Section I: Welcome to Debate
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
0

Section I: Welcome to Debate
This section of the debate handbook will introduce you to the wonderful, fun, and engaging activity of policy debate. In this section, you will learn what policy debate is.
Introduction to Policy Debate
A Typical Debate Round
The Speech Order page 2 page 3 page 4
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
1

Section I: Welcome to Debate
What is policy debate?
In policy debate, two teams, of two debaters each, discuss a certain policy, or plan . One team, called the affirmative, or aff , picks a plan and advocates it. The other team, called the negative , or neg , must reject the plan and show why the affirmative’s plan (also called the case ) is bad. An impartial judge watches the teams and determines a winner.
What do we debate?
Each year, all policy debaters across the nation will discuss one problem facing the US today, called the resolution . The affirmative team must run a plan related to the resolution. This year’s resolution is:
“Resolved: that the United States federal government should establish a foreign policy substantially increasing its support of United Nations Peacekeeping Operations.”
Why do it?
It's fun. It's exciting. It's intellectual. It's a chance to argue with people about topics relevant to the world today. It's a chance to support your school. It's an opportunity to win lots of awards. It's a chance to become part of the TJ family and meet other intellectual and enthusiastic students like you. And yes, you can get a varsity letter in debate.
What skills are required?
Don’t worry if you aren’t a great speaker or knowledgeable about politics. When we started debate, we weren’t either. We will teach you everything you need to know. And by the way, you don’t have to memorize any speeches. And finally, you don’t have to do much research. Instead, you get to spend most of your time debating!
What are debate tournaments like?
Most debate tournaments are almost-the-entire-day affairs at local high schools. High schools from all over the metropolitan area attend. There are generally two debate rounds before lunch, and two after lunch. You will only debate against teams from other schools. Other tournaments are short, two-round after-school meetings, while a few tournaments can go for an entire weekend.
Who are the debate officers? Who is the coach?
In addition to a policy debate team, Thomas Jefferson has a Lincoln-Douglas debate team. The policy debate co-captains are Janet Kim and Jesse Warlick (both ‘05).
Nathalie Lagerfeld and Austin Lin. The policy coach is Matt Bostick.
How do I contact the team?
Janet Kim’s e-mail address is bkoolkido@yahoo.com. Jesse Warlick’s is jwarlick10@hotmail.com. Matt Bostick can be reached at matt_bostick@graffiti.net.
The debate team’s web site is <www.tjhsst.edu/debate>.
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
2

Section I: Welcome to Debate
Although the previous page has given you a good introduction to debate, you are probably wondering what a debate round is actually like.
Debate rounds usually take place in a school classroom. The only people usually present are the two teams and the judge, for a total of five people. However, parents, coaches, and other spectators may also come and watch if they would like.
One team is chosen (by a coin flip or by the schedule) to be the affirmative, leaving the other team to debate as the negative. The affirmative team must choose a plan to advocate during the debate. This plan must be related to the resolution (i.e., related to United Nations Peacekeeping Operations). Thus, a sample plan might be : The federal government will provide funding for demining.
Another one: The federal government will provide troops to the UN for the creation of a rapid reaction force
(standing army).
Once everyone is ready, the debate begins. During the round, the debaters deliver five- or eight-minute speeches. Each of the two teams has a different role to play during the debate. The affirmative team supports their plan, while the negative team is expected to attack the plan as being bad. The debaters make claims and then read evidence to back up their claims. In addition to evidence, debaters also use logic to help persuade the judge that their position is stronger.
Only the first of the eight speeches is prepared beforehand. The rest are prepared during the debate; each team is allocated a certain amount of preparation time to use before its speeches. There is also some time for cross-examination , where the debaters pose questions to one another.
During the first speech, the affirmative team will propose their plan to solve a certain problem. They will try to prove that their plan will solve the problem. The negative team will then attack the plan in their first speech. In subsequent speeches, the affirmative will respond to the negative’s arguments, and so on. The debate goes back and forth until all 8 speeches and 4 cross-examination periods are completed.
Once the 90-minute-long debate is over, the judge fills out a ballot and chooses a winner, but does not reveal his choice to the debaters. Generally speaking, the judge will vote for the affirmative if the plan is proven to do more good than bad. The judge will vote the negative if the plan is proven to do more bad than good. Everyone shakes hands and leaves. The debate round is over.
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
3

Section I: Welcome to Debate
A policy debate consists of eight speeches and four cross-examination periods.
The Affirmative team consists of two debaters from the same school, called the 1 st
Affirmative ( 1A ) and the 2 nd Affirmative ( 2A ). The Negative team also consists of two debaters, called the 1 st
Negative and 2 nd
Negative ( 1N and 2N ).
There are two kinds of speeches : constructives and rebuttals . Constructives are eight minutes long and are the only speeches in which new arguments can be brought up.
Rebuttals are five minutes long; in rebuttals, new arguments are not allowed, only responses to existing arguments.
Each speech is referred to by an abbreviation: for example, the 1AC is the 1A’s constructive speech, and the 2NR is the 2N’s rebuttal speech.
First Affirmative Constructive (1AC)
8 minutes long. This is the only pre-written speech. The speaker describes a pressing problem and suggests a plan to solve it. She then uses evidence and logic to show how the plan will solve the problem.
1A is cross-examined by 2N
3 minutes long. The 2N asks questions of the 1A to clarify arguments.
First Negative Constructive (1NC)
8 minutes long. The speaker attacks the affirmative plan. He tries to prove that implementing the plan would actually do more harm than good.
1N is cross-examined by 1A
3 minutes long. The 1A asks questions to clarify arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC)
8 minutes long. She attacks the negative responses, rebuilds the affirmative case, and responds to the negative’s arguments.
2A is cross-examined by 1N
3 minutes long. The 1N asks questions to clarify arguments.
Second Negative Constructive (2NC)
8 minutes long. He responds to some of 2AC arguments.
2N is cross-examined by 2A
3 minutes long. The 2A asks questions to clarify arguments.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR)
5 minutes long. He responds to the rest of 2AC arguments.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR)
5 minutes long. She rebuilds affirmative arguments and responds to both 2NC and 1NR.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR)
5 minutes long. The speaker explains why the negative team should win, summarizing the round’s major arguments and showing how the neg team won those arguments.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR)
5 minutes long. The speaker explains why the affirmative team should win, summarizing the round’s major arguments and showing how the aff team won those arguments.
Note that the negative gets two speeches in a row (2NC and 1NR). This is called the negative block and is treated as one long speech (with a cross-ex in between).
Also notice that affirmative team gets both the first speech and the last speech.
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
4

