Debating Comparative
Propositions of Policy
By Robert Trapp and Christine Hanson*
Robert Trapp is a Professor of Rhetoric at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon, U.S.A. Christine Hanson
is the Press Assistant for United States Senator Bill Nelson (Democrat of Florida) and is a lecturer at George
Washington University
They have the resolution . . . and they’re off. All
too often, debaters get a resolution and start
researching and constructing cases before they
think about what they have to do on the affirmative to successfully prove it. Such a process
can lead to the construction of cases that,
while well-researched, may not meet the logical
requirements of the proposition. Much of the
frustration of case construction can be avoided
easily if debaters identity the kinds of arguments a proposition demands before they crack
open a book, scour the web, or write a case.
Each debate resolution calls for different types of arguments. For example, a
proposition that “Nations of the world
should strengthen the International Criminal Court”1 asks the affirmative to propose
some plan of action as an alternative to the
present system. Likewise, the resolution
that “Mandatory national service is justified,” 2 asks the affirmative to evaluate the
concept of mandatory national service, but
does not necessarily require the affirmative
to advocate a specific plan of action. 3 Still
another proposition, that “the separation of
the public and the private is detrimental to
women’s rights” 4 does not ask the affirmative
to support a plan of action, nor does it necessarily ask the affirmative to evaluate a particular concept.5 This proposition only asks
the affirmative to prove that the existence of a “separation
of the public and private” has an inverse cause and effect
relationship to “women’s rights.”6
Even though these propositions demand different kinds of
arguments, they all can be debated in the Karl Popper format
– changing from one kind of proposition to another does not
require changing from one debate format to another. Karl
Popper debate can be readily adapted to these types of propositions, as well as many others.
This essay will explore the kinds of arguments called for by
a specific type of policy proposition, which we will label
“comparative propositions of policy.” It will contrast these
comparative propositions of policy with more standard
propositions of policy and will conclude with some observations about how both the affirmative and negative can debate
a comparative policy proposition.
Before we begin our discussion of the comparative policy
proposition, we want to stress that the demand for a particular kind of argument comes from the nature of the
proposition, not from any rule of Karl Popper debate. Karl
Popper debate does not have specific rules saying what
kinds of arguments must or must not be presented – just
like there is no rule stating that presumption is with the
negative, that the affirmative must present a criterion, or
that the negative must present a counterplan. Nonetheless,
a savvy debater can and should think through the kinds
of arguments that need to be made before they begin the
process of constructing a case.
International Debate Education Association |29
debatenotes
PROPOSITIONS OF POLICY7
Before looking at comparative propositions of policy, a specific type of policy proposition, some readers may want to
review propositions of policy in general. Those readers should
consult an earlier essay in this magazine, written by Marcin
Zaleski, Jurate Motejunate, and Robert Trapp. In this essay,
we will emphasize three ideas about a standard proposition
of policy: the stance of the affirmative team, the stance of the
negative team, and case construction.
Stance of the Affirmative
When debating a standard proposition of policy, the affirmative is required to take a stance in favor of some plan of
action. This requirement does not come from some set of
arbitrary rules of debate. It comes from the logic of supporting a proposition that contains the words such as “should” or
“ought.”8 For instance, if someone proposes to you that “we
+
-
should go on a vacation,” you might be inclined to accept
the proposition, but you would still probably ask some questions like: “Where do you propose we go?” “How do you
propose we get there?” “How long do you propose we stay?”
“How are we going to pay for it?” Thus, one who says “We
should go on vacation” is logically required to provide at least
an outline of a plan of action if they want that proposition
to be accepted. No rules require the person suggesting the
vacation to propose a concrete plan of action. But a reasonable person would not accept it unless an overview of a specific plan is explained.9
Similarly, for the affirmative to successfully argue for a standard proposition of policy such as “The nations of the world
should strengthen the International Criminal Court,” the
affirmative is required to propose a policy that “strengthens
30| International Debate Education Association
the International Criminal Court.” In this
standard proposition of policy, the affirmative
team is assigned to a position where they must
present a plan that is substantially different
from the status quo. Thus, the affirmative will
typically argue for a new policy, rejecting the
present way of doing things. In the example
at hand, the International Criminal Court
is an existing agency of the present system.
