Policy Debate Packet
What is policy debate?
WHAT IS DEBATE?
Debate is about change. We are constantly engaged in a struggle to make our lives, our community, our
country, our world, our future, a better one. We should never be satisfied with the way things are now surely there is something in our lives that could be improved.
Debate is that process which determines how change should come about. Debate attempts to justify
changing the way we think and live. In the real world, debate occurs everyday on the floor of the United
States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. Debate occurs at the United Nations, the
faculty meetings at your school, and at your dinner table. The procedures for these debates may differ, but
the process is the same - discussion that resolves an issue which will determine whether change is good or
bad. The United Nations debated whether or not the Iraq invasion of Kuwait was good or bad; the faculty
meetings debate school policies; you may recently have debated with your parents after dinner about the
size of your allowance or when you can begin to drive your own car.
In the classroom, we will attempt to "formalize"this debate process.
1 . You will work with 2 partners. You and your partners form a "debate team". Sometimes you will have
to be for the issue (the affirmative) and sometimes you will have to be against the issue (negative). In any
instance, you will have plenty of time to get ready for the debate.
2. You will deliver speeches in a format that is unique to debate. The speeches are called constructives and
rebuttals. Each person on each team will speak twice. There are affirmative constructives and negative
constructives. There are affirmative rebuttals and negative rebuttals.
You will learn rules and techniques that will seem strange to you. The way we learn how to debate may at
first seem difficult. But once you take on the challenge, you will begin to understand its relationship to
debating. The most difficult part of debate is the first few weeks, after that it gets easier and easier once you
have learned the rules
Debate Format
The affirmative and the negative teams will have equal time to present their arguments.
A. The debate is composed of ten parts. Six of these consist of speeches- uninterrupted presentations by a
designated speaker. The remaining four consist of cross examination - a series of questions and answers
involving one speaker from each side.
Order Time Speaker
*Affirmative Constructive 6 minutes 1 A
*1st Negative Cross-Examination 2 minutes 1 A answers/3 N asks
*Negative Constructive 6 minutes 1 N
*1st Affirmative Cross-Examination2 minutes 1 N answers/3 A asks
*Affirmative Rebuttal and Constructive 5 minutes 2 A
*2nd Negative Cross-Examination 2 minutes 2 A answers/1 N asks
*Negative Rebuttal and Constructive 5 minutes 2 N
*2nd Affirmative Cross-Examination 2 minutes 2 N answers/1 A asks
*Affirmative Rebuttal 5 minutes 3 A
*Negative Rebuttal 5 minutes 3 N
3. Each debate also includes 10 minutes of preparation time (5 minutes for each team). This time is not
scheduled in any particular place in the speaking order, but is instead taken at the discretion of each team,
in whatever amounts the team desires, prior to a cross examination or an upcoming speech.
1
B. Each speech and each questioning period has a specific purpose.
1. Affirmative Constructive (1A)
In this speech, the affirmative team is expected to offer its complete argument in favor of the resolution.
Although later affirmative speakers may repeat points and expand on them later in the debate, the first
affirmative speaker must present the entirety of his or her team�s case, including whatever criteria or
definitions the team views as instrumental.
2. First Negative Cross-Examination
The two debaters are expected to face the audience (as opposed to each other). The negative debater is
expected to ask questions rather than make speeches. The affirmative debater is expected to answer these
questions; he or she should not make speeches or ask questions in return. The affirmative debater may
make concessions during this cross-examination, but it is incumbent upon the negative team to capitalize
on these concessions in the speech that immediately follows.
Team members should not assist their teammates by offering suggestions or by answering questions on
their behalf. During the cross-examination period, only the examiner may ask questions and only the
speaker may answer them. No spoken communication between either the examiner, or the speaker and his
or her teammates, is allowed.
3. Negative Constructive (1N)
Like the affirmative team in its constructive, the negative team is expected to offer a complete argument
against the affirmative’s position. The affirmative’s definition, if not challenged at this point, should stand.
Similarly, if the negative does not offer competing criteria, it is assumed that the criteria articulated by the
affirmative team will govern the round. Finally, the negative team must challenge the affirmative's
arguments; otherwise, it will be assumed that these arguments are acceptable.
4. First Affirmative Cross-Examination
The rules of procedure for the "First Negative Cross-Examination" also apply here.
5. First Affirmative Rebuttal (2A)
The affirmative speaker has two tasks in this speech. First, he or she must outline their refutations of the
negative arguments. Second, he or she must respond to the refutations made by the negative team (that is,
the negative's objections to the affirmative case). If the affirmative speaker does not refute a given point in
the negative case, then the point stands; if the affirmative speaker does not respond to a particular negative
objection, then the objection is conceded. New evidence for existing arguments may be presented.
6. Second Negative Cross-Examination
The rules of procedure outlined above, under "First Negative Cross-Examination" also apply here.
7. First Negative Rebuttal (2N)
As with the affirmative rebuttal described above, the negative speaker has a dual task: first, he or she must
respond to the refutations made by the affirmative, and second, he or she should continue to attack the
affirmative case. At this point in the debate, the negative speaker may start to draw the judge's attention to
points that have been dropped. That is, he or she will indicate items to which affirmative has not responded.
Such a dropped point is treated as a concession made by the affirmative team. New evidence for existing
arguments may be presented.
8. Second Affirmative Cross-Examination
The rules of procedure outlined above, under "First Negative Cross-Examination," also apply here.
9. Second Affirmative Rebuttal (3A)
The task of the affirmative speaker in this speech is reactive. He or she should renew refutations that have
not been addressed adequately. Usually, this means pointing out flaws in the negative rebuttal. At this
point, most good debaters will deliberately let some points drop and will focus the judge's attention on the
key issues in the round. The speaker may or may not instruct the judge; that is, the speaker may or may not
articulate a standard of judgment for the round. New evidence for existing arguments may be presented.
2
10. Second Negative Rebuttal (3N)
In essence, the second negative rebuttal is similar to the second affirmative rebuttal. Judges should be
especially wary of speakers introducing new arguments at this point since the affirmative team has no
chance to respond, so a new argument is especially unfair. The judge should ignore any new arguments that
are introduced.
Negative Strategies
Disadvantage(s). The negative can present disadvantages. A disadvantage is a negative argument that
proves that the affirmative plan is undesirable. It is really one of the simplest ideas in debate – it is an
argument about a negative consequence that will result from adopting the affirmative’s plan.
It is important to note that any given disadvantage alone is not necessarily a reason to vote negative..
Negatives must argue that the disadvantage proves that the affirmative’s plan is net-undesirable – that the
costs outweigh the benefits. To continue with the example above, the negative would need to prove that it
is better to buy the pair of shorts with the money than not the shirt.
Critiques/Kritik(s). It is difficult to say exactly what a kritik is. Kritiks have taken many forms in debate,
and the popularity of many has come and gone. Generally, a kritik is a philosophical objection to some
element of the other team’s arguments. Initially, critiques were only advanced by negative, but now
critiques are also commonly advanced by the affirmative.
Counterplan(s). A counterplan is an alternative plan to the affirmative plan that is advanced by the
negative. The most essential defining element of a counterplan is that it is competitive – the negative must
prove that the counterplan is better than the affirmative plan or a combination of the plan and all or part of
the counterplan.
Topicality arguments, disadvantages, counterplans, and critiques are “off-case” arguments and are
presented first in the 1NC. Negatives can present any number or combination of each, though the
legitimacy of suggesting multiple counterplans is something that is hotly contested. Since there are no rules