Section II: Debate Arguments
Now that you what policy debate is, it’s time to learn about all of the arguments used in policy debate. There is a bit of jargon to learn, but don’t feel intimidated. This handbook will explain everything and provide lots of examples.
Introduction to Debate Arguments
The Stock Issues
Speeches: Structure and Evidence
Disadvantages
Kritiks
Counterplans
Topicality Violations
Summary of the Debate Arguments page 6 pages 7-8 page 9 pages 10-11 page 12 pages 13-14 pages 15-16 page 17
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
5

Section II: Debate Arguments
In a policy debate round, the affirmative team proposes a plan (during the 1AC speech) that is designed to solve a problem. The affirmative team is supposed to defend its own plan. As part of that job, the aff team has to show that its plan meets several requirements. They are listed below, along with the debate terms used to refer to them
(and the page numbers in the handbook where they are explained more.)
Argument Debate Category
There is a certain dangerous problem. Harms
The problem still exists; it hasn’t already been solved. Inherency
The aff plan will solve this problem.
The aff plan is related to this year’s debate topic.
Solvency
Topicality
Pages
7-8
7
7-8
7-8, 15-16
These four requirements are called the stock issues and are a key part of a debate round.
The negative team, on the other hand, must attack the plan in any (and every) way possible. There are several ways for the negative team to attack the plan. One way is to attack the stock issues. For example, the negative could attack Solvency by saying that the affirmative plan doesn’t solve the problem.
The negative team also has some other avenues of attack, listed below.
Argument
The aff plan causes something bad to happen.
Debate Category Pages
Disadvantage 10-11
The aff plan uses a damaging system, idea, or value.
We (the neg team) have come up with a better plan.
Kritik
Counterplan
Remember that all new arguments must be brought up in the constructive speeches. In rebuttal speeches, all you can do is respond to existing arguments.
12
13-14
Now that you know what all of the basic debate arguments are, it’s time to learn about each one in more detail. That’s what this section of the handbook does. As you read through this section, if you lose sight of the “big picture,” just come back to this page, where all of the debate arguments are listed.
Quick Digression on Winning
So, how do you win? After the round is over the judge will consider all of the major arguments made during the round and assess them. Recall that if the aff plan is show to do more good than harm, the judge will vote aff. Otherwise, the judge will vote neg. (Actually, it’s not quite that simple, but you’ll learn about the exceptions later.)
Very Important: Not only should the negative team try to show that the aff plan doesn’t work very well, but they should also show that the aff plan causes some bad things to happen also. After all, even if the neg proves that the aff plan only helps a few people— but there are no bad effects to the plan— the judge will vote aff.
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
6

Section II: Debate Arguments
Introduction to Stock Issues
The affirmative team has the burden of proof : the team must show that its plan has certain advantages and qualities that outweigh any drawbacks. Traditionally, these qualities that the affirmative must have are placed into four categories, called the “ stock issues
.” The stock issues are:
(a) inherency
(“is there currently a problem?”)
(b) harms (“does the problem cause bad effects?)
(c) solvency
(“does the affirmative’s plan solve the problem?”)
(d) topicality
(“is the affirmative’s plan related to this year’s debate topic?”)
This section describes each stock issue in greater detail.
The Aff and Stock Issues
The affirmative’s first speech (the 1AC) will be built around the stock issues. That speech will often follow this pattern:
(1) describe an important problem and why it hasn’t been solved yet ( inherency )
(2) detail why the problem is dangerous and worth solving ( harms )
(3) declare the affirmative’s plan
(4) explain why the plan will solve the aforementioned problem (solvency)
Notice how the stock issues are used to build the affirmative’s case. Part of the affirmative’s job is to show the judge how they have “won” the stock issues.
The Neg and Stock Issues
The negative team will usually try to “attack” the affirmative on the stock issues.
They might try to take out solvency, for example (“your plan doesn’t actually solve the problem”). Or they could attack harms (“the problem really isn’t so bad”). Attacks on inherency, harms, or solvency are called on-case arguments .
Note: The other main negative strategy involves off-case arguments , which will be explained later.
Topicality, although it is a stock issue, is usually considered by judges to be an off-case argument.
Our Example
The stock issues can be hard to fully understand, so we will use an example.
Let’s say the affirmative’s plan is to substantially increase the funding for UN demining.
Throughout this section, that example will be used to illustrate the stock issues.
Inherency
To be inherent , the affirmative must show that the problem isn’t being solved in the “ status quo
.” (The ‘status quo’ refers to the current state of affairs right now.) After all, if the problem has already been solved, why is the plan needed? In our example, the affirmative team might point out that right now the US does not provide much funding for demining. (continued on next page)
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
7