One logical requirement of advancing the
proposition to “strengthen the International
Criminal Court” is to create and support a
plan of action that is not only different from
the present Court, but is somehow “strengthened.”
The affirmative usually defends a change
from the status quo because of the wording
of the proposition, and not because of the
some arbitrary rule. Because propositions
are usually (although not always) worded
so that they imply a change from the status
quo, the affirmative is most often required
to defend such a change. In the event that a
proposition is worded in such a way that the
status quo is advocated, then the affirmative
would be obliged to argue in favor of the
status quo.10
When arguing for a standard proposition of
policy, the affirmative is required to present
and defend a plan of action consistent with
that policy. Depending on the nature of the
proposition and on the strategic choices made
by the affirmative team, the plan can be either
very specific or fairly general. The main point
is that a proposition of policy requires the
affirmative to advocate some action.
Stance of the Negative
Although the affirmative team is ordinarily
assigned to defend a policy that differs significantly from the status quo, the negative team
has more options. They can choose to defend
the present system, make minor repairs to the
present system,11 or offer a counterplan that
differs both from the status quo and from the
affirmative plan.12 When debating a standard
proposition of policy, the negative (unlike
the affirmative) has more choice regarding
the stances they may take. The affirmative
is limited to a stance favoring a change to
the present system. But the negative has at
least three possible stances available to them:
defending the present system, offering minor
repairs to the present system, or offering a
counterplan.
Case Construction
A number of different ways are available to
organize a case for a standard proposition of
policy. Two of the most common are called
the need-plan-benefits method and the comparative advantages method.
As the name implies, an affirmative team
using the need-plan-benefits method,
will probably offer ideas in those three
categories. First, they will present a need
for change. In order to prove a need for a
change, the affirmative must demonstrate
some harm in the present system and show
that the present system is to blame for that
harm. Second, the affirmative will present
their plan. In this section of the argument,
the affirmative gives only a brief outline
of the plan of action that they intend to
follow. At this point, they need only state
their plan, not to create arguments for
it. Finally, the affirmative will present the
benefits of their plan. The benefits should
include an explanation of how each of the
harms presented in section one will be
cured by their plan. This section of their
case should address each of the harms individually, showing how they will be reduced
by the adoption of the affirmative plan.
A second way to structure an affirmative case
for a standard proposition of policy is called
the comparative advantage method. Logically the comparative advantages method is
not substantially different from the need-planbenefits method. The difference lies in the
organizational structure of the two cases.
A comparative advantage case is presented in two stages.
The first stage involves the presentation of the plan. The
presentation of the plan in the comparative advantages case
follows the same form as in the need-plan-benefit case–just
a simple and straight-forward outline of the proposed course
of action.
The second stage involves presentation of the advantages.
Of course the affirmative can choose to present as many or
as few advantages as they wish. The primary constraint on
the number of advantages presented involves time. As a
result, most debaters limit themselves to one, two, or three
advantages.
As you will see, the logic in presenting an advantage does not
differ significantly from the logic used in a need-plan-benefit
case. In fact, a comparative advantage case is quite similar
to a need-plan-benefit case. The only major difference is the
pattern of organization.
Each advantage is presented in three parts: First, describe
a problem in the present system; Second, show how some
aspect of the present system causes that problem; and Third,
show how the plan solves the problem. The combined effect
of each of these three parts is to demonstrate that the plan
has some advantage over the present system. If more than
one advantage is presented, then the three steps can simply
be repeated.
In this section, some basics about arguing for a standard
proposition of policy have been discussed. The main ideas
in this section include the stance of the affirmative, the
stance of the negative, and case construction. Two threads
run through each of these points: First, the primary comparison involves a comparison between the present system
and the affirmative plan. Second, the affirmative is assigned
a stance consistent with change and the negative, at least
initially, is assigned a stance consistent with the existing
system. These two threads, present in a standard proposition
of policy potentially are absent in a comparative proposition
of policy.
COMPARATIVE PROPOSITIONS OF POLICY
An example of a comparative proposition of policy is the one
to be debated at the 2004 IDEA Youth Forum in Estonia.
That proposition is: “It is better to focus on a harm reduc-
International Debate Education Association |31
debatenotes
tion strategy than on a law enforcement strategy in dealing
with drug abuse.” Before discussing the specifics of this
proposition of even the how to debate comparative policy
propositions, we will compare standard and comparative
policy propositions.