in debate, you will need to be prepared to defend it if your strategy includes multiple counterplans.
After presenting off-case positions, the 1NC then will proceed to attack the 1AC itself, making as many
arguments as possible against the inherency, harms, significance, and solvency. The 1NC should be
prepared to answer basic questions from the 1AC.
After the 2AC responds to the negative arguments, the negative must be prepared to defend them in the two
speeches that follow – the 2NC and the 1NR. You can think of both of the speeches as one giant rebuttal
where both debaters answer the 2AC arguments.
These two speeches are usually the hardest for beginning debaters to give because they require them to be
able to respond point by point to specific 2AC arguments. In your first few debates, do the best you can to
answer each of the 2AC arguments.
In the 2NR the negative needs highlight their major arguments and explain why, on the whole, the
affirmative’s plan is a bad idea. The negative does not need to win every argument that they advance in the
debate, but they do need to win enough arguments to prove that the affirmative’s plan is net-undesirable.
Debate: The Stock Issues
How do I know what arguments to make?
Any discussion of policy proposals relies on a pattern of analysis developed by the philosopher and
educator, John Dewey. This analysis applies to all proposals, not just debate resolutions.
Let us assume that you are concerned parent trying to convince a town meeting that the city ought to
renovate or build more playgrounds. Obviously, you would come to the meeting having made as much
preparation as possible. You would have a detailed plan of action — what playgrounds to rebuild, where to
buy more land, and so on.
3
Would this be enough to convince people? Hardly. You not only need to have a plan of action, but you
need to provide a reason for adopting this plan. So you would prepare arguments beforehand: the old
playgrounds are unusable, you would say. There are too many children in the city, and not enough
facilities. Kids end up playing in abandoned quarries. Even where facilities exist, the grounds and
equipment are in poor repair: there have been five major injuries to children in the last two years due to
collapsing swing-sets.
At the same time, you would need to justify the city's taking action. Point out that no private citizen or
company will underwrite the cost of repair, but that the city has thousands of dollars of funds earmarked for
park improvement.
How does this apply to debate?
As you will recall, the Affirmative team speaks first in the round, since they need to justify changing the
status quo. The goal of this first speech is to present a specific plan and a list of reasons for adopting it, the
case.
The plan is a very detailed list of what steps the Affirmative team thinks the government should adopt. The
case is a persuasive series of arguments designed to show that the plan is needed and effective.
The Affirmative must present a prima facie (PRY-muh FAY-shuh) case in the first speech if they expect to
win the debate. "Prima facie" — a Latin phrase meaning, roughly, "at first glance" — means that the
arguments are sufficient to persuade a reasonable person until they are refuted. If the Affirmative presents a
prima facie case, they have fulfilled their burden of proof for the first speech: they have presented a reason
to change the status quo. If the Affirmative fails to provide a prima facie case, the Negative can win just by
pointing that out in their first speech.
What are the components of a prima facie case?
The prima facie case must answer certain of the stock issues in the 1AC speech. The stock issues are four
basic varieties of argument which appear in every debate.
One way to think of stock issues is as questions to which the Affirmative must answer yes and the Negative
may answer no. There are many ways of posing these questions, but here are some examples:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Is there a significant need for a change? Is there a great harm in the status quo, and/or is there a
great advantage which can be obtained by modifying our present way of doing things?
Will mechanisms in the status quo cause the problem to remain? Is the harm an intrinsic part of
the present system? Can only the Affirmative proposal gain the advantage?
Will the proposal ease the problem effectively?
Will the plan avoid unpleasant side effects?
The first stock issue is known as harm or need. The second is called inherency (or, sometimes, uniqueness).
The third issue is called solvency, and the fourth, disadvantages (or, rarely, cost). To provide a prima facie
speech, the first Affirmative Constructive must provide a plan and address the harm, inherency, and
solvency issues.
4
Notice how our playground example a few paragraphs ago fits into this system of analysis. The Harm issue
is considered in the dangers to children from the current playground structure. The fact that nobody else is
taking action satisfies the Inherency issue. The detailed proposal for new equipment provides the plan, and
the claims that it would be a functional solution meets the Solvency requirement.
Why isn't the Disadvantages stock issue part of a prima facie case?
We assume that the Affirmative plan has a tiny amount of risk, but we trust the Affirmative enough to
suspend judgement on any disadvantages until later in the debate. We expect that any bad side-effects will
be brought up by the Negative team in their speeches. The Affirmative will, of course, deny that there are
any major defects in their plan.
If the Affirmative had the duty to anticipate and answer all possible side-effects in their first speech, they
couldn't possibly fulfill their burden of proof in eight minutes. So, in the interests of fairness,
Disadvantages are excluded from prima facie consideration.
Explain the Need stock issue.
To meet the need issue, the Affirmative must prove that there is a significant amount of suffering going on
due to present policy. They can take two approaches: they can prove a quantitative harm, showing that
many people are affected, or they can show a qualitative harm, demonstrating that relatively few people are
hurt deeply.
Consider a resolution calling for stricter federal control over pornography. One Affirmative case may
choose to show that millions of people are exposed to pornography, and each exposure corrupts them
slightly; the net effect is widespread, even universal, harm. This quantitative approach suggests a big, but
not necessarily intense, problem.
Another case on the same topic might suggest that, for a few individuals, pornography causes criminally
violent sexual behavior: it leads to rapes, assaults, and child molesting. Clearly, not all people are sexually
assaulted in the course of a year — not even a large fraction of the population are so harmed. But those
who are harmed are hurt greatly. This is a qualitative approach.
Remember that the need analysis is equally valid as an advantage instead of a harm. For example, the
Affirmative could demonstrate that cutting pornography would cut assaults, resulting in a savings of
thousands of hours of police time, and millions of dollars in court and prison costs. This quantitative
advantage is just as legitimate as a quantitative harm approach. Both types of analysis demonstrate a need
for the Affirmative proposal.
Explain Inherency.
Inherency is the hardest of the stock issues for the beginning debater to understand. The crux of inherency
is the nature of cause-and-effect: the Affirmative wants to demonstrate that there are features in the status
5
quo which cause the problems discussed in the Need issue. Proving that this causal link exists means that
the harms can't be cured except by reforming the status quo.
There are four basic types of inherency that you might meet. For demonstration purposes, we will assume
that the Affirmative is proposing a plan to increase federal aid to people living in poverty.
Structural inherency is the strongest type of inherent barrier to establish. A structural analysis suggests
that a law, or rule, or fact of life is causing the harms. For example, the Affirmative may argue that people
who do not get a good education have low productivity, and thus earn low wages, and thus are condemned
to poverty. The causal link of poor education to low income is based on economic facts. Similarly, the
government rule that people who have given up looking for jobs are not counted as "unemployed" means
that the unemployment figures underestimate the number of people in need of work; a law demonstrates
structural inherency.
Gap inherency is weaker than structural inherency. The Affirmative notes that the present system has
identified a problem and is taking steps against it, but those steps fall short of curing the harms. There is a
gap between the solution now in existence and the harm that needs to be cured. For example, federal
welfare payments are designed to relieve poverty, but the money a family receives from welfare is too little
to raise it above the poverty line — a gap exists. Gap inherency is weaker than structural inherency because
it shows that the status quo is already making some effort to remove the problem, as we will see when we
