguing Topicality



A topicality attack is like a motion in a court of law or
a legislative body in which you argue that the judge
does not have the jurisdiction to vote for the AFF plan
because it falls outside the bounds of the resolution.
The Negative team argues that the Affirmative plan
violates one or more terms in the resolution.
A Topicality argument consists of four parts: the
definition, the violation, the standards, and the voting
issue. It is presented as an “off-case” observation.
The Structure of a Topicality Attack



Definitions: read definitions for the terms in the
resolution that you claim the AFF plan does not meet.
Violations: Explain how the AFF plan does not meet
the definition and thus violates the topic.
Standards: What standards should we apply for
determining that your interpretation of the resolution
is the better one?



Better Definition: Field Context, Grammatical Context,
Precision
Each word has meaning
Reasonability, Debatability
The Structure of a Topicality Attack

Voting Criteria: Why should the judge vote NEG on
T?



Prima Facie Issue
Jurisdiction
Fairness
Arguing Topicality on Ocean Protection



The plan is not “the United States federal
government” because it relies on the states or private
businesses or another country.
The plan does not “establish an ocean policy” or
“increase protection” because it concerns activities on
land or it only modifies an existing policy.
The plan does not concern “marine natural
resources” because it preserves land or human-made
resources.
Sample Topicality Argument
A.
Definition
Random House 2003 “establish: to create or originate”
B.
Violation
The plan only modifies the current policy regarding double hulls
by accelerating the time frame. It does not “create or
originate” an ocean policy.
C.
Standards
1.
2.
D.
Precision: this definition provides a precise limit to the term
Debatability: allowing Affirmatives to modify existing policies
excessively broadens the topic and places an unfair burden
on negatives
Voting Criteria
1.
2.
Prima Facie burden: T is a PF burden. The Aff must win all
PF burdens to win. If they lose T, they lose the debate
Jurisdiction: The resolution only empowers you to consider
topical plans. Plans outside the bounds of the resolution are
outside your jurisdiction and thus, like a judge in a court, you
should throw out the case
The Disadvantage
An argument that claims that adoption
of the AFF plan will have bad
consequences.
4 parts of the Disadvantage

Impact: What would happen? How bad would it be?

Link: Why will the plan cause this?

Brink: Why is this a critical time?

Uniqueness: Would the DA happen even without the
plan?
The DA Link
Start from something the plan does:

Increases environmental regulation

Requires federal gov’t action

Spends money
The DA Brink/Uniqueness
Present recent evidence giving some reason
that we are at a critical time:


Economy: On brink of recession now.
Bipartisanship: Change-over/elections of the
Senate creates a critical brink point.
Present recent evidence giving some reason
why the disadvantage will be avoided in
SQ:


State-federal balance is maintained now
Bipartisanship will survive if Congress can avoid
contentious issues such as ocean environment.
The DA Impact
What will happen.
Be as explicit as possible about a
scenario to impact: Be prepared
to explain how and why the
impact will happen.



Federalism: civil war
Bipartisanship: fail to pass aid
needed for Mid-east peace
Spending: causes economy to
crash
Linear Disadvantages
Linear disadvantages do not need to prove brink,
threshold, or uniqueness: Linear DAs freely admit
that the problem may already be happening in the
present system; they simply claim that the
affirmative plan produces more of a bad thing.
For example: Proliferation of nuclear weapons. It
may be true that there is proliferation in the
present system, but the plan would worsen the
situation. The more proliferation, the worse for all
of us since there will be a linear increase in the
risk of war.
The Advantage of Using Linear DAs: More real world;
brink arguments are often artificial anyway.
The Problems With Using Linear DAs: Not much
impact; difficult to outweigh the affirmative
advantages; it is difficult to quantify the
“increment” of disadvantage caused by the plan.
Presenting the Disadvantage
“The Shell”: The DA can be first presented in any
constructive speech. Most commonly, the DA is
presented in the 1NC with a 1 to 2 minute “shell”
of the argument. In other instances, the DA is
presented in the 2NC; in such cases, the negative
team often presents a longer version of the shell.
Sample Shell
A.
Uniqueness
B.
Link
C.
Impact
Arguing Disadvantages on Ocean Protection

Business Confidence:
Companies are typically concerned with any government
regulation that makes doing business more expensive. Many
affirmatives will do just that. Creating more mandates for
environmentally friendly technology and investment could
make it difficult for ship builders, cruise ship operators and
other maritime businesses to make ends meet. That could
jeopardize the fragile economic recovery that has begun in
the United States by discouraging hiring and investment.