A comparative proposition of policy may differ from a standard proposition of policy in two ways. First, whereas in a
standard proposition of policy, the affirmative is assigned a
certain stance and the negative has more choices regarding
their stance, a comparative proposition of policy assigns a
certain stance to both teams. In the proposition at hand, the
affirmative is assigned to defend a “harm reduction strategy”
and the negative is assigned to describe a “law enforcement
strategy.”
Second, in a standard proposition of policy, the affirmative generally defends the present system and the negative
generally defends the status quo (unless, of course, they
present a counterplan). But in a comparative proposition
of policy, the contrast is not between the status quo and
change from the status quo but between a policy stance
assigned to the affirmative and a contrasting policy stance
assigned to the negative. In fact, in some comparative
policy propositions, the concept of “status quo” may not
even be meaningful. In this proposition about drugs for
instance, the status quo varies from country to country.
Some countries use a harm reduction approach while
others use a law enforcement approach. Who is to say
which is the status quo?
The sections that follow will be parallel to the sections about
the standard policy proposition: stance of the affirmative
team, stance of the negative team and case construction.
The first three sections will be brief and more attention will
be paid to methods of structuring a case in a comparative
manner.
Stance of the Affirmative
As in the standard policy proposition, the stance of each
team is not determined on the basis of arbitrary rules, but on
the basis of the logic of the proposition. In the example at
hand, the logic of the proposition dictates that the affirmative defend a plan of action consistent with a “harm reduction strategy.” The difference between this and the standard
policy proposition is that the affirmative does not necessarily
compare the “harm reduction strategy” to the “status quo”
but to the negative policy of a “law enforcement strategy.”
32| International Debate Education Association
Stance of the Negative
In the standard policy proposition, the negative has at least three choices regarding their
stance. They could choose to defend the
present system, offer minor repairs to the
status quo or propose a counterplan. Again,
the logic of a comparative policy proposition
dictates that the negative defend a policy consistent with the concept assigned to them in
the proposition.
In the proposition we are discussing, the negative is assigned to defend some plan of action
consistent with a “law enforcement strategy.”
Because the resolution calls on the negative
team to support a policy, they will, in all likelihood, want to present a counterplan. Like
the affirmative outlines their plan of action in
a case for a standard policy proposition, the
negative may want to provide a similar outline
of their plan of action.
Case Construction
We want to emphasize that no rules demand
any particular case structure for a comparative
policy proposition, or for any other kind of
proposition for that matter. The kinds of case
structures available for this kind of proposition are limited only by the imagination of
the debaters.
With just a little thought, most debaters can
probably think of ways to adapt the needplan-benefits structure or the comparative
advantage structure to this kind of a proposition. Creative debaters can probably envision
other ways to structure a case. While many
avenues are available to structure a case on a
comparative policy proposition, a comparative
advantage format may be the most straightforward because the point of the proposition
is to compare the advantages of one policy
to another. For this reason, this essay will
focus on comparative advantage structures
teams may take to argue a comparative policy
proposition. To make these ideas more concrete, we now turn to a more detailed discus-
sion of constructing an actual case for such a
proposition.
CONSTRUCTING A CASE FOR A COMPARATIVE POLICY PROPOSITION
We will begin with an example of a comparative policy proposition: “It is better to focus
on a harm reduction strategy than on a law
enforcement strategy in dealing with drug
abuse.” We will use this example to illustrate
how to create a comparative advantage case
for a comparative policy proposition. Constructing a case for this, or any other kind
of policy proposition, can be conceived of in
three phases: conceptualizing the case, creating the plan, and creating the advantages.
Conceptualizing the Case
Regardless of the kind of case that debaters
want to create, they need to begin the process
at a rather abstract level. After thinking about
the case conceptually, the debaters can then
make it more concrete and eventually can
develop a persuasive speech that supports
their case. Conceptualizing the case means
that before the debaters begin to research
and write, they must think about the ideas
and concepts that will guide its construction. One way to conceptualize the case for
comparing two policies is to ask a series of
questions that weigh the competing policies.