Section II: Debate Arguments
Harms
The affirmative must show what the effects of the problem are ( harms ). In our example, the affirmative might say that mines cause the deaths of tens of thousands of people, including children. The affirmative team also needs to show that the problem is important, either because it affects a lot of people or because the people who are affected suffer greatly.
Note: Harms are sometimes referred to as advantages , since the harms that are solved by the plan are the advantages of the plan.
Solvency
This stock issue is perhaps the most important of them all; fortunately, it is easy to understand. Simply put, for the affirmative plan to have solvency , it must fix at least part
(preferably most) of the problem. Example: “According to the secretary general of the
UN, US financial support for demining will stop the deaths of tens of thousands of people.” A large part of a debate round will consist of arguments about solvency, as the negative will try to show that the affirmative doesn’t really solve the problem. In fact, the negative might argue that the aff plan makes the problem worse (an argument called a solvency turn ).
Topicality
This stock issue is also very important – sometimes. (Different judges have differing opinions about topicality’s importance.) For an affirmative plan to be topical , it must be completely related to the “resolution.” Being partially related is not sufficient.
Our example will help you understand topicality.
Do you remember that the resolution includes the phrase “ substantially increase support for United Nations Peacekeeping Operations”?
If the affirmative runs our example plan (demining), then the negative team could argue that the plan is not topical.
How? Well, since demining is only a small part of the UN objective, the negative could claim that the affirmative’s plan fails to meet the word “ substantially
” in the resolution.
Of course, the affirmative would try to rebut that claim by showing how the aff plan really is topical.
The affirmative is assumed to be topical if the negative does not dispute it.
Therefore, the aff will not address topicality unless the negative brings it up first.
However, if the neg does argue it, watch it! Topicality is considered a voting issue : that is, if the negative can show that the aff’s plan is not topical, the judge will usually vote for the neg, even if the aff completely dominated all other aspects of the debate.
Topicality is a fairly advanced debating concept and will be covered in far more depth on pages 15-16.
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
8

Section II: Debate Arguments
Now that you’ve learned about the stock issues, the basic argumentation points, let’s take a break and look at what a typical speech is like.
As soon as the previous speaker is done speaking (and cross-examination is done, if any) the next speaker is expected to collect his notes, walk up the podium, and begin speaking. Usually, however, the speaker will like some time to prepare. That’s where preparation time comes in; the speaker can ask the judge for “prep time.” Usually, each team is given eight minutes of preparation time for the entire round. If your team uses 3 minutes preparing for the 2AC, for example, you’ll only have 5 minutes left to use for the
1AR and 2AR speeches. During preparation time, you and your partner will look for useful evidence, collect notes, and decide what issues you will mention. Note that the other team will also use this time to work; they aren’t required to sit idly while you prep.
Once the speaker is ready (whether or not prep time has been used), she will walk up to the podium and ask if everyone else is ready to listen. “Aff, are you ready?” “Neg, ready?” “Judge, ready?” Once everyone is ready, the speaker will give a roadmap to the judge (except for a 1AC speech). A roadmap is simply a short oral description of what the speaker plans to say: “I’ll talk about some disadvantages of the plan, attack solvency, and attack harms.” Once the roadmap is done, the judge starts the timer and the speech begins.
Speeches are a combination of logical arguments and evidence-based arguments.
Usually, a speaker will preface each argument with an introduction: “Moving on to solvency… the Affirmative plan actually does more harm than good. Specifically, it may increase the risk of suicide among the schoolchildren it purports to help.” Then the speaker will usually read one or more cards
— pieces of expert evidence— like this one:
Turn: US support for UN PKOs increases the risk of terrorism
My Author, my author’s credentials…, “The name of my article,” June 23, 2003
UN PKOs have been known to cause terrorism blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
tag cite text
Each card consists of a tag , a cite , and some text . Often, more than one card will be read to back up a claim. Sometimes, no cards will be read to back up a claim, because the speaker will instead use an analytical argument , that is, an argument backed up by logical analysis, not the opinions of experts (cards). *You will of course be using real cites and articles in your debates, you cannot simply make up cards and say they are credible.
As the speech progresses, the judge will usually give time warnings: “two minutes left.” Once time is called, the speaker will finish his sentence or idea and then stop. If the speech is a constructive, he should say, “I now stand open to cross-examination.” If the speech is a rebuttal, he should simply return to his seat.
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
9

Section II: Debate Arguments
How does the negative run a DA?
A disadvantage (DA) is an argument used by the negative to show that the aff plan will cause something bad to happen. A disadvantage consists of three parts, which are best illustrated by an example. Let’s say the plan is “provide money for peacekeeping” and the neg is running the “peacekeeping DA.”
1: Uniqueness: “Right now, the UN is doing PKOs, but have barely enough funding, so very few are operations passed through the security council”
2 : Link: “The affirmative plan is expensive and therefore takes away money from
PKOs.”
3: Impact: “ The resulting lack of PKOs will allow terrorism and genocide”
Of course, all three parts of this DA would be backed up by evidence.
What are the purposes of the three parts of a DA?
1.
Uniqueness: A uniqueness argument must show that the bad problem is not happening now, and won’t happen in the foreseeable future. After all, if the problem is already occurring now, you have nothing to lose by passing the affirmative plan!
2.
Link: The link is a series of logical steps that shows how the aff plan will lead to the problem. Sometimes, the link is short, like in the above example. Other times, the link involves three or four steps: “The plan spends money. Spending money leads to inflation. Inflation leads to recession.” In this case, the extra steps needed to lead to the problem are called internal links .
3.
Impact: The impact shows how the problem that results from the plan is bad.
Impacts can include economic damage, environmental damage, loss of liberties or values, and even violence or war.
How does the affirmative refute a DA?
In the affirmative speech that follows the negative speech in which the DA was introduced, the aff speaker needs to “refute,” or disprove, the DA. There are several ways to do this. All of them involve attacking the uniqueness, link, or impact.
1.
Attack Uniqueness Prove that the Disadvantage is going to occur now, whether or not the Affirmative Plan is passed
2.
Attack the Link - Prove that the Affirmative Plan does not cause the Disadvantage to occur
3.
Attack the Impact Prove that the Impact to the disad is not so bad.
4.
Uniqueness Overwhelms the Link - Prove that the Neg is SO correct about the fact that the disad isn’t occurring now, that in fact it won’t happen if we pass the plan.
Continuing our PE disad example, let’s say that the aff decides to use method 2: non-unique. In that case, they might argue, “According to our evidence, PE will be cut anyway, so our plan doesn’t actually cause any bad effects.” If the aff had chosen instead to argue using method 3, they might have said, “So what if PKing is cut? It won’t have any bad effects.” (continued on next page)
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
10