Eco-tourism:
Improving the ocean environment could make them more
appealing to visitors. Paradoxically, tourists put a great deal
of stress on the environment through the use of resources
and visiting (and trampling on) natural wonders. That would
make the policy that attempts to preserve natural resources
counter-productive.
Arguing Disadvantages on Ocean Protection

Federalism:
Many states have created their own regimes of ocean
regulation. New ocean policies at the federal level
undermine the states autonomy, threatening this very
important federalist balance of power and perhaps
preventing a stronger regulatory framework from emerging
from below.

Spending:
Enforcing new regulations is costly, as is more investment
from the government to restore the environment. Budget
balancing priorities demand that we avoid new spending at
this time. More federal spending is a bigger drain on the
economy.
Arguing Disadvantages on Ocean Protection

Politics DAs:
The affirmative's plan will increase or decrease the political
capital and popularity of President Bush or congressional
actors. That could affect the chances of seemingly unrelated
legislation becoming law. It may also have implications on
the electoral viability of each party. With presidential
elections coming up and the war on terrorism continuing,
these disadvantages will have large impacts and continue to
be a powerful negative tool.

Terrorism:
The Coast Guard has many duties. Two of these are to
enforce environmental regulations and to guard the seas
from terrorists and other threats to security. If the Coast
Guard moves some resources away from terror prevention to
implement environmental rules, that may make it easier for
enemies of the United States to attack the homeland.
Turning the DA: AFF Answers
Link Turns: A link turn shows that the plan actually
does the opposite of what the negative link claims
For example: On the bipartisanship DA, the
affirmative may argue that the plan would
actually promote rather than hurt bipartisanship.
Impact Turns: An impact turn shows that the claimed
impact is actually good rather than bad
For example: The DA says that plan passage would
result in a Russia-China alliance. The affirmative
argument is that a Russia-China alliance would be
a good thing, rescuing the Russian economy from
collapse.
Beware the Double Turn: The Affirmative team must
NEVER turn both the link and the impact.
Presenting A Counterplan
A counterplan is a policy defended by the
negative team which competes with the
affirmative plan and is, on balance, more
beneficial than the affirmative plan.
Counterplan Requirements
Nontopicality: Must be a NON-resolutional
alternative to solve the harm
Competitiveness: Must give the judge a reason to
choose between the plan and counterplan.
CP Non-Topicality


The resolution divides ground. If the CP is topical it
justifies the resolution. Thus voting for the CP would
be a vote for the resolution and a vote for the
resolution is a vote for the AFF.
Some judges say the CP may be topical, for the
following reasons:
1. The affirmative team is asking for adoption of the PLAN not
the resolution.
2. Competitiveness provides adequate protection against abuse.
3. Ground is preserved, since the affirmative team had free
opportunity to choose its position first from anywhere within
the resolution.
Counterplan Competitiveness
Mutual Exclusivity: It is logically impossible to
do both the plan and counterplan.
Net Benefits: The counterplan alone is more
beneficial than the plan or the plan plus the
counterplan
Other Possibilities: Resource competition,
Philosophical differences
Counterplan Permutations


A permutation is an argument offered by the
affirmative to demonstrate the noncompetitiveness of a counterplan.
It suggests a specific way that the plan and
counterplan can be desirably combined.
Arguing Counterplans on Ocean Protection

States CP:
Rather than the federal government, the 50 states should act
on the affirmative proposal. This avoids the federalism
disadvantage and the inherent risks associated with
centralized national control over policies.

United Nations CP:
Instead of the United States acting, the United Nations would
develop a comprehensive international policy to address the
affirmative harms.