For instance, debaters might ask themselves
three questions: 1) What are the central features in both policy options? 2) How do these
features interact with one another? 3) How
can the some feature of the affirmative plan
be used to replace some feature of the negative
policy? Consider the topic that suggests that
a “harms reduction strategy” is superior to a
“law enforcement strategy” for dealing with
drug abuse.
The first question is “What are the central features of both policy options?” One approach
to this question might be to claim that crimi-
nalization is central to law enforcement while socialization
is central to harms reduction. Because the law enforcement strategy can only work when drug users are identified
as criminals who violate laws that police enforce, one can
argue that criminalization is inherent to the law enforcement
strategy. Alternatively, one can argue that a harms reduction
strategy is one that conceives of drug users not as criminals,
but as part of society. When we think about drug users as
members of society, we then can try to keep that part of
society safe from harm rather than put them in prison.
The second question is “How do features of these policy
options interact with one another?” Arguably the process of
criminalization is incompatible to the process of socialization. First, these policies are incompatible with one another
because attempts to take people out of society (imprisoning them) through law enforcement strategies is exactly the
opposite of considering them as an integral part of society
that simply needs protection from the harms of drug addiction. Second, one might argue that criminalizing people by
imprisoning them creates a criminal subculture that cannot
reintegrate into society even when they are released from
prison. When imprisoned, drug users not only are exposed
to a culture of criminalized drug users like themselves, but
they are exposed to other kinds of criminal lifestyles as well.
Why should we be surprised that when they are released into
society they are not likely to integrate into the non-criminal
elements of society? This kind of thinking helps the affirmative debater see how the features of these two policy options
(“harms reduction” and “law enforcement”) interact with
one another in nonproductive ways.
The third question is “How can some feature of the affirmative plan be used to replace some feature of the negative
policy?” Having decided that socialization is central to harms
reduction and that criminalization is central to law enforcement, the question now becomes how can socialization be
used as a replacement for criminalization? One approach
to this question is to think of socialization processes, such
as education and rehabilitation, as alternatives to imprisonment. Having thought about the proposition by answering
these three questions, the affirmative is now in a position to
begin constructing their plan.
Constructing the Affirmative Plan
Answering the previous three questions (or questions like
them) is a mental exercise that allows a debater to think
International Debate Education Association |33
debatenotes
about what needs to be included in the outline of a plan. By
answering these questions, debaters focus on the features of
the negative policy that needs to be avoided and features of
the affirmative policy that need to be included in the affirmative plan. After identifying these features, debaters are in a
better position to decide on the categories of ideas that need
to be included in the plan. For instance, the above conceptualization might lead a debater to think that four things are
central to an outline of the plan: 1) Features of the negative policy to be excluded from the affirmative plan. 2) An
expanded list of categories and subcategories of these policies to be excluded from the affirmative plan. 3) Features of
the affirmative to be included in the affirmative plan. 4) An
expanded list of categories and subcategories of these policies
to be included in the affirmative plan.
Having decided on the basic categories of elements that need
to be included in the affirmative plan, the debater is now
in position to begin actually constructing an outline of the
plan. The first things that need to be included in the plan
are the essential elements that have come from the central
features and their subcategories. Secondary aspects to be
included in the plan might be things that prevent possible
costs. A third group of things that need to be included in
the plan are any necessary administrative and structural elements that the debaters think should be included.
So, based on the conceptualizations undertaken, a debater
might draft a plan that looks something like this:
Affirmative Plan:
1) The affirmative plan explicitly prohibits any and all types
of criminalization policies designed to deal with drug
abuse.
2) Criminalization policies such as laws making possession
and use of drugs illegal will be abolished.
3) The affirmative plan will substitute socialization policies
as appropriate methods of dealing with drug abuse.
4) These socialization policies include, but are not limited
to, drug education, needle exchange policies, drug maintenance policies and rehabilitation policies.
5) Exceptions to points 1 and 2 will be made only with
regard to persons under the age of 18 and to persons
engaging in activities such as driving or operating heavy
machinery where the use of drugs can seriously endanger
other persons.
34| International Debate Education Association
6) The affirmative plan will be administered
by . . .
7) The affirmative plan will be funded by . .
.