discuss First Negative tactics.
Attitudinal inherency claims that the problems are caused by people's beliefs, feelings, or opinions. For
example, racial prejudice — an attitudinal problem — prevents many blacks from getting good-paying
jobs, thus causing poverty to strike at the African-American family more often than the white family.
Another example is that people find it humiliating to ask for charity (an attitude), and so many poor people
refuse out of pride to participate in welfare and food stamp programs, and thus suffer poverty and
malnutrition (the harm). Attitudinal inherency, also, is weaker than structural inherency; the opposition will
argue that the attitudes are not really strong (in 1NC), and that they will thwart the working of the plan (in
2NC). Attitudinal inherency can be effective, but you must be careful when you use it.
Finally, existential inherency argues that, since there's a problem, something must be causing it ...and
leaves the question at that point. The Affirmative claims that the mere existence of a problem is enough; we
don't have to worry about causes. This is a flawed analysis; existential inherency must never be used!
Unless they show a true barrier, the Affirmative can't prove that the harms will not evaporate overnight —
and so they will lose the debate. Existential inherency is considered a valid approach in some debate
circuits, but the consensus among most high school judges is that it is not acceptable. Avoid it.
What is Solvency?
In many ways, solvency is the opposite of inherency. Again, you are trying to prove a causal relationship,
but the Affirmative's goal is to show that the plan will work to solve the problems they have mentioned.
6
Usually this means finding evidence in which an authority supports the specific proposal the Affirmatives
are suggesting. The important thing for Affirmatives to remember is that the claim for solvency must
specifically fix the problems described in the Harm analysis.
What are Disadvantages?
They are harmful side-effects of the Affirmative plan. They will be more fully discussed in the chapters on
Second Negative Constructive and First Affirmative Rebuttal strategy.
Are there any other stock issues?
No....but you may hear about three others. They really aren't valid ones — they are holdovers from debate
theory of previous decades — but a few schools are using old textbooks that still refer to them, so you
should be familiar with the concepts. If you are faced with a team using this analysis, you have an excellent
chance of winning; just make sure the judge knows that you know the underlying concept of the issue is
flawed.
Significance deals with size and magnitude. Usually an Affirmative team arguing significance notes that
their case extends to very many people. Properly, significance is a part of the Harm/Need stock issue: the
Affirmative must prove that the harm they cite or the advantage they hope to derive is a significant and
important one. Merely noting that large numbers of people (or many millions of dollars) are involved is not
sufficient. Be careful here. A few debate teams use the word Significance when they mean Need or Harm.
Workability (sometimes called Unworkability) is usually brought up by the Negative, to claim that the
Affirmative plan is not practical. Usually the Second Negative speaker will argue that the plan doesn't have
Congressional backing, or that some minor details are too sketchy to function. These arguments are
misapplied. If the plan is flawed so that it will not function well, the Negative argument is clearly one
against solvency; if the plan is so flawed that it will worsen the situation, the relevant stock issue is
disadvantages.
Often, workability arguments are just presented as a list of questions or assertions (known as presses):
"How will your financing work? I don't see how the Affirmative is going to get all the money they need.
And mailing out checks to everybody in poverty every month — who's going to lick all those envelopes?
Until the Affirmative can answer these questions, we must conclude their plan is not workable." But
questions aren't the same as arguments, and they are not persuasive. The Affirmative team cannot ignore
Workability questions, but they can be handled quickly and easily...and the Affirmatives can expect to win
the debate.
Finally, there is the pseudo-stock issue called Topicality. This is a very special case, because topicality is a
legitimate — and often vitally important — issue in policy debate. It's so important, in fact, that we devote
a whole chapter to it later on. While some debate theorists disagree, I don't think topicality should be
considered a Stock Issue, however. Topicality is not an issue which must arise in every debate, while the
other stock issues must be considered. Even Disadvantages are at least an implicit part of every round, even
7
when the Negative fails to introduce formal disadvantage arguments, as part of the presumption in favor of
the status quo. Topicality arguments are different; we consider that the Affirmative case and plan are
operating completely within the bounds of the resolution until the Negative team begins a challenge to
topicality. Thus, I think Topicality should not be considered a part of the standard Stock Issue quartet.
Debate topics
You MUST choose a topic that goes against the status quo. These are just ideas, your resolution must be
specific.
1)
Should the policy of free trade be instated or abolished in every country?
2)
Should the U.S. withdraw from Iraq?
3)
Should the U.S. institute a war draft for the war in Iraq?
4)
Should the government put more restrictions on the Internet?
5)
A law should be enforced against driving while talking on the cell phones.
6)
The U.S. should have Better control of immigration and the diseases people bring over.
7)
Should the electoral college be eliminated?
8)
Women or gays in the military.
9)
Should the United States endorse affirmative action in the workplace?
10)
Homosexuals should be able to marry.
11)
Should insurance be equal for all genders?
12)
Should the driving age be changed?
13)
There should be shorter school days.
14)
Dress code should be abolished or uniforms should be required.
15)
Animal testing should be allowed in the advancement of science.
16)
Euthanasia should be allowed for those who are terminally ill.
17)
Illegal immigrants should be allowed in the country
18)
Should America impose democracy on Iran?
19)
Should the Electoral College be changed?
20)
Should the president have complete control of the government during a war situation?
21)
Should physical ED. be required to graduate?
22)
Should parental consent be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions?
23)
Should schools be required to teach creationism alongside evolution as part of their science curriculum?
24)
Should a voucher system be used to introduce choice and competition between schools?
8
25)
Should school students face mandatory drug-tests?
26)
Should the state fund schools run by particular faiths?
27)
Should couples be banned from adopting children overseas?
28)
Should the government bailout banks and financial institutions?
29)
Should the sale and consumption of alcohol – the world’s favorite drug – be further restricted, or even
banned?
30)
Should human beings be allowed to use other animals as objects of sport and entertainment?
31)
Should the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport be legalized?
32)
Should children be allowed to work in the performing arts or professional sports?
33)
Should laws be passed to limit gun ownership further?
34)
Should Physical Education in schools be compulsory?
35)
Should blood sports be banned?
36)
Should young people be subjected to night-time curfews as a way to reduce crime?
37)
Should parents be allowed to select the gender of their offspring?
38)
Should publicly supported education programs include the distribution of condoms?
39)
Should the morning-after pill be banned?
40)
Should there be a tax on fatty or sugary foods?
41)
Should we create a database of DNA that can be used by police authorities in order to apprehend
criminals?
42)
Should human cloning be banned? Should reproductive human cloning always be prohibited?
43)
Should countries prosecute child soldiers for the crimes they committed during wartime? Should there
be an international minimum age of criminal responsibility for war crimes and crimes against
humanity?
44)
Should the government use tax or policy to encourage the use of cars which are not fueled by gas?
45)
Should all western countries change their official currency to the Euro?
46)
Should a cap be placed on the level of foreign investment in a country’s businesses and land?
47)
Are there environmental, moral, or health issues associated with genetically modified food? Should it
be banned?
Analyzing Arguments
Example 1
9
The Democratic Party's new commission to promote family values will cost the taxpayer an estimated $10
million. Such a waste of the tax-payer's money could be more easily justified were it not for the President's
shameful treatment of his own wife and family. In the light of the Zippergate scandal, it is ridiculous to
support the activities of the family values commission.

