Argumentation
Debate Issues & Format
P. M. Harris-Jenkinson
Forensics Reasoning: Facts (observations) compare with some code (standard) resulting
in a final conclusion.
Definition:
The dictionary defines "forensic"as: adj. “of, characteristic of, or suitable
for a law court, public debate, or formal argument. n. (pl)debate or formal
argumentation.” The word is derived from the Latin words “forensis” meaning public
and “forum” meaning marketplace. (Guralnik, David B. (ed.), Webster's New World
Dictionary, New York: Avenel Books, 1978, p. 293).
Historical Background: In ancient Greece, the word “forensics” meant “speaking for
judgment,” a definition certainly still appropriate today. Forensics described legal
speaking or courtroom oratory. In ancient Greece, people had to serve as their own
advocates. Forensics, as an intercollegiate competitive speaking activity, came into being
in the late 19th century in the form of public forum debates.
You must be careful in establishing facts and you must clearly define the code.
Affirmative/Negative Definitions:
Negative: Supports the status quo. Things are fine the way they are and there is no
reason to change it.
Affirmative: Advocates a change in the status quo. Claims that there is something wrong
with the way things are and advocates a way to change it for the better.
It is important that you understand the burdens here. If you are in favor of the
drug testing in the military (it is the status quo in the military), you are actually
negative when a case advocating eliminating drug testing in the military is being
debated.
Basic Assumptions:
Presumption - lies with the status quo. It is presumed that I will continue on the way I
am heading unless I get a reason to change. No reason? No action.
Status Ouo - the present system. Whatever is at issue (the norm). Presumption lies with
the status quo. Also tells you who has the burden of proof.
Burden of Proof - the flip side of Presumption. If you are the one advocating the change,
you must “prove” the case. You must overcome presumption.
Proposition - If you agree with the status quo, then there is no reason to change. You
must make an actual claim: “We should change the way we do business.” In
academic debate, all propositions begin with “Resolved.” Example: “Resolved:
That the United States should provide military aid to non-democratic countries.”
This is often called “the resolution.”
Three Types of Propositions:
Fact
The “what is?” of the proposition. The issue in question only has to do with what
something is or isn’t. Although this is usually not the proposition the whole
debate is based upon, it is often a part of the debate.
Value The “what is the value?” of the proposition. You must put a value on something
(i.e. good, bad, better, worse, etc.). This includes a fact proposition, but adds onto
it.
Policy The “what will we do?” part of the proposition. A proposal to do something
(implied or otherwise). We should do something; we ought to do something.
You present facts, value judgments about those facts, predict future facts, make
value judgments about future facts, then submit a policy change based upon the
facts and values.
Stock Issues Model for Policy Debate
Assume a Problem/Solution format. There are four issues that come up every time. They
serve as a criteria to see if there is something or some reason to change. If the
Affirmative “wins” all four issues, the Affirmative wins the debate. If the Affirmative
loses even one issue, the whole affirmative case falls and the Negative wins.
1.
Harms - Is there a problem? Does a “harm” actually exist? What is the ill that
needs to be addressed? (If no problem, there is no reason to change.) Do we have
to do something about it now?
2.
Significance - If there is a harm, how bad is it? (If not bad enough, no reason to
change). Significance can be either quantitative or qualitative.
3.
Inherency - Where does the problem lie? What is producing the harm? Can this
problem be solved without a structural change in the status quo (without the
affirmative plan)? (If not, then a minor change in the status quo will solve it and
there is no significant change needed.) Is the Affirmative’s solution (plan) the
only way or the best way to approach the problem? (If not, no change.) Inherency
may also be called “uniqueness.” In some books, it’s called “blame.”
4.
Solvency - This is a prediction question; a question of future fact. It has to do
with the affirmative plan and if it will work (workability). There are actually two
components of solvency:
a.
Plan Meet Advantages (PMA): Does the plan actually solve the problem the
affirmative states exists? Example: If the Affirmative case states that murder is on the
increase, will the plan reduce the number of murders? (If not, why adopt the plan?). Also
known as Plan Meet Need (PMN).
b.
*5.
