Policy Debate Notes

In debate, there are many norms, but few actual rules.

In L-D, definitions, values, and philosophical criterion are crucial to affirming or
negating the resolution.

In Policy, these components are used as needed to assist in supporting your stock issues.

There is an assumption that the AFF plan will be put into effect. This is called Fiat. The
debate is about why it would or would not be a good idea to enact, not whether or not it
will be enacted.

Organize evidence based on use and effectiveness.

Tags must reflect the true quality of the evidence.

Prep briefs for 6-12 strongest arguments (based on expert opinion or logic) in order to
have the quickest response. Keep briefs organized according to speeches.

Use roadmaps and signposting.

Decide who will present which arguments.

Don’t drop any arguments. Answer all. BUT know what to drop or blow if out of time. If
opponents drop arguments, point it out!

If you are not winning an argument, tell the judge why it isn’t an important argument.

Speak quickly, but not beyond your ability.
AFF Case Strategies:
Stock Issues:
Significance- important/severe harms exist in the current system/status quo
Harms- negative outcomes will result if the problem is not solved
Inherency- action is not currently in place to solve the problem; therefore, resolutional
action is necessary. Attitudinal- way people think. Structural- barrier of law or
absence of law.
Topicality*- case/plan stays within the framework/meets every word of the resolution
Solvency*- AFF plan solves the problem to a significant degree/measure
*Place most emphasis here!
1
Actor/Agent- entity who will be responsible for enacting the plan
Specifications- when the plan will be enacted
Mechanism- how the plan will be enacted
Net Benefits- the many ways in which the society/world will be bettered by the plan
NEG Case Strategies:
On-Case Arguments- NEG says some aspect(s) of AFF case is incorrect: status quo is fine OR
the plan is insufficient to a significant degree OR AFF argument is the opposite of the truth.
(weak SHITS)
Off-Case Arguments- NEG uses strategies of Disadvantage (DA), Counterplan (CP), Topicality
(T), or Kritik (K):
Disadvantage- AFF plan would have bad side effects
 Brink- risk of problem if AFF plan enacted
 Uniqueness- problem is happening now or will not happen
 Link- AFF plan causes problem
 Impact- describes very harmful problem-worse than any good that could result
from AFF plan
 Threshold- how big the plan has to be to cause the problem
 Timeframe- how long after enacting plan that the problem will occur-before
good results
 Internal Link- the change due to AFF plan causes harm
Counterplan- an alternate plan presented by NEG
 AFF plan not good or not good enough to solve the problem;
 Present “better” plan. Should be non-topical; can’t support resolution. Must be
competitive:
o Mutual Exclusivity- CP and AFF plan can’t co-exist
o Net Benefits- CP has AD and there are DA to AFF plan
 Delay CP- enact later due to a net benefit that outweighs the fact the
problem is going unsolved for longer.
 Plan-Inclusive Counterplan- adopt AFF plan plus more
 Plan-Exclusive Counterplan- adopt part of AFF plan but not all
 Consult Counterplan- do AFF plan but consult another country
 Dispo Counterplan Conditional Counterplan Unconditional CounterplanTopicality- AFF plan not topical due to definitions of words in the resolution
 Present better alternate definitions.
 Express limitations of AFF arguments/case.
 Point out to judge-this is a voting issue:
 Definition
2





Violation
Reasons NEG definition is better
Voting Issue- jurisdiction (can’t vote for non-topical plan) and/or
debatability (NEG can’t have a fair chance with AFF definitions).
Bright Line- this definition has the most clarity
Specific Arguments- link definition to context of resolution
Kritik- attacks AFF plan’s fundamental assumptions (anything not explicitly proven; K’s are
generic and have wide application; resolution always makes an assumption) from a philosophical
point of view or language usage
 ID assumption and how it is revealed.
 Explain link between plan and K
 Explain implications of the K:
 Doesn’t prove harm
 Unable to solve
 Has consequences
 Minimize AFF arguments and provide NEG arguments.
 Integrate arguments into one position.
 A priori
 Avoid uniqueness problem.
 Shift to NEG ground; focus on something NEG is comfortable with.
AFF Answers to NEG case:
Answers to Disadvantage:
 Non-unique- problems/side effects will happen anyway in status quo
 Link turn- plan avoids DA problem; actually opposite occurs
 Link take-out- there is a problem but the plan doesn’t cause it
 Impact turn- the problem is actually a good thing
 Impact take-out- the problem is not serious or harmful
Answers to Counterplan:
 CP doesn’t meet burdens of mutual exclusivity and net benefits; expose flaws.
 CP is topical.
 CP is not competitive.
 CP doesn’t have solvency; doesn’t solve AFF AD and avoid AFF DA.
 CP has DA; something bad will happen because of CP.
 Permutation- AFF plan can include all or part of CP.
Answers to Topicality:
 Research words and contextual evidence carefully-using words in policy.
 Prep for T arguments.
 Have well-researched counter-definitions and contextual evidence along with
reasons they are better.
 Claim AFF plan meets NEG definitions.
 Use checks:
 Literature √- AFF case is concerned with the same issues as RES
3