Japan CP:
The Japanese government would enact the plan rather than
the U.S. government. Possible net-benefits: U.S. action
might anger allies, cause a shift in the 2004 election, or
undermine Japanese global leadership.
Keeping a Flow Sheet
Obs 1. SQ Fishing
Policy Fails
--lack comp appr
USCOP 9/02
1. NOAA focus on
rebuild fish stocks
Hogarth 02
SFA rebuild
2. US adopted int’l
agreements
--SQ n/protect eco
Pew 5/03
--ind. prev. reform
Sutton 03
Hildreth 02
adopt FAO code
3. EO expands
MPAs
1.SFA flawed
Hogarth 02
unfocused, no $
2. SFA only limit ctach
size
Natl Geo 01
3. SFA n/protect biod
Norse 02
Dept Comm 03
4. SFA contributes
to eco health now
Hildreth 02
Exec order d/n MPAs
Ore Reg 01
Flowing Tips




Use
Use
Use
Use
8 ½ x 14-inch legal pad, not 8 ½ x 11
two colors of ink (ie black and red)
abbreviations appropriate to the topic
symbols for common claims: (up arrow for increasing,
down arrow for decreasing, right arrow for “causes” or “results
in”, etc.)

Establish priorities: 1. Contention labels first priority, 2.
Subpoints second priority, 3. Evidence reference third priority
(Smith, ’01), 4. Key words of evidence fourth priority.


Ask for missed points (in CX or prep time).
Use lots of paper (leave space b/w arguments/evidence
separate sheets for plan arguments and for case arguments;
each big argument should have its own sheet).
Keeping a Flow Sheet
Obs 1. SQ Fishing
Policy Fails
--SQ lacks comp
approach
USCOP 9/02
--SQ not protect
ecosystem
Pew 5/03
1. NOAA focus on
rebuild fish stocks
Hogarth 02
SFA rebuild
2. US adopted int’l
agreements
Hildreth 02
adopt FAO code
3. EO expands
MPAs
Dept Comm 03
--industry prevents
reforms
Sutton 03
4. SFA contributes
to eco health now
Hildreth 02
1.SFA flawed
Hogarth 02
unfocused, no $
2. SFA only limit ctach
size
Natl Geo 01
3. SFA no protect
biodiversity
Norse 02
Exec order not
increase MPAs
Ore Reg 01
Some Flowing Abbreviations
H
Inh
S
Sig
T
PF
SQ
NT
XT
Def
Vio
Stds
C-S
VI
DR
BOP
Harms
Inherency
Solvency
Significance
Topicality
Prima Facie
Status Quo
Non-Topical
Extra-Topical
Definition
Violation
Standards
Counter Standards
Voting Issue
Decision Rule
Burden of Proof
Obs
Adv
DA
CP
U
N/U
L
N/L
M
T/
w/
w/o
OP
MPA
O/F
Eco
Observation
Advantage
Disadvantage
Counterplan
Unique
Not Unique
Link
No Link
Impact
Turn
with
without
ocean policy
marine reserve
Overfishing
ecosystem
Final Thoughts on Flowing