Disadvantages (DA): Will the plan actually cause significant disadvantages?
Do these disadvantages, on balance, outweigh the advantages that the
affirmative claims their plan win have? Example: If the Aaffirmative plan
provides money for the poor, will this actually be worse than not providing
money to the poor? Will this create a society where no one works because
they get paid anyway? If so, will technology come to a standstill? (If this
disadvantage is perceived as more significant than the advantages of poor
people having enough money for food, then it would be folly to adopt the
Affirmative plan.)
Topicality - In academic debate, there is another stock issue often argued:
Topicality. If the debaters agree to study the influence of drugs in the workplace
and the Affirmative’s case actually addresses recreational use of drugs, the
Affirmative has placed an unfair burden on the negative. The Affirmative’s case
is not topical; that is, it does not address the topic the debaters agreed to debate. If
the Negative can provide a strong enough case to show that the Affirmative is not
topical, the Affirmative will lose the debate.
Debate Formats
There are several formats that can be used in debate. For academic debate, however,
there are usually only two: Lincoln Douglas (one-on-one) and Oxford (team) debate.
In both formats, the debaters must tell the audience (judges) why they won the debate and
their opponents didn’t. Also, there are two distinct parts which are argued:
1. Case side: The Affirmative’s justification for adopting the plan. Stock issues are:
Harms, Significance, Inherency, and Topicality (optional)
2. Plan side: The Affirmative’s solution to the problems cited in its case. This includes
the plan itself and the advantages the Affirmative claims its plan will produce. The
major stock issue are Solvency-based: Plan Meet Advantage(s) and Disadvantage(s)
attacks.
Lincoln Douglas Debate:
Affirmative
Negative
8-minute constructive (states & defines
the affirmative case - the case to be argued.)
12-minute constructive (states Negative’s
philosophy & argues Affirmative case &
plan)
6-minute constructive (responds to
negative case & plan attacks, extends
affirmative case & plan)
6-minute rebuttal (argues case & plan;
restates negative philosophy and summarizes
negative’s case)
4-minute rebuttal (argues case & plan
and restates affirmative’s case)
Oxford-Style Debate
Affirmative
Negative
8-minute constructive (states & defines
the affirmative case - the case to be
argued.)
8-minute constructive (states negative’s
philosophy & argues affirmative case;
ignores plan side)
8-minute constructive (argues negative
case attacks, extends affirmative case)
8-minute constructive (argues
plan side workability; ignores case side)
NOTE: BACK TO BACK NEGATIVE SPEECHES
4-minute rebuttal (responds to
affirmative refutation of previous case
side attack, extends negative case side
attacks; no new arguments allowed)
4-minute rebuttal (responds to negative’s
case and plan attacks; extends affirmative
case and plan; new arguments allowed
on plan side only; no new arguments
allowed on case side)
4-minute rebuttal (argues case & plan
restates negative philosophy and
summarizes negative’s case)
4-minute rebuttal (argues case & plan
and restates affirmatives case)
Flowing
In order to stay organized, debaters must write down what the other debaters say. This is
called “flowing” arguments. For those just flowing the debate, the process stops with just
writing down the arguments presented. For the debaters, however, they must not only
write down their opponent’s arguments, but the arguments they plan to make in response
to those arguments. This is done throughout the debate. This way, debaters can visually
“see” what they have argued and what they haven’t argued—and what the other team said
and what the other team didn’t say.
Debaters don’t try to write down every single word said in the debate; they attempt to get
the gist of the arguments. Flowing is done in outline form. That is why it is necessary for
debaters to signpost which argument they are speaking about. Debaters really do say,
“Contention I: Harms, Subpoint A. Harms are significant. 1. A large number of murders
occur.” This helps them, the other team, and the audience flow the debate.
Try to come up with some standard definitions. They make flowing easier.
Examples:
SQ
Sig
*
G
=


AD
DA
EV
Q
PMA
Status Quo
Significance
Contradiction
Government
Equal to
Increasing
Decreasing
Advantage
Disadvantage
Evidence
Ask Cross Examination Question
Plan Meet Advantages