Section II: Debate Arguments
DA Turns
Another, more advanced, way for the aff to refute a neg’s DA is with a turn .
Unlike the usual aff rebuttal, a turn doesn’t cancel the DA but actually turns the DA against the neg. In our PE Disad example, the aff might turn it by saying, “The neg claims that our plan is expensive and therefore destroys PKing. We claim that PKing is already being cut, but that our plan will save money and therefore stop PKing from being cut. So in fact, we have just turned their disadvantage into an advantage
.”
There are two ways to turn a DA: by using an impact turn or a link turn. A link turn was used in the above example; basically, a link turn says that the plan will prevent, not cause, the problem. An impact turn says that the plan will cause the so-called
“problem,” but that the “problem” is not actually bad, but good.
Note: Never run both kinds of turns on a single DA! If you do that, you have just said that “our aff plan prevents a good thing.”
Kinds of Disadvantages
Although no two debate rounds are the same, several major types of DAs are commonly employed in policy debate. If you are the neg, you should try to run some of these; and if you are the aff, learn how to stop them!
1.
Spending DA . This category of DAs says that the costs of the plan will take money from other, more important things.
2.
Economy DA . This category of DAs says that the economic effects of the plan will lead to a recession or other bad event.
3.
Federalism DA. Often called the “fism DA”, this category says that the aff plan will undermine federalism, which is the balance of powers between the federal government and the states. Since other countries model their democracy on our federalist system, if the US destroys its federalism, wars will break out in other countries as a result.
4.
Constitutionality DA . This DA says that the plan is unconstitutional, and that creating it would set a very bad precedent, causing other unconstitutional policies to be permitted.
5.
Political DA . These DAs revolve around “political capital,” which is the ability of a politician to persuade others to go along with him. Some of these
DAs say that the plan, since it’s popular, causes a politician, usually the
President, to gain political capital, allowing him to pass a dangerous policy.
Some of these DAs say that the plan, since it’s unpopular, causes a politician to lose political capital, preventing him from passing a useful, good, policy.
The DA is arguably the most commonly employed off-case argument. In fact, it is so useful that negative teams will often run multiple DAs, hoping that they can win at least one. Of course, running multiple DAs can be very time-consuming, taking time away from other arguments.
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
11

Section II: Debate Arguments
You’ve already learned some of negative’s argument strategies. For example, the negative team can use DAs or attack the stock issues. One other strategy is the Kritik (a
Germanized spelling of the word ‘critique’). Just like the Disadvantage (DA), the kritik
(K) is considered an off-case argument. (Off-case arguments are DAs, Ks, and topicality.
Recall that on-case arguments are inherency, harms, and solvency.)
A kritik is an argument against an assumption or idea that the affirmative used in the debate. For example, if the affirmative uses the phrase “terrorism” during its speeches, the negative team could claim that using phrase is what causes terrorism in the first place. They might tell the judge that voting for the affirmative would imply acceptance of that horrible phrase, causing terrorism, and therefore the judge should vote against the aff. That argument is one example of a kritik.
Why are kritiks important? Why does it matter what words the affirmative says?
Well, think about it this way: we are just a bunch of high school students in a classroom.
The plans and cases that we talk about aren’t really going to happen--- we are merely debating about hypothetical situations. What’s more important is the language we use, since we use English in our everyday lives, all of the time--- and the words we use could have a profound impact on society. Thus, kritiks are really important, even more important than the plan and the stock issues.
The above line of reasoning can be summed up in one debate phrase: pre-fiat implications . In other words, a kritik takes precedence over the plan itself. If the affirmative wins everything else but loses the kritik, the judge may likely vote for the negative.
A kritik usually consists of three parts:
Link: What bad word, idea, phrase, or system the affirmative used.
Impact: Why that usage has negative impacts in the real world.
Alternative: What the other team can do to avoid using that word or idea.
Here’s an example of a kritik:
Link:
The aff keeps using the phrase “ sees other countries as ‘different’ foreign,” affirming the fact that the US
Impact: This makes those people feel “different”, “strange”, and “inferior,” hurting them.
Alternative: Perhaps the aff should use the name of the country instead.
Even if you never run a kritik, you need to know how to stop one. There are several ways for the aff to answer kritiks. Four of the best ways are:
1.
If the negative also uses the offensive phrase or idea, point that out. Why should the aff be penalized if the neg is also committing the offense?
2.
If there is no alternative, say so. For example, if the neg claims that talking is a bad idea, just point out that there is no alternative.
3.
Defend your assumptions. Show that the phrase you use is actually better than the alternative that the neg is suggesting.
4.
Reject the idea of pre-fiat implications. Say that the advantages of the plan are more important that the disadvantages of the kritik .
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
12

Section II: Debate Arguments
What are counterplans?
As you’ve seen, normally the negative team must prove that the status quo is better than the affirmative plan. However, the negative doesn’t always have to defend the status quo. Instead, the negative team can choose to run a counterplan (CP) . If the negative decides to run a counterplan, the focus of the debate changes: instead of affirmative plan vs. status quo, the debate becomes affirmative plan vs. negative CP.
However, the negative can’t run just any counterplan. Recall that the affirmative team is for the resolution, while the negative team is against it. Therefore, any negative
CP has to, in some way, disagree with the resolution; that is, the negative CP has to be non-topical .
Here’s an example. Let’s say the affirmative is running the plan “the US federal government will provide funding for demining.” The negative could choose to run the counterplan “the individual 50 states will each provide funding for demining.” That counterplan is non-topical, as required, since it violates the phrase “US federal government” in the resolution. At this point, the debate would shift focus. The affirmative would try to show that their plan is better than the CP, while the negative would try to show that their CP is superior to the plan.
How does the negative run a counterplan?
Counterplans are almost always brought up in the 1NC speech. Counterplans generally consist of four parts:
Plan Text : The negative tells what the CP will do.
Non-Topicality : The negative must show that the CP is non-topical.
Competition: The CP must be “ competitive .” That means that it must be an alternative to the affirmative plan. There are two ways to show that a CP is competitive.
1) You can show that the CP and plan are mutually exclusive ; that is, that either the CP or the plan, but not both , can be done.
2) Net benefits argument : this says that although the plan and CP could done together, the CP by itself would be better.
Either way is sufficient to show that the CP is competitive.
Solvency: The neg must show that the CP is superior to the plan in some way.
Perhaps the CP avoids some crucial disadvantage of the plan or is better at solving the problem.
Running a Counterplan: An Example
Let’s say that the aff is running the plan “the US federal government will support the ICC” In the 1NC, the neg brings up its counterplan.
Plan Text: “The Japanese government will support the ICC”
Non-Topicality: “The CP violates the resolution’s requirement for United States action and is therefore not topical, as required.”
Competition: “ Our CP is competitive because it meets the net benefits requirement: according to these cards, the CP by itself is better than doing both the CP and the plan, which would be redundant and a waste of money.” (continued on next page)
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
13