In the example above, the first four planks
of the plan involve a statement of included
and excluded features of “harms reduction”
and “law enforcement” strategies. The fifth
point in the plan is designed to prevent possible costs – in this case, to prevent people
from driving while under the influence of
drugs. The sixth and seventh points are
illustrative of administrative and structural
elements that might be needed to make the
plan work.
Constructing the advantages
Now that the plan is outlined, the debaters
think back to the conceptualization stage
and begin the process of creating advantages.
This involves showing how problems of drug
abuse are linked to the negative policy while
the affirmative system provides a cure to some
of those problems. This process, of outlining
the comparative costs and benefits of the affirmative system, is the basis of a comparative
advantage case.
The next task is to decide on which specific
advantages to include in the case. Once this
decision is made, the debater then begins to
outline each advantage. Based on the earlier
conceptualization of the affirmative case, one
might outline two advantages to the plan in
the following way:
I.
The affirmative plan is a superior way of
reducing the problems associated with
drug use.
A. Law enforcement strategies define
drug users as criminals.
Law enforcement strategies define drug
users and sellers as criminals. By the very
nature of “law enforcement,” drug use
must be defined as against the law and
drug users must be defined as criminals.
B. Defining drug users as criminals is
counter productive.
Placing drug users in prison with persons
who have violated drug laws, as well as
with others who may have committed
even worse crimes, inculcates them into
a criminal subculture. Upon release from
prison, drug users frequently cannot find
productive employment so they remain a
part of the criminal subculture relying on
the street skills and contacts they made in
prison.
C. The affirmative plan replaces criminalization with socialization.
Rather than sending drug users to prison,
the affirmative plan considers them a part
of society needing protection. Thus, the
affirmative plan creates other solutions
such as education, rehabilitation and,
when necessary, maintenance programs.
D. Socialization is superior to criminalization.
Education, rehabilitation and drug maintenance programs have a much greater chance of success than criminalization.
II. The affirmative is a superior way of reducing the problems associated with drug sales.
A. Law enforcement strategies allow drug sales to be
controlled by dangerous criminal elements.
Since the sale of drugs is illegal, drug dealers are criminals. Thus, the only people who can sell drugs are criminals.
B. Placing drug sales in the hands of criminals creates
drug wars.
In their efforts to enforce laws against drug selling, law
enforcement agents must engage the drug sellers–sometimes violently. These violent confrontations bring substantial risks not only to the drug sellers, but also to the
law enforcement agents.
International Debate Education Association |35
debatenotes
Criminalization of drug sales is also dangerous to
bystanders. Because of the risk of dealing in an illegal
trade is so great, the price of drugs and the potential
profit is driven up. When criminal elements find themselves in situations where they are able to make great
profits on drugs, they start turf battles, which lead to
drug wars where innocent bystanders are killed and
wounded.
C. The affirmative plan takes criminals out of the drug
business.
Under the affirmative plan, the sale of drugs is no longer
illegal. Therefore the sale of drugs will be controlled by
the marketplace and regulated by the government, rather
than in the hands of criminals.
D. Taking criminals out of the drug business reduces
the problems associated with drug wars.
By making drug sales legal, the dangers to both law
enforcement officers and ordinary citizens would be substantially reduced. Just as running a legal liquor store is
much less dangerous than being an illegal drug dealer,
the violence associated with drug sales would be substantially reduced.
Of course the two examples provided above are simply illustrations of how advantages can be described on the basis of
an earlier conceptualization of the case. In both of these
cases, debaters will have to add more explanation, and even
more importantly, they will need to research and add evidence to their presentations.
Perceptive readers will notice a pattern in the two examples
presented above. The pattern is not the only workable one,
but it is one pattern that will work most of the time when
describing comparative advantages. Stripped of the drug
content, the pattern in the examples above is as follows:
A. Describe a condition associated with the negative policy.
This point requires returning to the conceptualization of
the case and describing an inherent feature of the policy
that has been assigned to the negative team.
B. Relate that condition to some effect. By drawing a cause
and effect relationship between the negative policy and
some unwanted effect, the affirmative case proves that
36| International Debate Education Association
the negative policy is undesirable.
C. Describe an opposing condition associated with th affirmative policy. The
debater now describes some condition of
the plan that is logically opposed to the
condition of the negative policy.