Conclusion/Main Point: ________________________________________________________

Supporting Points:
i) ___________________________________________________
ii) ___________________________________________________
 What is wrong with the argument?
Example 2
The first reported cases of AIDS were among members of the gay community in San Francisco. It was
only much later that cases were noticed among heterosexuals. It is therefore clear that AIDS is primarily a
gay disease.

Main Argument: ________________________________________________________

Supporting Points:
i) ___________________________________________________
ii) ___________________________________________________
 What is wrong with the argument?
Example 3
A recent Green Peace report indicates that the number of diseased fish in the Mediterranean has increased
dramatically over the last ten years. It is obvious that the international community must introduce strict
regulations to control the dumping of industrial waste into the sea.

Main Argument: ________________________________________________________

Supporting Points:
i) ___________________________________________________
ii) ___________________________________________________
 What is wrong with the argument?
Example 4
The choice is clear for the world's developing countries; either they adopt liberal democracy or their
economies will continue to suffer.

Main Argument: ________________________________________________________

Supporting Points:
i) ___________________________________________________
ii) ___________________________________________________
 What is wrong with the argument?
Example 5
The reaction of the American public to the Monica Lweinsky scandal is clear evidence that moral standards
have not declined.

Main Argument: ________________________________________________________

Supporting Points:
i) ___________________________________________________
ii) ___________________________________________________

What is wrong with the argument?
10
Example 6
The achievement of a ceasefire in Northern Ireland should give a clear message to the Turkish government.
Had the British government not maintained its policy of non negotiation with the IRA, it is doubtful that the
peace process would have produced such a result. The Turkish government should not, then, consider
negotiating with the PKK. Any such negotiation would simply delay the chances of achieving a peaceful
solution to the Kurdish problem.

Main Argument: ________________________________________________________

Supporting Points:
i) ___________________________________________________
ii) ___________________________________________________
 What is wrong with the argument?
Example 7

It is clear that the American economy is not in decline. America is as economically strong as it
ever was.

Main Argument: ________________________________________________________

Supporting Points:
i) ___________________________________________________
ii) ___________________________________________________
 What is wrong with the argument?
Example 8
While positive discrimination towards women may have been valid and perhaps even necessary in the
1970s, it is no longer needed. The position of women has changed in the last two decades. It is now time
that we judged people on what they can do and not on their gender.

Main Argument: ________________________________________________________

Supporting Points:
i) ___________________________________________________
ii) ___________________________________________________
 What is wrong with the argument?
Example 9
Istanbul's housing problem could be easily solved by introducing strict regulations to control migration to
the city.

Main Argument: ________________________________________________________

Supporting Points:

