Getting Started in CX Debate
Julian Erdmann
What is CX debate?
• Team debate made up by two students from
the same school.
• They will defend either Affirmative or
Negative.
• Focuses more on policy-making and
evidence
Basic Terms
• Constructive- first speech given by every debater;
used to establish a particular position.
• Rebuttal- second speech by each debater; used to
answer opposing team’s attacks and sum up one’s
own position.
• Speaker Points and Rank- points awarded by the
judge on a scale of 20-30 and ranking each
speaker 1-4. (Half points)
• Prep Time- the amount of time you are allowed to
prepare for each debate round (UIL 8 minutes)
• Flowing- a record of arguments as they proceed.
Flowing occurs on sheets of paper columned off
for all 8 speeches. Usually each argument gets its
own sheet.
Cross-Examination
• 3 minute questioning period after every constructive
• Done by the speaker of the opposing team who isn’t
speaking next
• May be used for the following purposes:
• To clarify portions of the opponent’s case which
were unclear
• Establish the presence or absence of evidence
for key positions
• Diminish credibility or point out inconsistencies
in opposing evidence.
• Force an opponent to take a position on an issue
• To set up an argument in the next speech.
• UIL does not allow open CX
Round Structure
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1st Affirmative Constructive (1AC) 8 minutes
CX Period 3 minutes
1st Negative Constructive (1NC) 8 minutes
CX Period 3 minutes
2nd Affirmative Constructive (2AC) 8 minutes
CX Period 3 minutes
2nd Negative Constructive (2NC) 8 minutes
CX Period 3 minutes
1st Negative Rebuttal (1NR) 5 minutes
1st Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) 5 minutes
2nd Negative Rebuttal (2NR) 5 minutes
2nd Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) 5 minutes
Speaker Responsibilities
• 1AC- presents the whole affirmative case addressing
at a minimum harm, inherency, plan and solvency.
• 1NC- Addresses the off-case arguments against the
affirmative case including topicality, disadvantages,
counter plans, and kritiks. (However, some
judges/circuits require that all arguments be made in
this speech including case).
• 2AC- must provide answers to each of the negative
arguments usually in the same order. (Any arguments
dropped in this speech are considered by the judge
granted to the negative.)
Speaker Responsibilities Cont.
• 2NC- This speech usually covers on-case arguments
including advantages and plan. (However, in a round
where all arguments must be made in the 1NC, this
speech will focus on one or two of those arguments
and expansively extend them).
• 1NR- This speech usually responds to any of the 2AC
attempts to refute the 1NC arguments. It can deal with
any of the negative attack but it cannot develop or
make new arguments.
• Because there are two negative speech separated only
by a CX period, it is important that you maintain a
good “division of labor”. The two speeches should
divide the negative attack instead of repeating one
another.
Speaker Responsibilities Cont.
• 1AR- One of the most difficult speeches, because
they must cover all arguments presented in the
negative block.
• 2NR- Should summarize the entire negative position,
answering the 1AR and highlighting key voters on
why the negative has won the round. An effective
2NR will know what arguments can be kicked.
• 2AR- must answer each of the key voters made by the
2NR and also highlight why the affirmative should
win the debate.
AFF: Stock Issues
• Harms “(H)”- something that is currently
happening in the status quo that is preventable
through the AFF plan.
• Inherency “(I)”- something that is stopping your
plan from happening.
• Topicality “(T)”- Responsibility of the AFF to
show that their plan is within the scope of the
resolution.
• Solvency “(S)”- Proof that AFF plan will solve the
harms presented.
• Significance- responsibility of AFF to present a
case that focuses on a problem that needs to be
addressed.
Harms “(H)”
• Quantitative Harm - a measurable harm
such as 1%, 20 bombers, 300 deaths,
4,000 smokers, 50,000 poor.
• Qualitative Harm - A non-measurable
harm but one which will effect the
quality of the system such as rights,
freedom, happiness, etc.
Inherency “(I)”
• There are a couple types:
• Structural Inherency - A law or policy, which prevents
the plan from being adopted. For example, if your
plan was to legalize drugs, the numerous anti-drug
laws would be the structural inherency.
• Attitudinal Inherency - Attitudes within the status quo,
which are opposed to the plan. With a plan to legalize
drugs, there are also numerous attitudes against such a
law.
• Funding- It's debatable, I view it as both Attitudinal
and Structural. It's structural because it's the given
budget, and it's attitudinal because budget wouldn't be
a problem if it was popular.
Advantages “Adv.”
• Advantages: indirect benefits which will result from
adoption of the Aff. plan. This is usually shown by
proving solvency and harm.
• Ex: Advantage One: Global Warming
• a.
(Harm) Global Warming is continuing to get
worse
• b. (Link) Increasing Global Warming causes lack of
oxygen in the ocean
• c.
(Internal Link) Lack of oxygen in the ocean
leads to fish die-off
• d. (Impact) Fish die-off leads to biodiversity loss
and that leads to extinction
• when you present Solvency, you will want a card that
states that doing the aff plan will solve for global
warming.
Plan
• the aff’s example of implementing the resolution,
an outline for change.
• The plan usually contains four elements:
• Action or mandates (what is going to be
done)
• Agent (who is going to do it)
• Enforcement (what happens when somebody
doesn’t follow the plan)
• Funding (paying for the plan).
• Fiat- the power to implement the plan. The aff
only needs to prove that the plan SHOULD be
done, not that it WOULD be done.