Section II: Debate Arguments
Solvency
: “According to these other cards, Japan is better at solving than the US because Japan has more influence in the UN…”
At this point, the affirmative team would have to refute the CP in the 2AC. How would they do that? Well, there are four basic strategies, listed below.
How does the affirmative stop a counterplan?
If the negative team runs a CP, the affirmative team can employ several strategies.
1.
Attack Solvency
. Show the CP doesn’t solve the problem as well as the plan.
2.
Run Disadvantages against the CP . Although normally DAs are used by the neg to attack the affirmative plan, the affirmative can run DAs against a neg
CP. If the affirmative runs a DA against the CP, they must make sure that the
DA is only caused by the CP and not caused by the plan. After all, if both the
CP and plan possess the disadvantage, how can running the DA help the aff?
3.
Show that the CP is topical . If the CP is topical, then the negative team is violating its duty to reject the resolution.
4.
Show that the CP is not competitive. Recall that for a CP to be competitive, it has to either have (1) mutual exclusivity or 2) net benefits. If the aff can show that the neg CP fails on both counts, then there is no reason for the judge to even consider the CP. How does the affirmative show that the CP is not competitive? Usually, the aff employs a debate strategy called the permutation test : the aff suggests a way in which the CP and the plan could both be done (negating mutual exclusivity) and then shows how that combination is better than the CP alone (negating net benefits). The permutation test is just that, a test. It doesn’t actually change the plan but
merely shows how the plan and CP could co-exist, and why that’s better.
Stopping the Counterplan: Our Example
Continuing our states CP example, the aff refutes the CP in the 2AC. The aff chooses to employ strategy 2 above and runs the “racism DA.” This claims that state courts are far more likely to trample minority rights than federal courts are. This DA is empirically proven, since in the 1950s and 60s, state courts opposed integration while the federal government supported it. Thus, the aff has shown that the states CP possesses a
DA that the federal plan avoids.
Voting on the Counterplan: the Judge’s Decision
If the judge feels that the CP meets all the requirements and is therefore a better alternative to the plan, he will probably vote “for the CP,” that is, vote neg. What causes a judge to vote for the CP?
The first requirement is competition. If the aff has successfully shown that the CP is not competitive, the judge will throw out the CP. After all, if doing both the plan and
CP is better than doing just the CP, why should the judge vote for the neg CP?
If the CP is indeed competitive, then the judge will consider solvency. If the judge feels that the neg has proven that the CP is a better policy than the plan, his ballot will likely read “Negative wins on the CP.”
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
14

Section II: Debate Arguments
Our survey of all of the argumentation strategies has taken us from the DA to the kritik, from the stock issues to the counterplan. But there is one argument left: the topicality argument. The basic idea behind the topicality argument was stated on page 8.
Essentially, the topicality violation is an argument employed by the negative team showing that the affirmative plan does not meet the resolution and that the plan should therefore not be discussed. The topicality violation centers around a part of the resolution: such as the word “substantially” or the phrase “federal government.”
What is the purpose of topicality? Well, topicality exists for two major reasons:
• The affirmative team is supposed to be upholding the resolution.
Therefore, the aff should not be allowed to run cases that don’t uphold the resolution— the aff should not be allowed to run non-topical cases.
• The negative team has to be prepared to defend any one of a number of plans. If the affirmative team is allowed to just run any plan they want, the negative team could never be prepared to debate the infinite number of possible cases. The requirement for topicality prevents the aff from gaining an unfair “surprise factor” over the neg. In other words, topicality limits the affirmative’s ground
by restricting them to a few cases.
Note : During a debate, topicality is often referred to as ‘T,’ as in, “I’m running two T violations.” Also, when written, topicality is often abbreviated as T .
Components of a Topicality Violation
Definition: The neg gives a definition of the relevant word or phrase in the resolution.
Violation: The neg shows how the affirmative plan does not meet the definition of the relevant word or phrase.
Standards : The neg shows why their definition is a good definition that should be accepted by the judge.
Voter: The neg tells the judge why he should consider topicality as a voting issue.
An Example Topicality Violation
Let’s say that the affirmative is running the plan “the US federal government will support the International Criminal Court.”
The negative team, in the 1NC, runs a topicality violation. The components are:
Definition: According to the Words-and-Phrases dictionary, 2000, the definition of the word “substantially” is “more than 20%.”
Violation: The affirmative plan only affects peacekeepers who commit crimes.
According to this Cox 1999 card, only 10% of Peacekeepers commit crimes. Therefore, the plan does not meet the requirement for “substantially,” a word that is in the resolution.
Standards: Our definition is good because it is very precise; the plan is either more than 20% and topical, or not 20% and therefore not topical. Our definition is also good because it forces us to debate important, far-reaching plans and not focus on one small segment of the population.
(continued on next page)
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
15