ii) ___________________________________________________

What is wrong with the argument?
i) ___________________________________________________
Basic Argument Format
1. Sign-posting: A signpost is a verbal map that allow the listener to know where to place the argument in
the context of the debate. Is the argument about whether or not the plan works or is it about the need for
change? Debaters should always introduce their arguments with a simple signpost. Example: "Please turn
to Harms (an issue we’ll fully define later). I have three responses." This tells everyone listening which
issue the argument pertains to. This is essential for the debate to remain organized.
11
2. Claim: The statement of the argument. The claim, much like an evidence tag should be brief and
powerfully stated. Example: "NATO expansion will cause war." This tells the listener what the argument is.
A claim by itself, however, is only an assertion. To become an argument, it requires support.
3. Support. The two most common forms of support for an argument are reasoning and
evidence. For many arguments, logical reasoning is sufficient to win the point. The debater may also refer
to previously presented evidence as support. At times, new evidence is required. While sign-posting and
stating claims requires practice, supporting claims requires the most preparation and work. The type of
support given to an argument will depend on its importance in the debate and the arguments and evidence
presented up to that point. Many arguments are made without the presentation of new evidence. Some
examples:
"Global Warming is scientifically doubtful [claim]. The global warming theory is suspect for
several reasons. First, despite predictions of scientists, we have seen no significant temperature
increases. Second, the computer models used to predict climate change are faulty. And third, a
growing number of qualified experts tell us that the theory is untrue."[support—the debater gives
reasons for the listener to support the claim]
"Global Warming is scientifically doubtful [claim]. The negative team has provided evidence
from three leading scientists that casts doubt on the global warming theory. This evidence has not
been refuted. Therefore, we should consider the theory doubtful at best." [support—the debaters
refers to previous evidence and the lack of refutation to support the claim]
Practice: Affirmative Arguments
*Resolution: ___________________________________________________________
I. Harms/Needs
A. (list first harm or need)____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
B. (list next harm or need)____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
C. (list next harm or need)____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
II. Inherency (complete as many as you can)
A. A law or rule that exists that makes it impossible for the harms to go away by themselves
is____________________________________________________________________(Structural)
B. Other reasons these harms exist is that there is a gap in the system. This gap
is_________________________________________________________________________(Gap)
C. People’s attitudes/beliefs or opinions that keep those harms occurring are________
___________________________________________________________________(Attitudinal)
*Resolution: ___________________________________________________________
I. Harms/Needs
A. (list first harm or need)____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
B. (list next harm or need)____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
C. (list next harm or need)____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
II. Inherency (complete as many as you can)
A. A law or rule that exists that makes it impossible for the harms to go away by themselves
12
is____________________________________________________________________(Structural)
B. Other reasons these harms exist is that there is a gap in the system. This gap
is_________________________________________________________________________(Gap)
C. People’s attitudes/beliefs or opinions that keep those harms occurring are________
___________________________________________________________________(Attitudinal)
*Resolution: ___________________________________________________________
I. Harms/Needs
A. (list first harm or need)____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
B. (list next harm or need)____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
C. (list next harm or need)____________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
II. Inherency (complete as many as you can)
A. A law or rule that exists that makes it impossible for the harms to go away by themselves
is____________________________________________________________________(Structural)
B. Other reasons these harms exist is that there is a gap in the system. This gap
is_________________________________________________________________________(Gap)
C. People’s attitudes/beliefs or opinions that keep those harms occurring are________
___________________________________________________________________(Attitudinal)
Sample 1AC:
Resolution: My partners and I stand firmly resolved that factory farming should be illegal.
We offer the following Case against the status quo:
Contention I. Harms/Needs
A. Factory farming is extremely cruel.
1. Evidence: The animals are confined to the point where suffocation is common.
Most of the animals never see direct sunlight, smell fresh air, and some never even
touch the ground. Animals are mutilated and modified.
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=301
1/12/10
2. Evidence: The circumstances don’t allow the animals to act in natural ways.
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=301
1/12/10
B. Due to factory farming, health risks for people have grown significantly.
1.
2.
Evidence: Overcrowding of animals in factories spreads epidemics quickly.
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=301
1/12/10
Evidence: The factory farms are filled with so many antibiotics and hormones that it
is common for diseases, bugs, and infection to pass to humans.
http://www.farmsanctuary.org/ 1/12/10
C. Factory farms poison the land, air, and water.
1.
Evidence: Animal waste is stored in large pits or “lagoons” where it poses a serious
threat to the land, air, and especially the water. http://www.allcreatures.org/articles/ar-factoryfarming.html 1/12/10
13
2.
3.
4.
Evidence: Three-quarters of U.S. factory farms are subjected to no state pollution
controls. http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/ar-factoryfarming.html 1/12/10
Evidence: Factory farms generate enormous amounts of waste , which can leak into
the ground water, and put residents at risk of exposure to infectious and potentially
deadly bacteria
Evidence: Runoff from industrial farms can also spread antibiotic-resistant bacteria,
and contribute to dangerously high levels of heavy metals such as nitrates into wells
and public water supplies.
Contention II. Inherency
A. No direct laws protecting animals from factory farming
