What is policy or CX debate?
The Resolution
Stock Issues
Structuring Affirmative Cases
Structuring the Negative Attack
Debate Format
Speaker Responsibilities
Keeping a Flowsheet
Tournament Format
Three Types of Questions
Fact: Did Lee Harvey Oswald,
acting alone, kill President
Kennedy? (Mock Trial)
Value: Is life more important
than liberty? (LD)
Policy: Should the U.S. federal
government increase funding
for wind energy? (CX)
Where does the resolution
come from?
• National Federation of High Schools
How often does the resolution
change?
• One topic for the entire year
Affirmative
says “Yes” to
the Resolution
Negative says
“No” to the
Resolution
Affirmative
One Round
Negative
the Next
AFF
Choose the
particular case
within the area
of the resolution
Speak both first
and last in the
debate
NEG
Many ways to
win (any one of
five stock issues
Negative block
(The 13/5 trade
off)
The Resolution Creates Affirmative Options
Halt Toxic
Dumping
Stop
Overfishing
Dead Zones
Protect
Coral Reefs
Invasive
Species
Regulate
Cruise Ships
The Resolution Creates Affirmative Options
Moon
Mining
Missile
Defense
Mission to
Mars
Solar Power
Satellites
Planetary
Defense
Space Junk
Topicality
Does the plan do what the resolution says?
Harm
Is there something seriously wrong in the present system?
Inherency
Cause: Why is it that the present system cannot
or will not solve the harm?
Solvency
Would the affirmative plan remove
all or a significant part of the harm?
Disadvantage
Would the
disadvantages of
the plan outweigh
the advantages?
Topicality
Topicality is like raising a “Point of Order” in parliamentary procedure
Harm
Something is wrong: You can’t participate in after school
activities because the bus leaves right after school leaving you
with no way home.
Inherency
What keeps this harm from being solved? What
causes perpetuate the harm? Why can’t a
parent pick you up? Ride with a friend?
Solvency
A new Ford Mustang would solve
your transportation problems.
Disadvantage
The $600/month
payment would be
a bigger problem
than the harm
above
Topicality
Becomes an issue only if the negative team questions it
Harm
Inherency
Solvency
The stock issues of Harm,
Inherency, and Solvency
must be addressed in the
First Affirmative Speech –
We usually expect to hear
a separate argument, or
“Contention” establishing
each of these stock
issues.
Disadvantage
Wait for the
negative attack
before responding
Resolved: The U.S. federal government should increase its support for United Nations
peacekeeping operations.
Plan: The U.S. federal government will ratify the Ottawa Mine Ban Treaty and fully fund its allotment
for demining within the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations.
I. Landmines needlessly cause death and suffering. (Harm)
The Washington Office on Africa, Landmines, July 2003. Online. Internet. Feb. 4, 2004.
http://www.woaafrica.org/legacy5.htm. There are U.S.-made mines in 28 countries. Tens of million of
landmines are buried in more than 100 countries all over the world. Landmines claim 2,000 deaths and
maim 20,000 every month.
II. The U.S. blocks efforts to ban landmines. (Inherency)
United Nations Association of the United States of America, Say No To U.S. Landmines in Iraq, Feb. 2,
2004. Online. Internet. Feb. 4, 2004. http://usa. unaaction.org/showalert.asp?aaid=170. The
Convention on the Prohibition of Antipersonnel Mines has been ratified by 130 countries and is
supported by every NATO member except the United States.
III. Changing U.S. policy on landmines would reduce death and suffering. (Solvency)
Miriam Kagan, (Staff Writer, Inter Press Service), Cancun Monitor, Sept. 9, 2003. Online. Internet. Feb. 4,
2004. http://www.cyberdyaryo.com/features/f2003_0912_03.htm. The United States remains one of
the world’s largest landmine stockpilers and, along with Russia, China, India and Pakistan, one of the
last non-signatories of the treaty. The US signature could influence other non-signatories, including
China and Russia who sit with Washington as permanent members of the UN Security Council, to ratify.
Resolved: The U.S. federal government should increase its protection of ocean resources.
Plan: The U.S. federal government will increase its protection of bottle-nosed dolphins by prohibiting
the use of the “Dolphin Safe” label for tuna caught using the “circle net” fishing method.
ADVANTAGE: The affirmative plan increases the protection of bottle-nosed dolphins.
A. Circle net fishing needlessly kills bottle-nosed dolphins (Harm)
Bruce Lieberman, (Staff Writer), San Diego Union-Tribune, Jan. 10, 2003, p. A1. Yellowfin regularly swim
with several species of dolphins. In the late 1950s, fishermen began looking for surface-schooling
dolphins to locate tuna, using speed boats to herd these dolphins into large purse-seine nets – and by
association the tuna they wanted.
B. The U.S. federal government allows the use of the “Tuna Safe” label for tuna caught using circle nets.
(Inherency)
San Antonio Express-News, Jan. 6, 2003, p. 4B. To ring in the new year, the National Marine Fisheries
Service and the Department of Commerce announced tuna fish caught with nets that encircle the
schools of dolphins that swim with them in the Eastern Tropical Pacific still can be labeled “Dolphin
Safe.” So why have the label if it is to be made so meaningless?
C. Proper use of the “Tuna Safe” label protects bottle-nosed dolphins. (Solvency)
St. Petersburg Times, Jan. 14, 2003, p. 6. The Dolphin Safe seal on a can of tuna is – or was – one of the
brightest environmental success stories of the last decade. To earn the seal, tuna producers had to
switch to fishing practices that protect dolphins from injury and death. Soon after the seal was
introduced, American consumers would buy nothing else, and the U.S. tuna industry was forced to
abandon its old ways. That paid off both for tuna sales and dolphins. While 700,000 dolphins were
killed by tuna fishermen in 1967, that number dropped to 25,000 in 1991.