Flow all of the speeches
Use your flow to speak
Do not give up. Listen for numbers and
signposts to help you find your place on the
flow again
Practice!
Practice!!
Practice!!!
Did I say, Practice?
PUBLIC FORUM
DEBATE
Debate I
WHAT IS IT?
Public forum debate, also known as
crossfire debate, PFD (sometimes
pronounced puff), pofo, pufo, and
sometimes called by its former names,
controversy debates or Ted Turner
debate, is a style of debate practiced in
National Forensic League
PFD
• Public Forum Debate is audience friendly
debate that focuses on advocacy of a position
derived from the issues presented in the
resolution, not a prescribed set of burdens.
• A Public Forum Debate round begins with a
flip of a coin between the competing teams to
determine sides and speaker position.
• Public Forum tests skills in argumentation,
cross-examination, and refutation.
INTRODUCTION
• Public Forum Debate offers students a unique opportunity to
develop on-their-feet critical thinking skills by situating them
in contexts not unlike US political (radio and TV) talk shows.
Public Forum debaters must anticipate numerous
contingencies (possibilities) in planning their cases, and
must learn to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances as
discussions progress.
• Public Forum’s open-ended cross-examination format
encourages the development of unique rhetorical strategies.
Public Forum debates should be transparent to lay audiences
while providing students with real-world public speaking
skills through the discussion of contentious ideas.
Public Forum Debate
• Public Forum will test your skills in
argumentation, cross-examination, and
refutation.
Example
• Current PF Topic: Resolved: The benefits
of post 9/11 security measures outweigh
the harms to personal freedom.
How it goes…
• Two teams make up a Public Forum debate, one taking the
affirmative position, the other arguing the negative. The guidelines
for arguing these positions are as follows:
1. Arguing a Case for the Resolution
The affirmative team has the opportunity to interpret and define
the resolution, and has the responsibility to interpret the resolution
as it would reasonably be interpreted in the public sphere. The
affirmative team is not required to provide a literal interpretation of
the resolution, but may instead choose to create a metaphorical
interpretation of the resolution. The reasonability of the affirmative
team’s interpretation of the resolution is a matter that can be
argued from debate to debate.
How it goes…
• 2. Arguing Against the Resolution
Assuming that the affirmative team’s interpretation of the
resolution is acceptable, the objective of the negative team’s
efforts is to refute the arguments offered by the affirmative
team and/or to offer its own arguments against the stance
taken by the affirmative team.
The negative team may challenge any aspect of the
affirmative team’s case. For instance, it may challenge the
interpretation of the motion (if it is unreasonable), the factual
and analytical foundations of the proposition’s case, the
underlying assumptions of the proposition team’s claims, or
any costs associated with the affirmative team’s arguments.
Public Forum Debate
• You and a partner will debate
controversial issues that are taken from
newspaper headlines.
• New topics will be announced for each
month.
This Debate Should…
• -display solid logic, reasoning, and
analysis
• -utilize evidence but not be driven by it
• -present a clash of ideas
• -counter the arguments of the opponents
(rebuttal)
• -communicate ideas with clarity,
organization, eloquence, and
• professional decorum
RULES
•
1. In-Round Research is Prohibited
Research on the topic must be completed prior to the beginning of an actual
debate. Once the debate begins, the debaters may not conduct research via
electronic or other means. No outside person can conduct research during the
debate and provide it directly or indirectly to the debaters. The use of a
dictionary to determine the meaning of English words that the debater may
not understand should not be construed as a violation of this rule.
2. Citations
Debaters may refer to or cite any public information. When debaters cite
information, they should be prepared to provide complete documentation of
the source to the opposing team and to the judge on request. A team’s
documentation of cited material must be complete enough that the opposing
team and the judge can independently locate the information. Ordinarily, such
documentation would include the name of an author (if any), the name and
date of a publication, the URL of a website (if the information was retrieved
electronically), and a page number (if any exists.)
How It Goes
• The debate begins with the first team's first four-minute
constructive speech. In this speech, one of the members
of the team gives arguments either for or against the
resolution (a resolution or topic is a normative
statement which the affirmative team affirms and the
negative team negates.), depending on which side the
team is speaking for.
• Strictly speaking, the custom in public forum debate
dictates that when debaters speak (both for speeches
and crossfire), they should face forward towards the
judge, sometimes from behind a lectern. However in
some tournaments, it is customary for debaters to
remain seated and face each other during crossfire.
CLOSER LOOK @ First Two
Speeches
• In these two speeches, the first and second speakers should deliver
their pre-prepared reasons for adoption or rejection of the topic.
The second speaker may also respond to the most important
arguments raised by the first speaker.
• In the first two speeches, speakers for both sides must be
concerned with constructing and presenting a logical argument
that draws on evidentiary support. This is the one time in the
debate where specific preparation can be used as a tool of the
debate.
How It Goes
• Next, the other side is permitted to give its first fourminute constructive speech in which not only
arguments may be presented, but rebuttals to
arguments from the first speech as well.
• However, rebuttals are almost always not presented
until a team's second constructive, and are frowned
upon in some states/tournaments, and the first
constructive generally consists exclusively of prepared
material.