1. Evidence: The Federal Animal Welfare Act regulates the treatment of animals for
commercial purposes but does not apply to farm animals unless they are being used
in research or for exhibition. This creates a gap. http://www.allcreatures.org/articles/ar-factoryfarming.html 1/12/10
2. Evidence: There are no federal laws that protect farm animals from even the most
harsh and brutal treatment as long as it takes place in the name of production and
profit. http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/ar-factoryfarming.html 1/12/10
The affirmative has developed a plan to solve the problems in the status quo:
Plank 1: Mandates:
A. Factory farming is illegal.
1. Factory farming is defined as large-scale industrialized and intensive agriculture that
is focused on profit with animals kept indoors, confined at high stocking density and
restricted in mobility; where a farm operates as a factory
2. All animals used for consumption must be raised on a free-grazing farm.
3. All animals must be fed natural products with no artificial hormones and additives.
4. All animals used for consumption cannot be administered antibiotics, growthpromoting hormones, appetite stimulants and pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides and
aflatoxins.
B. All animals used for consumption will be treated humanly and without cruelty.
1. All farms must follow animal cruelty laws.
Plank 2: Enforcement
Government health inspectors and agriculture officials will be able to investigate farms.
5.
A special unit will be assigned to investigate farms monthly with various random
visits.
6.
Inspectors and officials would also inspect at any given time based on suspicious
activity.
B. Violators will be punished by the law.
1.
First offense results in a fine worth 60% of their profit of farming.
2.
Any offense there after, the violator will face imprisonment with a minimum
sentence of one year, or more depending on the severity, and their farm will
be shut down.
Plank 3: Administration
14
A. The United States Department of Agriculture will oversee and manage the production of
animal products.
1.
The Food Safety and Inspection Service will go directly to the farms for
enforcement.
2.
A committee will be formed with two representatives from each state to
specifically deal with farming issues.
B. The committee will analyze the need for changes in enforcement and funding, as well as
discussing issues at hand.
1.
The committee will meet every four months to discuss together.
2.
In order for change, the committee must have a ¾ majority vote.
Plank 4: Funding
A. A 10-cent tax will be added to meats, dairy, poultry, and fish for consumers.
B.
1.
As of now, there is no tax on meat; therefore this tax will bring in additional
funding needed.
2.
According to a 2008 survey by the U.S. Department of Labor, the
average family of four spent $5,478 on groceries, including $1,201 on
meat, poultry, fish and eggs. http://www.tipztime.com/a/meatpoultry.shtml
Government funding will be in effect.
1.
Money towards the FDA and USDA will be used.
2.
Government funding will vary based on money spent.
Our last Contention proves that our plan will solve the problems:
Contention III: Solvency
A. Harm 1: The extreme cruelty of factory farming will be solved by…..
1. Applying animal rights laws to farming animals
2. All states will apply their animal rights laws to factory farming
http://www.megalaw.com/top/animal.php
B. Harm 2: Due to factory farming, health risks for people have increased significantly and
will be solved by…..
1. Banning the use of antibiotics, growth-promoting hormones, appetite stimulants and
pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides and aflatoxins as enhancements
2. Minimizing the potential for cultivating and spreading disease rapidly due to close
confinement http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/health/
C. Harm 3: Factory farms poison the land, air, and water and will be solved by…..
1. Air, water, and land pollution will decrease due to factory farming being shut down
2. The surrounding communities will have less risk of health problems
D. Advantage 1: Beef fed with natural grass is high in Omega 3, which in turn will allow the
consumer to eat healthier
1. Omega 3 helps prevent hypertension, cancer, arthritis, auto immune disorders, and
coronary artery disease
http://www.mercola.com/beef/health_benefits.htm
2. Omega 3s in beef that feed on grass is 7% of the total fat content, compared to 1% in
grain-only
15
D. Advantage 2: Family farms will be able to prosper once again
1. Family farmers are being forced out of business at an extremely high rate
2. According to Farm Aid, 330 farmers leave their land each week. Resulting in nearly
five million fewer farms in the U.S. than there were in the 1930's
3. Of the two million only 565,000 are family operations
4. Family farms also provide wealth and other benefits for their communities and
surrounding areas, boosting their economy
5. According to the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, between 1974 and
2002, the number of corporate-owned U.S. farms increased by more than 46%.
http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/familyfarms/
We feel the Affirmative has presented adequate information to prove that the status quo is not working
and that our plan will fix the problems.
I now stand open for cross-examination and points of clarification.
SAMPLE 2 1AC
Resolution: My partners and I stand firmly resolved that Nuclear Weapons should be abolished.
We offer the following Case against the status quo:
Contention I: Harms/Needs
A. Nuclear Weapons could potentially kill all living things.
1.
2.
Evidence: In World War II it is estimated that 200,000 people were killed
from Nuclear Weapons. www.atomicarchive.com
http://lcnp.org/wcourt/shortbriefingpaper.pdf
Evidence: The radiation resulting from the Atomic bombs in WWII is
proven to have caused tumors. 80,160 Japanese survivors were diagnosed
to be killed by the radiation. www.eurekalert.org Linda Wang
B. Nuclear Weapons create tension between nations.
1.
Evidence: The Cold War was a direct result of a Nuclear Arms build up.
“The Cold war got its name because both sides were afraid of fighting
each other directly. In such a "hot war," nuclear weapons might destroy
everything.” http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/cold_war.htm
2. Evidence: India and Pakistan are currently in a cold war with each other.
Both are threatening the use of Nuclear Weapons.
http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclearweapons/history/post-cold-war/india-pakistan/india-pakistan-conflict.htm
C. Nuclear Weapons could fall into the wrong hands.
1.
2.
Evidence: If Nations become unafraid to use Nuclear Weapons, peace
would be nearly impossible to restore.
Evidence: Terrorist attacks and corruption in Pakistan are causing a lack
of security.
Contention II: Inherency
A. Inherency: The abolition of Nuclear Weapons has a wide spread attitude that they
allow us to negotiate through cold wars, instead of through the casualties brought on
by actual war.
16
1.