Negative: Off-Case
• Topicality “T”- concept that AFF must fall under the
resolution.
• Disadvantage “DA”-a harm resulting from adoption of
the AFF plan.
• Counter plan “CP”- negative tactic stating the present
system is flawed, but that there is a better non-topical
solution superior to the AFF.
• Kritik “K”- philosophical argument attempting to
show that there are far greater problems than those
presented by the resolution and the affirmative team.
Often critiques how the AFF views the world.
• These arguments are flowed on separate sheets of
paper and this is what the 1NC usually focuses on.
Neg: Topicality
• Definition - What a word in the resolution means. This is
usually taken from a dictionary like Websters or Black’s
Law Dictionary
• Violation - The reasons why the Aff. plan does not fall
under (meet) the definition of the word.
• Standards - The reasons why the Definition is a good way
to interpret the particular word or words in the resolution.
The standards are used to decide which of two definitions
actually defines a word. (Ex: Education, Fairness,
Reasonability, Preferability, Grounds, Limits, Brightline,
Common Usage)
• Topicality Is a Voting Issue - The reasons why the judge
should vote Neg. if the Affirmative is not topical. (Ex:
Jurisdiction, Tradition, Rules of the Game)
Neg: Topicality
• Extra-Topicality – The theory that the affirmative
plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution. Plan
uses non-resolutional action to gain an advantage.
Ex: Taxing cigs and claiming decreasing cancer.
• Effects Topicality – The theory that the
affirmative can only be granted solvency through
several steps. An effect of plan makes the
affirmative topical. Ex: resolution is to reduce
crime, aff increases space exploration. AFF claims
that space exploration increases lead to economic
growth and that decreases crime.
NEG: Disadvantage
•
Uniqueness – Something that is currently
happening now that will be ruined by the
passage of the affirmative plan.
•
Link - A logical connection between two events
i.e. Aff. does A and A causes B. As it is applied
to DAs, it is a statement of how the Aff. plan
will lead to a disadvantage.
•
Internal Link - A separate step which leads the
Aff. plan to the impact.
NEG: Disadvantages
• Threshold or Brink- Burden of the Neg. to show
that the Aff. plan is sufficient to cause the impact.
In other words, we are at a threshold point now
and the plan would cause us to cross that threshold
(push us over the brink), causing the impact.
OR
• Linearity - Direct relationship between the Aff.
plan and the amount or scope of the impact. i.e.
increasing the number of smokers by 10% will
increase the number of cancer deaths by 10%.
• Impact - The resulting harm from a disadvantage,
it may be qualitative or quantitative.
NEG: Counter plan
• Plan Text- details of the non-resolutional action
the neg team is advocating.
• Case- Neg must be able to show how it solves.
• Competitiveness- Burden of the Neg to show that
the CP and the Aff plan shouldn’t exist in the same
world at the same time. (Mutually Exclusive)
• Non-topicality- Burden of the Neg to show that
the counterplan is non-topical. (Topical CP’s are
now acceptable as long as they compete)
• Net Benefits- Advantages that the counterplan can
claim that the Aff plan can’t claim.
NEG: Kritik
• Link- the negative will attempt to link the
affirmative to the Kritik. Much like a
disadvantage.
• Impact- Much like the Disadvantage, the
Kritik will then give an impact scenario,
which the affirmative will lead to if they
maintain the mindset the negative is
critiquing.
• Alternative- This is a shift in mindset that
the negative should provide. The negative’s
solution for avoiding the impact of the
Kritik.
Negative: On-Case
• An attempt by the negative to beat the case and/or
plan using direct type of argumentation.
• Means Clashing right down the flow of the
affirmative case causing direct contradiction with
the affirmative.
• Arguments specifically geared toward answering
the parts of the 1AC (harm, solvency, inherency,
plan and advantage arguments). They are flowed
next to the notes relating to the 1AC. This is what
the 2NC focuses on
Judging Paradigms
• Paradigm- The way a judge views or examines a
debate.
• Skills or Stock Issues Judge - A judge who decides
a round based on the speaking and advocacy skills
of the debaters. Such a judge puts less importance
on policy or procedural considerations such as
DAs or T.
• Tabula Rasa - The philosophy that there should be
no preconceived notions on debate. The debate
round should be decided based on what debaters in
the round argue. The tabula rasa judge will decide
the round on whatever criteria the debaters
present, it could be hypo-testing, policy making,
the color of shirts etc.
Judging Paradigms Cont.
• Hypo Testing - The idea that debate determines
whether the resolution is true. The debaters are
testing different parts of the resolution (affirmative
plans). However, the negative can disprove the
resolution by proving superior non-resolutional
alternatives (counterplans). The hypo-testing
judge will vote on whether the affirmative has
proven the resolution true (usually through
winning an example of the resolution, the case).
• Lay Judge- Judges with little to no experience.
Accentuating style is a good idea, since a lay
judge prefers debaters that can demonstrate good
delivery skills. Explain all arguments thoroughly,
and identify key voting issues.
Judging Paradigms Cont.
• Games- The philosophy that debate is a game with
the object to win. Anything goes as long as it is
fair to both teams. This is sort of like a tabula rasa
judge, only fairness is the one basis for evaluating
whether an issue may be voted on.
• Policy making - The idea that debate is a search
for the best policy. The debaters are advocates for
a policy, and the judge is a policy maker trying to
make the best policy. A policy making judge will
vote for whichever team’s policy is better (usually
the aff. plan vs. the status quo).