Cross Fire
• Following this speech, the first speaker from the first team
joins the first speaker from the second team at the podium if
one is provided (in the absence of one debaters stand by their
desks) and the first three-minute "crossfire" begins.
• The first speaker begins crossfire by asking a question to the
second speaker. In crossfire, the two debaters directly ask
each other questions and answer questions of their
opponent.
• Crossfire may be used, like cross-examination, to ask
revealing questions in an attempt to expose a weakness in
the opponents' arguments, but it is often used as a way to
further develop and attack arguments through discourse.
Keep Goin’
• After crossfire, first team's second speaker gives a fourminute rebuttal speech. After they have rebutted their
opponents case, they move on to "rehab" their own
(rebut the opponents rebuttals in an attempt to nullify
them. Although, this only applies to the second speaker
as the first team should not have had any points
rebutted yet.)
• Then, the second speaker of the second team gives a
four-minute constructive speech following this same
format. Following this speech, another three-minute
crossfire ensues.
CLOSER LOOK @
SPEECHES
nd
2
• This speaker position for both sides has the burden of
analyzing the opponents’ position and explaining flaws
in the ideas presented by the other team.
• The judge has an expectation that the two sides will
clash. Clash may be in the form of line-by-line
refutation of the opponent’s position or could focus on
the most "attackable" issues advanced by the other
side.
Grand Crossfire
• The first speaker of the first team then gives a twominute summary speech of the debate, which includes
further rebuttal of the opponents case and reiteration of
the first team's case, and the first speaker of the second
team does the same.
• After this speech, all four debaters participate in "Grand
Crossfire". Grand Crossfire is similar to crossfire except
that all four debaters can ask and answer questions of
each other. The speaker that gave the first summary
speech begins Grand Crossfire by asking the first
question.
Final Focus
• After Grand Crossfire, each team's second speaker has a
chance to give a one-minute speech called the "Final
Focus," the first team giving this speech first.
• In the Final Focus, the speaker is given one last chance
to explain exactly why his or her team has won the
round. No new arguments or evidence is allowed in the
Final Focus. This speech is often the determining factor
for a judge's decision in a closely contested round, as it
allows the judge to hear which arguments/evidence
each team views as the most important to his or her
case, and summarizes the entire debate.
CLOSER LOOK @ FINAL
FOCUS
• In the Final Focus, speakers should select the issue
or issues they feel have become crucial to the round.
• Moreover, they should explain how their side has
won arguments related to those issues. The Final
Focus should not be an attempt to explain all issues
that have been raised, but rather offer sustained,
persuasive commentary on a single issue or small
number of issues of importance.
TOPICS
• April 2009: "Resolved: That the Employee Free Choice Act serves
the best interests of the American people.“
• March 2009: "Resolved: That, on balance, the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 has improved academic achievement in the
United States.“
• February 2009: "Resolved: That, on balance, the rise of Brazil,
Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive impact on the
United States.“
• January 2009 "Resolved: That, by 2040, the federal government
should mandate that all new passenger vehicles and light trucks
sold in the United States be powered by alternative fuels.“
• December 2008: "Resolved: That, on balance, social networking
Web sites have had a positive impact on the United States."
TOPICS PT. 2
• November 2008: "Resolved: That the United States government
should implement universal health care modeled after the French
system.“
• October 2008: "Resolved: That the United States should
significantly increase its use of nuclear energy."
• September 2008: "Resolved: That the United States should
implement a military draft."
• NFL Nationals: "Resolved: US policies established after
September 11, 2001 have substantially reduced the risk of terrorist
acts against the United States.“
• http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_suggestions.php
Time Schedule
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Public Forum Timing Schedule
First Speaker - Team A = 4 Minutes
First Speaker - Team B = 4 Minutes
Crossfire = 3 Minutes
Second Speaker - Team A = 4 Minutes
Second Speaker - Team B = 4 Minutes
Crossfire = 3 Minutes
Summary - First Speaker - Team A = 2 Minutes
Summary - First Speaker - Team B = 2 Minutes
Grand Crossfire = 3 Minutes
Final Focus - Second Speaker - Team A = 1 Minute
Final Focus - Second Speaker - Team B = 1 Minute
Prep Time (per team) = 2 Minutes
Everyone is expected to be a
respectful audience member.
A judge’s rank may
reflect a contestant’s
disrespect to other
competitors during the
round.
Student
Congress
A Brief Introduction to Speech
Development, Procedures, and
Speaking
What is Student Congress?
 Student Congress is a hybrid event that
blends the use of public speaking skills used
in Forensics competitions, the
argumentation strategies from Debate
events, and the ability to master procedural
methods used by the United States
Congress.
What Does It Take to Succeed?
 In order to be a successful in Student Congress,
the competitor must be able to accomplish the
following
(1) Speak Clearly and Persuasively
(2) Successfully Refute or Support the
Arguments of Other Competitors
(3) Actively Engage in the Process and
Procedures Used to Organize a Session
Developing Student
Congress Speeches
On What Topics Do Competitors Speak?
 In student Congress competitors speak on a variety
of Bills or Resolutions describing a particular course
of action to be taken by the model congress.
 The students are to approach the session as though
the decisions made will become binding parts of
American governing policy.
 Students will either speak in favor of a particular Bill
or Resolution, or will speak against this course of
action.
Sample Resolution