Evidence: People are afraid to use Nuclear Weapons. They would
rather negotiate.
http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=47
Evidence: The U.S. casualty count and/or missing for the cold war
was 124 casualties compared to 116,000 US deaths in World War I.
http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/memory/statistics.html
2.
The affirmative has developed a plan to solve the problems in the status quo:
Plank 1: Mandates:
D. All current nuclear weapons worldwide should be abolished.
1. All nuclear weapons in the world today should be destroyed in their
entirety.
2. Each country must destroy minimum 500 nuclear weapons per year and
all by 2020. If a country’s number of nuclear weapons is lower than 500,
all must be destroyed in a year.
3. Destruction of nuclear weapons will start in 2011.
E. Proof of destruction of nuclear weapons
1. Two delegates from a disarmament committee will oversee the
destruction in each country.
F.
No more nuclear weapons will be created.
1. Effective immediately, no further nuclear weapon production will be
tolerated.
Plank 2: Enforcement
A mandatory treaty will ensure all nations with nuclear weapons will agree to destroy them by
2020.
1.
All nations with nuclear weapons will be forced to sign a treaty
and agree to destroy all of their nuclear weapons.
B. Not abiding by the treaty will result in reprimand and forceful confiscation of the weapons.
3.
After the first offense, the country not abiding will be reprimanded.
After the second offense, the weapons will be confiscated by the
United Nations at the violating nation’s expense.
4.
If confiscation is forcefully rejected, all nations in agreement with
the treaty will defend the United Nation’s confiscation by any
means.
Plank 3: Administration
B. A nuclear weapon agency will oversee the destruction of the nuclear weapons.
1.
The agency will consist of two delegates from each country in
the United Nations.
2.
The two delegates will be chosen by the leader/s of the
country.
3. Two delegates will oversee every country’s destruction.
Plank 4: Funding
17
C. Countries will fund the destruction of their own nuclear weapons.
D.
Countries in the United Nations with nuclear weapons will be charged more for their
assessments to fund the nuclear weapons agency.
1.
Countries will pay one and one-half times the amount of dues
to the United Nations that they were paying previously.
Our last Contention proves that our plan will solve the problems:
Contention III: Solvency
A. Harm 1: Nuclear weapons could potentially kill all living things. This will be solved by…..
1. There will be no nuclear weapons capable of killing all living things.
B. Harm 2: Nuclear weapons create tension between nations. This will be solved by…..
1. No nation will have any nuclear threat over another.
2. No nation will fear other nation’s nuclear power.
C. Harm 3: Nuclear weapons could fall into the wrong hands. This will be solved by…..
1. There will be no nuclear weapons that could possibly fall into the wrong hands.
D. Advantage 1: Area’s surrounding plants that build nuclear weapons will be safer, cleaner, and
have less radiation.
1. There is nuclear waste around the surrounding area.
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/etc/faqs.html)
We feel the Affirmative has presented adequate information to prove that the status quo is not working and
that our plan will fix the problems.
I now stand open for cross-examination and points of clarification.
Negative Preparation
PARTS OF A DISADVANTAGE
In debate, disadvantages have a number of different parts. Although these parts make the disadvantage
appear more of a difficult argument than what has just been discussed, the different parts will actually assist
you with both understanding different types of arguments generally and with constructing and answering
disadvantages.
Link. The link is the part of the argument that ties the negative disadvantage to what the affirmative is
arguing. For example, a link to a spending disadvantage argues that the affirmative’s plan will spend
money. Disadvantages can have more than one link. In this instance, different links would focus on
different reasons that the affirmative plan spends money. The more the affirmative plan spends, the
stronger the disadvantage link.
Internal link. The internal link connects one link to another link or one link to an impact. For example, if
the negative argues that the plan spends money, an argument that spending money causes a recession is one
internal link and an argument that a recession will turn into a depression is another internal link.
Disadvantages can have multiple internal links, though negatives will strive to limit of internal links
necessary to reach the impact. Disadvantages with many internal links are less persuasive because even one
of the internal links fails to happen, there is a break in the disadvantage chain, and the entire disadvantage
is beaten.
18
Impact. The impact is similar to a harm claim, though the term impact is usually used in the context of the
disadvantage. The disadvantage is the final, end problem that results. For example, if the negative’s
disadvantage argues that the affirmative’s plan undermines the economy, the impact is the final result – an
economic decline may cause poverty or even trigger a war.
Uniqueness. The uniqueness to the disadvantage is usually presented first, but since it is the hardest part of
the disadvantage to understand, it is discussed last. Uniqueness refers to the part of the disadvantage that
argues that the disadvantage will not occur absent the adoption of the affirmative plan. There are three
types of uniqueness arguments, though the negative will likely only present a general uniqueness claim in
the first negative constructive.
Link uniqueness. Link uniqueness establishes that the link will not happen now. In the instance of the
spending disadvantage, the negative will argue that the government will not commit to new spending in the
in the present world (status quo).
Internal link uniqueness. Internal link uniqueness argues that the internal link will not happen now. For
example, if the internal link is that a recession will cause a depression, an internal link uniqueness claim is
that we are not having a recession now.
Impact uniqueness. Impact uniqueness establishes that the impact will not happen now. If the impact is
“depression causes war,” the negative would argue that we are not in a depression now and that we are not
in a major war now.
Disadvantages are first presented in the 1NC as off-case positions. The basic shell should contain the link,
internal link, impact, and uniqueness arguments. Sometimes debaters will forget to demonstrate support for
one of the parts. It is the job of the affirmative team to point out that the other necessary parts of the
disadvantage have not been proven.
It is essential that the negative win every part of the disadvantage. If one part of the disadvantage falls the
entire disadvantage falls.
19
Order of Debate Poster
Direction: With your team, create a poster based on the information on packet p.1-3.