D. Relate that condition to some effect. By
drawing a causal relationship between
the affirmative policy and some positive
effect, the affirmative case proves that the
affirmative policy is comparatively advantageous to the negative policy.
In the end, it is important for debaters to
identify what arguments a resolution demands
– not because an arbitrary rule exists, but
because the nature of the proposition logically
calls for it.
When arguing comparative policy propositions, the affirmative and negative teams are
assigned policy positions by the wording of
the resolution. In the case of the 2004 IDEA
Youth Forum in Estonia, the affirmative must
take a “harm reduction strategy” and the negative must take a “law enforcement strategy”
to address the problem of drug abuse.
Teams should conceptualize their affirmative case by asking questions that critically
compare “harm reduction” and “law enforcement” policies. They should identify an
aspect of the “law enforcement” strategy that
causes negative effects and show an opposing
condition of their “harm reduction” policy
that relates to some positive outcome.
This process of conceptualizing the case before
constructing it and its advantages ensures that
debaters prepare cases that can prove a resolution true. Once this preliminary step occurs,
it’s off to crack open books, scour the web and
write a well-researched and logical case that’ll
be tough to beat.
+

-
=
NOTES:
1. This proposition was debated at the 2002
IDEA Youth Forum in Podbanske, Slovakia.
2. This proposition was debated as the 1996
IDEA Youth Forum in Celakovice, Czech
Republic.
3. Depending on how one interprets this
proposition, it can be considered either a
proposition of value or a proposition of
policy.
4. This proposition was debated at the 2003
IDEA Youth forum in Ljubljana, Slovenia.
5. According to this reading, this proposition presents a purely theoretical question
as to whether the idea of “separating public
and private” decreases “women’s rights.” This
reading does not ask whether a decrease in
women’s rights is good or bad. An alternative
reading of this proposition would be that the
term “detrimental” is an evaluative term and
that by implication the affirmative should
have to prove that the decrease in women’s
rights is harmful.
6. Robert Trapp and Tehmeena Luqman.
“Debating Values Using Cause and Effect
Argument,” Idebate 3:4 (June, 2003): pp. 28
– 37.
7. This section is not intended to be a fullfledged discussion of standard propositions
of policy. Anyone wanting more information
about debating policy propositions in general
should consult other sources. One such source
is Marcin Zaleski, Jurate Motejunate, and
Robert Trapp, “Debating about Policies,” Idebate 3:4 (June,
2003): pp. 16 – 27.
8. Merely by convention, some teachers and writers have
insisted that the word “should” is a necessary and a sufficient
indicator of a policy proposition. This convention, however,
is arbitrary and does not mirror ordinary language usage.
The term “should” is one of many terms that can signal a
logical requirement for a plan of action.
9. Of course one can debate the general idea of going on
vacation (or any other action for that matter) without
getting into a debate on specifics. Without presenting a
specific proposal, one could make a case for going on vacation by saying “Since we’ve been working too hard, have
saved a lot of money, and since work is slow, we should go
on vacation.” Certainly a general debate could proceed on
those kinds of arguments, but before the action is taken the
arguers will have to settle on a specific plan. In scholastic
debates, the negative will not usually allow the affirmative to
be so general. They will want to ask specific questions and
absent answers to those questions they might make an argument like “Without a specific plan that includes when and
where we will go, we should not agree to go on vacation. If
we did we might find ourselves in Minsk in January rather
than in Hawaii.”
10. For example, “France should continue its opposition
to the U.S. war in Iraq” is phrased in such a way that that
the affirmative would be obliged to support France’s current
actions.
11. Some writers distinguish minor repairs from a counter
plan by saying minor repairs continue the structural and
philosophical actions of the status quo arguing only for
small changes such as additional funding, more enforcement
of current policies, etc.
12. Ordinarily the counterplan must not only be different
from the affirmative plan, it should also be inconsistent
with the actions envisioned by the proposition. So in our
example, the counterplan must not simply be a different way
of strengthening the International Criminal Court, it must
be a plan that somehow stands in opposition to the very
concept of a stronger Court. For example, the counterplan
might propose weakening the Court or abolishing the Court
altogether.
Some debate instructors teach that the counterplan must
only differ from the affirmative plan and not from the proposition. A consideration of the arguments for and against
this practice is beyond the scope of this essay.
International Debate Education Association |37