Whereas, there are Americans who use guns for
recreational sports such as hunting, target practice and
professional shooting, and,

Whereas, guns also provide in-home protection for
Americans, and,

Whereas, there are thousands of home invasions each year
in the United States and guns. can help people protect
themselves and their families from these criminals, and,

Whereas, establishing gun control laws would encourage
more people to break these7. laws, and,

Whereas, gun control laws would make criminals aware that
families have no means to protect themselves,

Therefore, be it resolved, by this student congress here
assembled, that all legislation promoting gun control laws
be abolished.
Sample Bill

Given that the stimulus package enacted by the federal
government has been largely successful in ending the
recession; and

Since another stimulus would help increase spending by
American citizens and state governments; and

Since spending is necessary to avoid falling into another
recession;

Therefore, this Congress ought to add one hundred and fifty
billion dollars to the current stimulus plan to be distributed
amongst all fifty states, ensuring increased spending.
Bill vs Resolution
 A Resolution presents a very specific
plan of action that must be described
in detail in the wording of the
resolution.
 A Bill suggests a possible general
idea for government action without
going into detail as to how this action
might look.
The A.R.E. Method to Speech Writing
Writing a Student
Congress speech is as
easy as A.R.E. X 3
Argument!
The Argument is the
point the speaker is
making about why the
bill should be affirmed
or negated.
Sample Argument
On the Gun Control
resolution:
My first point is that gun
control laws lead to
greater rates of black
market gun sales.
Reasoning!
The Reasoning is the
three or four
explanations of what the
argument means and
why it is relevant.
Sample Reasoning
Gun control laws lead to strict regulation of
who can and who cannot buy guns.
Often those who seek to purchase a gun are
those who would not pass the necessary
background checks in order to purchase a
gun.
As a result, these individuals seek back
channel methods to purchase firearms.
In turn this helps to support criminal and
dangerous groups in our society.
Evidence!
The Evidence is the two
sources (minimum)
used to support the
argument and
reasoning of the
speaker.
Sample Evidence
According to The Future of Freedom
Foundation in an article written May 23,
2010, black market gun sellers service
“over 2 million customers each year.”
Further the Cato Institute contends that
the profits made by black market gun
sellers leads to “further expansion of
illegal gun and drug empires into
struggling communities.”
Put it All Together!
My first point is that gun control laws lead to greater rates of black
market gun sales. Gun control laws lead to strict regulation of who can
and who cannot buy guns. Often those who seek to purchase a gun are
those who would not pass the necessary background checks in order to
purchase a gun. As a result, these individuals seek back channel
methods to purchase firearms. In turn this helps to support criminal and
dangerous groups in our society. According to The Future of Freedom
Foundation in an article written May 23, 2010, black market gun sellers
service “over 2 million customers each year.” Further the Cato Institute
contends that the profits made by black market gun sellers leads to
“further expansion of illegal gun and drug empires into struggling
communities.” Without question the well-intentioned gun control laws
have had an adverse effect on gun sales and safety in America.
A.R.E. Presented Graphically
Argument:
Reasoning:
Evidence:
-
Therefore A.R.E. x 3 Looks
Like:
Argument:
Argument:
Argument:
Reasoning:
Reasoning:
Reasoning:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Evidence:
Evidence:
Evidence:
-
-
-
-
-
-
A.R.E. Speech Outline Handout
Resolution / Bill Title: _________________
Position: Aff or Neg
Argument:
Argument:
Argument:
Reasoning:
Reasoning:
Reasoning:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Evidence:
Evidence:
Evidence:
-
-
-
-
-
-
Refuting or Supporting the