Section II: Debate Arguments
Topicality con’t
Voter: The judge should vote on topicality for reasons of fairness. It is not fair for the aff to run non-topical cases— because we haven’t prepared for them and aren’t supposed to be debating them. Please vote on topicality and keep this debate fair.
What are some common standards?
-Bright line : the negative definition creates a clear test of what is topical and what is not.
Ground : the definition fairly limits the aff to a moderate number of possible cases.
Contextual Definition : the neg definition is good because it comes from a source related to the topic (ex. The UN charter).
Clash : the neg definition is good because it limits the number of possible cases, thus ensuring better preparation, which leads to great clash (the back-and-forth, give-and-take aspect of debate).
What are some common voters?
-Education : Debate is an educational activity. Debating non-topical cases removes most of the educational aspect from debate—we came here prepared to UN PKOs!
-Fairness : It is unfair for the affirmative team to be able to run non-topical cases, since the negative team shouldn’t be expected to defend against them.
-Potential Abuse : if the judge votes aff, then he is sending a message that the aff can run non-topical cases, which can lead to more abusive situations in future rounds.
Refuting Topicality Violations
Just like with other negative arguments, the affirmative team has several options for refuting a topicality violation.
1. Show that the plan actually does meet the definition that the neg has provided.
2.
Provide a counter-definition .
A counter-definition is another definition of the relevant word or phrase, a definition that the aff plan does meet. Of course, the aff must also show why the aff’s counter-definition is better than the neg definition, which involves the use of counter-standards . Counterstandards tell why the counter-definition is superior to the definition.
3.
Convince the judge that topicality is not an important issue; in other words, that topicality is not a voting issue.
In fact, the affirmative team should try to use as many of the above strategies as possible.
Remember that if the aff loses on T, they usually lose the debate— so refutation is very important.
Topicality Refutation Example
Continuing our earlier example, let’s say the aff refutes the “substantially T violation.”
“Judge, we would like to present the following counter-definition. According to the Merriam-Webster 1994 dictionary, substantial means “important.” Clearly, we meet our own counter-definition since prosecuting criminals is important. Also, our counterdefinition is better because it allows for a fair division of ground--- the neg’s definition is too constricting, as there are almost no possible aff cases that would meet their definition.”
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
16

Section II: Debate Arguments
In this section, we’ve run through all of the debate arguments that you will use and have used against you. On this page, we summarize them for easy reference and to refresh your memory.
Stock Issues
The affirmative team needs to win all the stock issues to win the debate.
(a) inherency
(“is there currently a problem?”)
(b) harms (“does the problem cause negative effects?)
(c) solvency
(“does the affirmative’s plan solve the problem?”)
(d) topicality
(“does the plan meet the resolution?”)
The stock issues (except for topicality) are presented in the 1AC. The negative can then try to refute one or more of them in the neg speeches.
Disadvantage (DA or Disad)
A disadvantage is an argument saying that the plan will cause something bad. The three parts of a disadvantage are:
1.
Uniqueness: The bad problem is not happening now, and won’t happen in the foreseeable future.
2.
Link: The plan will lead to the bad problem.
3.
Impact: The problem that results from the plan is very bad.
The other team refutes the DA by attacking one of the three parts, or by running a turn.
Kritik (K)
The kritik is an argument saying that the plan has a dangerous assumption or idea. Parts:
1.
Link: The bad word, idea, phrase, or system the plan uses.
2.
Impact: Why that usage has negative impacts in the real world.
3.
Alternative: What the other team can do to avoid using that word or idea.
The other team can refute the kritik in several ways. See page 12.
Counterplan (CP)
The counterplan is an alternative, superior policy advocated by the negative team. Parts:
1.
Plan Text : The negative tells what the CP will do.
2.
Non-Topicality: The negative must show that the CP is non-topical.
3.
Competition: The CP must be competitive (an alternative to the aff plan). There are two ways to show this: net benefits or mutual exclusivity (see page 13).
4.
Solvency : The CP must be superior to the plan in some way.
If a CP is run, the debate switches focus to: aff plan vs. neg CP. The affirmative team can refute the CP by disproving either part 2, part 3, or part 4 above.
Topicality Violation ( T )
A topicality violation says that the affirmative plan does not meet the resolution.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Definition: A definition of the relevant word or phrase in the resolution.
Violation: How the affirmative plan does not meet the definition of the word.
Standards: Why their definition is a good enough to be be accepted by the judge.
Voter: Why the judge should even consider topicality as an issue.
The affirmative team can refute the argument by showing that the plan actually does meet the definition, or by using a counter-definition, or by saying T is not a voting issue.
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
17

Section III: Other Debate Concepts and Skills
This final section of the handbook will teach you about the other debate concepts and debate skills needed to become a great debater.
More About Arguments
Fiat
Kicking Out Arguments
Dropping Arguments
Grouping Arguments
Cards and Files
Using Evidence
Reading Cards
Extending Cards
Other Debate Skills
Cross-examination
Deciphering Debate Abbreviations
Flowing
The Eight Speeches page 19 page 20 pages 21-22 page 23
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
18

Section III: Other Debate Concepts and Skills
Fiat is an important debate concept that applies to both plans and CPs. In short, fiat says that the team running a plan (or CP) can assume that the plan will indeed happen and go into effect. They don’t have to worry, for instance, that Congress will vote against the plan or that the President will refuse to sign it. Fiat, therefore, is used to surmount any obstacles that would stop the plan from existing. Fiat stops debate from devolving into endless arguments about whether the plan would actually occur, and gears debate toward what would happen if the plan did go into effect.
If a team (usually the negative) realizes that its DA, kritik, CP, or other argument is not working and is a waste of time to pursue further, the team can “ kick it out .” To kick an argument, simply say so during a speech. This means that the argument is removed from consideration in the debate (but see note below). If a CP is kicked out, the debate reverts to being the plan vs. the status quo.
Note: Normally, a team can kick out a DA with no ill effects; however, if the DA has been turned by the other team, then kicking the DA is dangerous, since you are conceding the turn. That could cost you the debate.
One maxim of policy debate is that “silence is consent.” If the negative team runs a DA in the 1NC, for instance, and the affirmative team does not refute it at all before the next neg speech (2NC), the affirmative team has just dropped the argument. If the negative team points that out to the judge, the judge will usually award the DA to the neg, since the aff failed to respond to it: “silence is consent.”
You should always strive to avoid dropping arguments, since it can cost you the debate if you drop an especially crucial point. Conversely, if your opponents drop an argument, point that out to the judge in your next speech.
Note that kicking an argument and dropping an argument are entirely different things. A team (usually the neg) kicks its own arguments if the team thinks that they are not going well, while a team (usually the aff) drops its opponents’
arguments if the team forgets to respond. Kicking arguments is a useful tool because time is limited—teams can’t afford to spend time on fruitless attacks. Dropping arguments, on the other hand, should usually be avoided, unless the argument is not very important to the round.
Also, if you find that your opponent has made multiple arguments that can all be answered by one general response, you can group your opponent’s arguments
and then give one rebuttal that covers them all. Grouping arguments is an especially good idea if you are pressed for time.
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
19

