Introduction to Debate
-AffirmativeTo access audio:
Skype: freeconferencecallhd and enter 511898#
Or call 951-262-4343 and enter 511898#
© 2009-10 L. Husick, Esq.
Policy Debate
• Resolved: The United States federal government should
substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one
or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan,
Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey.
• Two-person team
• 4 “constructive” speeches (each with cross-examination
period) and 4 “rebuttals”
• 8-3-5 timing
• Relies on extensive research, presentation of formal
“evidence” and formal theories of argumentation
• All debaters must argue both sides
Round Structure
• Constructive Speeches
(8 min to give a 12 minute speech!)
• Cross Examination (3 min)
• Rebuttals (5 min)
• Preparation Time (5 min per side)
Resolution
• Usually introduced through a brief (15
sec.) introduction setting forth a harm,
“and thus, my partner and I stand
resolved that…”
• Must be supported by the
AFFIRMATIVE through a CASE that
argues for a PLAN
• Outside District 10, forget that intro and
just write the resolution on the board.
Vocabulary
•
•
•
•
•
•
Affirmative, Aff, 1AC, 2AR
Negative, Neg, 1NC, 2NR
Evidence: quotation to prove a point
Card: Tag, Source, Evidence
Spread: to speak very fast
Prima facie burden - what the aff must
carry to win the round
Stock Issues
• Harms
• Inherency
• Solvency
• Significance
• Topicality
(sometimes not considered stock)
How to Remember
• Significance, Harms, Inherency,
Topicality, Solvency = S.H.I.T.S.
Harms
• What’s the Status Quo, and what’s
wrong with the Status Quo?
• May be present problems or
unavoidable future problems unless
we change things.
• Who’s being harmed? How?
• Presented as a series of numbered
“contentions” supported by evidence
Contention 1
• The United States presently has a
police presence in South Korea.
• “35,000 troops remain” Dallas Evening
News, October 1, 2010: “as of
September 2010, more than 35,000 US
troops remain on duty in S. Korea,
enforcing the nearly 60 year old UN
mandate.”
• Structure of evidence: Tag, Source,
Quote
Harms Outline
• 1. Lots of troops in X.
• 2. They are expensive.
• 3. They are not effective to accomplish
Y.
• 4. They do bad things and hurt the US.
Inherency
• What is it about the Status Quo that is
keeping the problem (harms) from
being solved (mitigated or eliminated)?
• Types:
•
•
Structural inherency: Laws or other barriers to solving the problem.
Attitudinal inherency: Beliefs or attitudes which prevent solving the
problem.
Inherency Examples
• Alternative X has been proposed, but
never enacted.
• Powerful interest X opposes a change.
• Other important things are keeping X
from pushing this change.
• Other changes in the past have failed,
making USFG gunshy.
Thus, the PLAN:
• Usually a brief (1 sentence) statement
of what will be done differently, and by
whom.
• “The USFG will, over the course of the
next two years, at the discretion of the
President, withdraw substantially all
forces from S. Korea. We reserve the
right to clarify. Any questions, just ask.”
Solvency
• To what degree does the Affirmative’s
Plan solve the harms identified? When
does it do so? Under what conditions?
• What are the Advantages of the Plan?
(some teams don’t do harms at all, just
state advantages after the plan.)
Significance
• How important are the
harms/advantages?
• How big is the problem?
• Is it getting worse?
• How much better is the plan than the
SQ?
•
•
Topicality
Does the Affirmative Plan fall within the
scope of the resolution? The Affirmative
case must argue within the bounds of the
resolution as defined by appropriate
definitions. When the resolution appears
vague, the probable intent of the
resolution framers is considered and
upheld.
Usually addressed in 2AC, as this is an
“off-case” attack by the 1NC
Neg T Attack
• Definition (which term in the resolution
has the aff team violated?)
• Violation
• Standards (why is neg’s def. better?)
• Voters (Why the judge should vote on
topicality in the round.)
•
•
•
•
Aff T Response
1. We Meet - “no, we don’t violate your standard and here’s
why.”
2. Counter-interpretation - refuting the interpretation and
standards. Present your counter-interpretation, provide your
own reasons to prefer (standards), and refutation against
the opposing team’s standards. All three steps are crucial.
3. Non-voter - “who cares.” Use this response when the
opposing team has failed to provide any valid
voters/impacts.
4. Reverse-voter - the neg is so abusive in running T that if
we win it, they should be punished with an automatic loss
(not very likely!)
Fiat
• Literally, “let it be so” – means that the
Affirmative Plan is assumed to be put
into effect. Only the actor specified in
the resolution may be fiated. (USFG or
some agency of USFG)
• Means that the Negative may not argue
about whether the Plan would be
enacted, just whether it is a good idea.
Burden of Proof
• The Affirmative must support the
resolution over the status quo.
• The Negative may negate the resolution
or merely support the status quo as the
better alternative. In a counterplan, the
Negative assumes the burden of proof
for the CP.
Next Sessions
•
14-OCT-10@8:00-9:00pm - CX Negative Case Structure
•
TBD - L-D
•
TBD - PFD