Arguments of Others
The 4-Steps to Refutation / Support
Teaching students to
refute or support an
argument can be easily
done in 4 simple steps!
Step 1 – “They say…”
 Briefly restate the point the speaker
just made and the point you are about
to answer.
 For example:
 “They say that gun control laws
lead to increases in gun sales
made through the black market”
Step 2 – “But…”
 Make your counter assertion!
 For example:
 “But eliminating gun control laws
would cause greater hikes in crime
as almost anyone would be able to
purchase firearms.”
Step 3 – “Because…”
 Offer reasoning and evidence to support your
counter-assertion.
 For example:
 “This is because it becomes easier to
purchase firearms after laws are eliminated.
According to a Mayors Against Illegal Guns
study, over half of the violent gun crimes in
America occurred with guns purchased
legally from states with relaxed gun control
laws”
Step 4 – “Therefore”
 Conclude your point by comparing you
point to the point you’re answering.
 For example:
 “Therefore while gun control laws may
lead to greater sales in black markets,
eliminating gun control laws all
together would drastically increase
violent crime even further.”
Put it All Together
They say that gun control laws lead to increases in
gun sales made through the black market, but
eliminating gun control laws would cause greater
hikes in crime as almost anyone would be able to
purchase firearms. This is because it becomes
easier to purchase guns after laws are eliminated.
According to a Mayors Against Illegal Guns study,
over half of the violent gun crimes in America
occurred with guns purchased legally from states
with relaxed gun control laws. Therefore while gun
control laws may lead to greater sales in black
markets, eliminating gun control laws all together
would drastically increase violent crime even
further
Outlining the 4-Step Plan
Refuting
Supporting
1. They say…
1. They say…
2. but…
2. and…
3. because…
3. because…
4. Therefore…
4. Therefore…
Actively Engaging in
the Process and
Procedures of Student
Congress
Procedures for the Novice Competitor
 Beginning student congress competitors
should consistently strive to take part in three
key procedures used in all sessions:
(1) Make Motions
(2) Ask Questions
(3) Vote!
Motions
 A motion is a verbal cue presented by
a member of the Student Congress in
order to advance the flow of the
debate in the session.
 There are numerous motions used in
every Student Congress session.
Three Motions for New Competitors
(1) Move the Previous Question
(1) Translation: by saying “I move the previous question” the student is saying
“Lets vote on whether to pass or fail this resolution!”
(2) When to Use It: The student should “move the previous question” when it
appears that debate on a resolution or bill is over or has become one-sided
(2) Move to Lay on the Table
(1) Translation: by saying “I move to lay this resolution on the table” the
student is saying “Lets put this aside and come back to it later!”
(2) When to Use It: The student should use this motion when debate is not
conclusive on the issue and there are other matters needing to be
addressed.
(3) Point of Information
(1) Translation: by saying “Point of Information…” the student is asking the
chair person to clarify either a procedure or specific wording that the
Congress in taking into consideration.
(2) When to Use It: The student should request a point of information when an
unclear step is being taken by the Congress.
Asking Questions

At numerous points in a Student Congress session, the
speaker will need to respond to questions from the rest of the
chamber.

Your student should strive to ask poignant and pertinent
questions related to the speech or the speaker’s position.

These questions can be:



Clarifying
Supportive
Setting up an Argument
Sample Questions

Clarifying Question
 Your bill recommends that we as a Congress vote to increase
financial support of the Stimulus package, where would that
capital come from?

Supportive Question (Softball Question)
 In your speech you explain how the Stimulus package benefits
the economy, do you think this would help those experiencing
the greatest poverty?