Section III: Other Debate Concepts and Skills
The evidence that you will use during a debate will usually be grouped into several “ files
.” For example, you might have a “Topicality” file, a “Spending DA” file, a
“Federalism DA” file. These files will contain evidence that can be used by either aff or neg. You will also have an aff case file, like “Landmines Aff,” and several files that you will use only when you are neg, such as “Landmines Neg” and “ICC Neg.” Using these files well is crucial to debate success.
Most off-case files are divided into two sections, neg and aff. For example, the
“Federalism DA” file would contain one section with evidence that the neg would use to run the DA, and one section with evidence that the aff would use to refute the DA.
An aff case file is divided into several sections. It will contain a 1AC as well as additional cards that can be used in later speeches, like more solvency cards. It may also include answer cards to common negative arguments, with tags like “AT: the plan is expensive.” (AT is an abbreviation for Answer To).
Neg case files are also divided into several sections. It will contain lots of cards to take out inherency, harms, and solvency. Other useful things like specific DA links
(“the plan is unpopular”) or Topicality suggestions may be included.
Perhaps the most useful parts of any file are the shells and frontlines .
Shells are short, 1-2 page summaries of an argument. These should always be read first when presenting the new argument. For example, the Federalism DA shell will contain a few cards along with explanation of the DA.
Frontlines are short, 1-2 page rebuttals to an argument. When your opponent brings up a new argument, using the frontline is a good way to counter it.
Whenever you read a card, you usually do three things: read the tag (“Your plan is expensive”), read the cite (“Jones 1999”), and then read the text. The tag is just a short summary of the argument that the card is proving. The cite is the author’s last name and the date. When you read the card, however, you shouldn’t read all of the text—that takes too long. Instead, only read the parts of the text that will prove the point you are making.
Often, you will find that a card that was read earlier in the round would be useful in a situation later in the round. Instead of re-reading the card, you can simply extend the card in order to apply it to this new situation.
Example: In the 1AC, your partner read a card about how programs similar to your plan have worked in the past. In the 1NC, your opponent ran a solvency take-out that said that peacekeeping operations usually don’t work. In the 2AC, you could extend the 1AC card, which proves that PKOs do indeed work since lots of PKOs have worked in the past. So, you would say something like, “In response to their solvency take-out,
I’d like to extend our Zeigler 2001 card from the 1AC.” If you didn’t remember the cite, you would just say, “I’d like to extend our card from the 1AC about PKOs working in the past.”
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
20

Section III: Other Debate Concepts and Skills
In each of the four cross-examination periods (see page 4), the debater who just spoke is (politely) questioned by a member of the other team. Note that the questioner is the person who had the speech immediately prior to the current one (except, of course, for the 1AC speech, in which case the 2N is the questioner).
This speaker…
1A
1N
2A
2N
…is questioned by this debater
2N
1A
1N
2A
During cross-examination, both participants stand facing the judge. Crossexamination questions can fulfill several purposes:
1.
Getting arguments you missed, or clarifying confusing arguments.
It’s hard to debate if you aren’t quite sure what you’re opponent just said. Also, if your opponent uses unfamiliar abbreviations or terms, ask what those mean.
2.
Laying the groundwork for a future argument . Often, asking your opponent a question can provide the information you need for a future argument. For example, asking your opponent, “How much does your plan cost?” can make it easier to run a spending DA in a future speech.
3.
Exposing flaws in your opponent’s arguments
. Often, a few questions can blow wide holes in your opponent’s argument. “You are claiming that our plan will cost so much that it will destroy the US economy, correct? Then why didn’t the more expensive laws recently passed, like homeland security, already destroy the US economy?”
Note: when CX is one-on-one, as in the above table, is it referred to as closed CX.
However, sometimes, in more advanced tournaments, both members of one team will be allowed to answer questions and both members of the other team can ask questions. This is called open CX.
Unfortunately, there is tendency for expert debaters to use abbreviations, both when speaking and when writing the tags for evidence. This list should help you out:
Arguments
DA: disadvantage Evidence
Disad:
K:
CP: disadvantage kritik counterplan
F/L: frontline
T/O: take-out
AT: answer to
Perm:
Inh:
I*: inherency
H*: harms
S*:
T*: permutation inherency solvency topicality
*often circled when written.
A2: answer to
Other fism: federalism
CX: cross-examination
1AC, 1NC, etc: speeches
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
21