Make 12 squares. (6 on top and 6 on bottom.)

In square one draw 3 Aff. characters. Label them 1A, 2A, 3A.
1A: Susie

2A: Pete
3A: Fred
In square two draw 3 Neg. characters. Label them 1N, 2N, 3N.

1N : Tom

2N: Harry 3N: Hagrid
In the remaining 10 squares based on the information on packet p. 1-3:
A. Label each square appropriately. (1st Affirmative Constructive, 1st Negative
Cross-Examination, etc.)
B. Put the time for each speech. (6 minutes, 2minutes, etc.)
C. Write a phrase that describes what should occur in that frame.
D. Draw a comic with the appropriate characters (1A, 2A, 1N, etc) performing the
task for that square.
Sample:
1AC (6minutes): Read
Resolved
the outline.
….
1A: Susie
20
APPENDIX TWO: SAMPLE FLOW
21
Debate Rules
1. Your team MUST debate on the assigned day. This means if you are absent your team
still debates.
2. All students not debating will take notes on the debate (flow). There is a sample flow
on packet page 20. I will randomly collect and grade flows. Every day a different student
will be the timer- that student does not have to flow.
3. You will be graded individually (see “Debate Ballot” and “Rubric” pp. 21-22). In the
first round of the debates a rubric score of “4” will be counted as the high score. You will
be graded on five elements (Organization, Arguments, etc). Your score will be added
together and multiplied by two, making the first debate worth 40 points total. The second
round will have a rubric score of “5” as the high score. The final score in this round will
be multiplied by four, making the second debate worth 100 points. You may come at
conference to see your score but I keep the ballot in my room.
4. Certain elements of the debate score are based on group effort. Evidence is the
responsibility of the whole group so you will probably have similar scores. Speaker
responsibility is an individual score. Organization is a group and individual score.
5. Organization includes signposting (see packet p.13). Basically, you need to refer to the
outline numbers and letters when you speak. (E.g. “In Contention I. Harms A the
Negative claims that …”). If you don’t do this we have a hard time taking notes and you
will automatically get a “3” or lower on organization.
6. It is the Negative’s responsibility to get the Affirmative’s resolution two school days
before the debate and the 1AC the day before the debate.
7. If the Affirmative wishes to modify their 1AC, they must do so and resubmit it (to me
and turnitin.com) before the date the Negative gets the resolution/1AC.
8. Additional evidence should be used by the Affirmative and must be used by the
Negative. This evidence can be listed on cards (packet p.18) or in anyway your team
wishes to organize it. Remember to have bibliographic information for your evidence!
9. Winning the debate does not affect your grade. The Affirmative must prove ALL stock
issues to win the debate. It is not enough for the Negative to question the Affirmative,
however. The Negative must thoroughly disprove at least ONE of the Affirmative stock
issues. Of course, if you debate poorly you will probably lose the debate and your grade
will be affected. But, you may debate well and get a high grade and still lose the debate.
22
Debate Ballot
Round______ Date_______
Affirmative: ________________________________________________
Speaker 1:_______________________
Organization_________
Arguments___________
Examples____________
Speaker Duties_____________
Presentation__________
Total_____________
Speaker 2:_______________________
Organization_________
Arguments___________
Examples____________
Speaker Duties _____________
Presentation__________
Total_____________
Speaker 3:_______________________
Organization_________
Arguments___________
Examples____________
Speaker Duties _____________
Presentation__________
Total_____________
Negative: ________________________________________________
Speaker 1:_______________________
Organization_________
Arguments___________
Examples____________
Speaker Duties _____________
Presentation__________
Total_____________
Speaker 2:_______________________
Organization_________
Arguments___________
Examples____________
Speaker Duties _____________
Presentation__________
Total_____________
Speaker 3:_______________________
Organization_________
Arguments___________
Examples____________
Speaker Duties _____________
Presentation__________
Total_____________
Winner____________________________________________
Affirmative_________
Negative__________
23