Other Words√ – violating one word but not others isn’t a big deal
Clash √– the fact that AFF arguments can be debated with evidence supporting
both sides proves they fall under the resolution
 Solvency √– plan solves specific problem-other plans would not
Counterstandard- plan has reasonability and debatability
Definitions are not a voting issue because of indeterminate language; T doesn’t
represent the real world of policy-making; silences important voices.
Answers to Kritik:
 Use other philosophical counter-arguments.
 Use CX to ask for links and implications.
 Use specific AFF evidence-specific proofs of harms and solvency.
 Point out/argue uniqueness of K-margins of incremental impact.
 Argue no alternative.
 Attack NEG alternative.
 Make NEG defend using philosophy to argue policy.
 Use permutation; combine alternative and plan. “Do both.”
 Use counter-kritik.
Cross Examination Strategies:

Use the following types of questions:
o Territory- ID where you are on the flow (“On subpoint B of contention 1…”)
o Position- intent (“Are you implying…?”)
o Quarrel- purpose (“Where is the link…? Where does it say…?); solvency (“How
does this solve…?”)


Don’t allow filibustering.
Focus on weaknesses.
Rebuttal Strategies:

Think about:
o Which arguments have more weight at the end of the round.
o Which outcomes (DA’s, CP) are likely given lots of internal links.
o The time frame. What happens first?
o The quality of the evidence.

Tell the judge why your arguments are better.

Clash with opponent’s arguments; don’t avoid them!

Argue topicality, framework, or theory.

Explain the evidence; don’t just read it.

Reference previous evidence but don’t reread.
4

Extend arguments from C speeches; don’t make new arguments.

Signpost.

Organize arguments into issue packages.

Choose and extend arguments you want to win; can’t do everything.

Cross-apply dropped arguments later if possible.
Structure:
1AC
CX
1NC
CX
2AC
CX
2NC
CX
1NR
1AR
2NR
2AR
8 min
3 min
8 min
3 min
8 min
3 min
8 min
3 min
5 min
5 min
5 min
5 min
Prep Time
1AC
SHITS with Contentions
Plan and how it improves Status Quo with Contentions
Or
Description of Status Quo with Contentions.
Plan
Advantages- SHITS with Contentions
1NC
Status Quo sufficient
Or
AFF plan insufficient
Or
AFF arguments opposite of truth
Or
Topicality/Procedurals
Or
Disadvantages
Or
5
Counterplan
Or
Kritik
2AC
Answer NEG arguments
Pre-empt future NEG arguments
Must be extensive to overcome NEG block
2NC
Choose arguments to extend from 1NC
Answer arguments from 2AC
May make new arguments
1NR
Choose and extend different but complementary arguments from 2NC
Don’t repeat tags
Can’t make new arguments unless in response to 2AC
Balloon one major issue with Impact
Argue a few key case attacks
Cover 2AC add-on’s
1AR
Answer 2NC and 1NR arguments-every important argument
Extend 2AC arguments and 1AC case arguments
Clearly show judge which issues you will base the debate on
Drop carefully- DA: link or impact; CP: T, C, or DA; Case: prima facie burden-not all
Order: T-DA-CP
Look for: Inherency-DA, S-DA, DA-DA
2NR
Make sense of 1AR and refute arguments in clear and conclusive way
Give reasons why NEG has won the round
Overview: tell which DA’s and case arguments NEG is winning and why they are more
important than any the AFF might be winning
Win the drop or win the position (T, High-Impact DA, CP, turns)
Deny relevance of AFF arguments and build NEG up
Voting Issues!
2AR
Extend 1AR arguments
Don’t make new arguments-fine line
Trace AFF case from arg in 1AC to 2AR
Overview: explain where and why AFF arguments are winning after 2NR
Go to best issue in middle of speech
Voting Issues!
6