Section III: Other Debate Concepts and Skills
Flowing , which is debate-speak for note-taking, is a very useful way to keep track of all of the arguments during a round. Virtually all debaters flow, especially the good ones. In fact, you will usually see the judge flowing also, so that she can keep track of the progression of the round.
How do you flow?
1.
You will need several sheets of paper (8½ x 14 works best) and two different colored pens – one for affirmative arguments and one for negative arguments.
2.
Use one sheet of paper for each major issue: 1 sheet for inherency, 1 sheet for harms, 1 sheet for solvency, and 1 sheet for each additional argument that comes up in the course of the debate (DA, T, K, CP, etc.).
3.
During the speeches, take notes on these sheets of paper. Write in columns – that is, the 1AC arguments on the left side of the paper, the 1NC arguments just to the right of the 1AC, the 2AC arguments to the right of the 1NC, etc.
4.
As the speech progresses, place each argument on the appropriate sheet of paper.
All inherency arguments go on the inherency sheet, for example.
5.
Also, try to place each argument so that it lines up horizontally with related arguments made by earlier speakers. For example, if the 2AC says that “the DA has no link,” place the argument next to where the 1NC gave the DA link.
6.
Abbreviations (like PKO for peacekeeping operation) are very useful, saving time and space.
Check out the sample flow to the right. Notice how the user alternated between green and red pen to denote aff and neg. Also, related arguments were kept on the same horizontal line (for example, the second line deals with suicide by the mentally ill in jails). Also notice the user wrote down card cites whenever a card was read.
Flowing has many advantages.
First, it allows you to see when your opponents dropped an argument (see the third line of the sample flow).
Second, it makes preparing for your own speech much easier. Simply look at the flow, write down the arguments you want to say in your speech, collect the evidence, and then go up to the podium and say it!
Finally, flowing lets you “see” the ebb and flow of the debate.
HARMS
1AC
US Inaction in
PKOs caused genocide
<Davies, 1999>
Genocide could kill as many as
1 mil. ppl
<Johnson, 2001>
UN can’t stop genocide w/o
US sup
<White, 2000>
1NC 2AC etc.
Alt. Caus:
UN PKOs to stop genocide were undermined by several things
<Peterson, 02> not likely to be a large genocide
<Kimmel, 01>
1. The alt. caus. will be
○,
S by US sup
2. the alt. caus. are only for SQ
PKOs w/o action by
US, genocide will happen
<Baker, 03>
The neg team dropped
this
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
22

Section III: Other Debate Concepts and Skills
This final part of the handbook deals with each of the eight speeches individually.
1AC

No prep time should be taken for this speech, since it is pre-written.

The purpose of the 1AC is to lay out your plan and show that it meets the requirements of inherency, harms, and solvency. Usually, you will want to spend only about a minute on inherency, a minute to describe your plan, 2-3 minutes on harms, and 3-4 minutes on solvency.

Since this speech is pre-written, it’s easy to fall into a monotone pattern. Don’t!
Put some passion into your speech so the judge will care about it also.
 Try to anticipate the neg’s arguments by slipping a card or two in the 1AC that will help you stop the neg later (like “our plan saves money.”)

Be ready for CX. You need to know your plan well to defend it in CX.
1NC

Use some (2 minutes or so) prep time and decide what arguments you will run.
 Include at least one DA. Don’t forget that even if you wipe out most of the aff solvency, having no DAs will make it very hard for you to win (see bottom of page 6). In fact, having two DAs is a very good idea.

If you are going to present a counterplan, do it after reading your DAs. Then, you can (hopefully) show that the CP avoids the DAs and is therefore much superior to the aff plan.
 Finally, don’t forget to attack the affirmative case (especially solvency). Try using a mix of analytical and card-based attacks- and make as many as you can.
The more you have, the harder it is for the affirmative to refute them all.
2AC

Make sure you understand the arguments that were made in the 1NC. Your partner should use his cross-examination period (which follows the 1NC) to clarify the negative arguments.
 Don’t drop anything. If you let a single DA slip by, you are in big trouble. If you are down to two minutes and still haven’t gotten to a DA or CP rebuttal, switch to them immediately. Make good use of frontlines.

If you use multiple rebuttals against a single negative argument, give them numbers (“2. No link,” etc.). This makes it easier for the judge to follow.
 Don’t forget to extend cards that were read in the 1AC – it’s faster than reading a lot of new cards.
 Try to turn their DAs. Just refuting them won’t often be enough.
Negative Block (2NC, 1NR)

Think of these two speeches as one long 13-minute block. That means that the
2NC and 1NR should talk about different things. The 1N shouldn’t simply repeat what the 2N said. (continued on next page)
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
23

Section III: Other Debate Concepts and Skills
(
Neg block, con’t)
 The 1NR shouldn’t take prep time, as he can prepare while his partner speaks.
 Don’t forget that new arguments can only be brought up in constructive. That means that only the 2N must take any new arguments.

If the affirmative team (during the 2AC) dropped a negative argument, point it out to the judge. In fact, if the dropped item was especially important, like a DA, you can win the debate right there--- if you point it out.

If the affirmative team made several rebuttals to one of your arguments, counter them all. (“In response to their number 2 argument…”).
 Elaborate on existing arguments. If all you read in the 1NC was shells, you’ll need to add more cards and analysis to explain and back up your existing claims.
 Don’t forget to kick out weak, unpromising arguments so you can spend more time on your best, debate-winning arguments.
1AR

This speech is arguably the hardest one of the round. You have to respond to 13 minutes’ worth of negative arguments in a mere five minutes.
Since you don’t have much time, you can’t read many new cards or go into long explanations.
 Remember that you don’t have to win every solvency argument. Just win enough to keep the advantages of your plan intact. Also, group arguments whenever possible — this will save you a lot of time.

Start with topicality, move on to DAs, kritiks, and CPs, and finish with on-case arguments. Since you are most familiar with on-case arguments, you can speed up during that portion of the speech if you running out of time.
 Don’t be afraid to use a lot of prep time. This speech takes a lot of work.
2NR

This speech has one purpose: convince the judge why she should vote negative.
 To accomplish this, you’ll have to figure out which of your arguments are potential winners and focus on those. Most of the speech (~ 4 minutes) should be spent going through all of the promising arguments and explaining how those win the debate.
 The final minute should be used to “weigh the case.” Summarize all of the problems with the affirmative plan and tell the judge what to think. For example,
“Since both of our DAs have impacts that outweigh any benefits of the aff plan, you just have to accept one of our DAs to vote negative.”
2AR

This is the last speech of the debate, and it is supposed to lead the judge to one conclusion: the affirmative team won the debate.

This speech is very similar in purpose to the 2NR, so check out the tips above.
TJ Debaters’ Handbook
24

TJ Debaters’ Handbook
25