Setting Up an Argument (Hardball Question)
 You stated that in order to support the stimulus we can draw
money from other domestic programs, how would this impact
the effectiveness of those programs?
 (Then in your speech you hit them with the harms of their
proposed plan!)
VOTE!
 At numerous points in the session, competitors
will be asked to contribute to the flow of debate
by voting on motions and resolutions.
 Students should always vote whenever it occurs
in order to show their presence and participation
in the session.
 Voting one way or another can also influence the
course of debate in the remainder of the session.
Mini-Session
Student Congress Mini-Session
 For the remainder of our time, we will participate in
a sample Student Congress session. In this
session I will play the role of the Presiding Officer
and each of you will be active participants in the
competition.
 The resolution we are going to discussion has the
following Therefore clause:
 “Therefore the United States military should
withdraw its forces from Afghanistan and
Iraq, instead sending them to Darfur, Sudan
as peacekeeping agents.”
Preparation

In small groups of 3 or 4, use the ARE x 3 outline to
develop either a speech in support (affirmation) of the
resolution or in (negation) of the resolution.

You won’t have evidence right now, so just focus on the
Arguments and your Reasoning

In 10 minutes, we will begin our sample session with a
speech in affirmation followed by a speech in negation.
There will be time for questioning after each speech.
Mini-Session
A Resolution to Send Troops to Darfur

Whereas…
 Therefore the United States military
should withdraw its forces from
Afghanistan and Iraq, instead sending
them to Darfur, Sudan as peacekeeping
agents.
Extemporaneous Speech
The World in
7 Minutes or Less
Foreign/Domestic----Informative/Persuasive
What is an extemporaneous speech?
A speech with only a limited amount of preparation and limited notes.
A speech about a world/national event.
Reading a Question
The first step in working with an extemp speech is to select
your question.
1) Pick a question you have some knowledge about and one that
has some importance to it.
2) Make sure that you have some evidence on that question.
3) Make sure that you understand the question.
Getting Your Speech Ready.
1. Determine what the question is asking.
What can the United States do to end the fighting in the Middle East?
2. Research your topic with the question in mind.
3. Organize the speech into 2-3 main points
Basic Organizational Pattern 1
The three point speech pattern:
Introduction: Attention Getter, State the Question, Preview Main Pnts.
A. 1st Main Point
B. 2nd Main Point
C. 3rd Main Point
Conclusion: Review Main Pnts, restate the question, wrap-up
Basic Organization Pattern 2
Introduction: Attention Getter, State the Question, Preview Main Pnts.
1.
Main Point
a. sub point
b. sub point
2. Main Point
a. sub point
b. sub point
Conclusion: Review Main Pnts, restate the question, wrap-up
Basic Tips and Pointers
1) Make sure you answer the question.
2) Support your answer through your analysis in the body of the
speech.
3) Give yourself time to practice your speech.
4) Speak with confidence.
5) Try and use 3-8 sources in your speech.
Review and Practice
Read the following questions and pick one to work on.
Can the new Mali leader rebuild the country?
Who is the best rapper in the world?
What can be done to bring peace to the Middle East?
What can be done to bring peace to the Middle East?
Scan the Information
Sharon repeated his position that violence must end before talks begin and that he
doesn't believe there can be successful negotiations as long as Arafat remains in
power.
"We must have a partner for negotiations," the prime minister told Bush. "We don't
see yet a partner.“– Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 11th
Conditions do not yet exist to begin working toward a final peace in the Middle
East, largely because there is no confidence in the current Palestinian leadership,
President Bush said yesterday after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel
Sharon.– Washington Post, June 11th
Sharon "wants to weaken the Palestinian Authority and to destroy the Palestinian
infrastructure," Palestinian spokesman Yasser Abed-Rabbo said. Minister Nabil
Shaath accused Israel of trying to "sabotage any progress."– LA Times, June 11th
For More Information
For more information on giving Extemporaneous Speeches
Extempcentral
CDE Extemp Topic Resources
CDE Extemp Topics2011
The Extemp Page
Unified Organization (pdf required)
The End