Resolved: The U.S. federal government should increase public health assistance to subSaharan Africa.
Plan: The U.S. federal government will increase its health assistance for HIV/AIDS patients in subSaharan Africa by allowing health assistance programs to purchase generic drugs.
ADVANTAGE: The affirmative plan saves lives in sub-Saharan Africa.
A. Lack of access to life-saving drugs is a death sentence for HIV/AIDS sufferers in Africa. (Harm)
Robert Weissman, Editor of Multinational Monitor, Africa: Opposing Viewpoints, 2005, p. 59. In the
United States, existing treatments enable many people with HIV/AIDS to live relatively healthy lives. But
lifesaving HIV/AIDS-drug cocktails cost about $12,000 a year in many African countries – vastly out of
the reach of all but a small handful of the growing African population with HIV/AIDS. So, for virtually
everyone in Africa, an HIV/ AIDS diagnosis is a death sentence.
B. Existing U.S. policies restrict access to life-saving drugs. (Inherency)
LeeAnne Gelletly, Journalist, AIDS and Health Issues in Africa, 2007, pp. 37-38. American-funded antiAIDS programs, particularly the $15 billion PEPFAR [President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief]
initiative, continued to stipulate that their funds could not be used to purchase generic drugs because
of violations of pharmaceutical manufacturers’ patents.
C. Allowing the use of U.S. funds to purchase lower-cost generic HIV/AIDS drugs will save lives. (Solvency)
Ed Susman, Journalist, AIDS: Opposing Viewpoints, 2006, p. 102. Generic copies of antiretroviral
cocktails can lower the cost of drug treatments dramatically, which makes it cost-effective, even in the
poorest of countries, to give the drugs to AIDS patients. “Access to anti-retroviral therapy is not just a
moral imperative,” [Jean-Paul] Moatti said. “It is good economic sense.”
Resolved: The U.S. federal government should substantially increase its exploration
and/or development of space beyond the Earth’s mesosphere.
PLAN: The United States federal government will substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space
beyond the Earth’s mesosphere by accelerating the construction of the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) and
adding the detection of near-Earth objects to its mission. The plan will cost $125 million to be funded by a similar
reduction in the U.S. military budget.
I. A Planetary Collision with Near-Earth Objects Would Be Catastrophic. (Harm)
Aeronautics & Space Engineering Board of the National Research Council, Defending Planet Earth, 2010, p. 26.
Unlike most other known natural hazards to humanity, such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis,
hurricanes and tornadoes, NEO impacts present a very large spread of disaster scales ranging from small property
damage to global extinction events. Larger impacts may result in global climatic changes that can result in famine
and disease, infrastructure failure and, potentially, societal breakdown. Smaller impacts could be misinterpreted
and thereby could conceivably even trigger wars.
II. Current Efforts to Detect Near-Earth Objects Are Inadequate. (Inherency)
Timothy Kusky, professor of natural science at St. Louis University, Encyclopedia of Earth and Space Science, 2010,
p. 547. To date, there have only been limited efforts by the nations of the world to monitor near-Earth objects
and to try to prevent large meteorites from crashing into the Earth and wiping out much of the population and
biosphere. NASA has estimated that there are about 2,000 near-Earth objects greater than one-half mile (1 km) in
diameter and that about half of them may eventually hit the Earth.
III. Assigning the Task of Detecting Near-Earth Objects to the LSST will increase our ability to identify Near-Earth
Objects. (Solvency)
Aeronautics & Space Engineering Board of the National Research Council, Defending Planet Earth, 2010, p. 37.
Optimizing the system for NEO detections requires approximately 15 percent additional cost to compensate for
extended observations specific to NEO detection but not useful to meet other goals. The LSST project estimates
that $125 million of additional funding is required for this optimization.
Sample Topicality Argument
Note: This argument refers to an affirmative plan suggesting that “the U.S. federal government should
substantially increase its exploration and development of space beyond Earth’s mesosphere” by
providing seed money to private space firms for the launch of a space-based solar satellite system.
THE PLAN DOES NOT MEET THE “ITS” TERM: THE SYSTEM IS NOT OWNED BY THE U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
A. Standard: “Grammatical Context”
The term “its” in the resolution is a possessive pronoun referring back to the subject of the sentence, which
is “United States federal government.”
B. Definition: “Its” includes only the United States government, and does not include a private company .
Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Ed., 1993, p. 623. Its: Of or relating to it or itself, especially as
possessor.
C. Violation: Private companies hold the patents assuring their ownership of space-based solar satellite
technologies; the government cannot own them.
William Maness, CEO of the PowerSat Corporation, Space Future Journal, Aug. 19, 2009. Retrieved Mar. 21,
2011 from http://www.spacefuture.com/journal/journal.cgi?art=2009.08.05.powersat_qanda. The
provisional patent is what starts the process. It effectively locks in the proprietary interest for up to
eighteen months while the technical, financial and regulatory details are being completed. We plan to have
a BrightStar in orbit for demonstration purposes in the 2017-18 range, or at most within three years of that.
D. Topicality is an independent voting issue for the negative team.
1. Topicality ensures fairness: The resolution is carefully worded so that available argument ground is fairly
divided between the affirmative and negative teams.
2. An affirmative team must “affirm” the resolution: If the plan does not fall under the resolution, then the
plan fails to “affirm” the resolution.
Sample Harm Reduction Argument
Note: This argument refers to an affirmative claim that the U.S. should support the use of DDT in subSaharan Africa in order to combat the spread of malaria.
THE HARM FROM MALARIA IS EXAGGERATED
1. The Claim that Malaria Is the Leading Killer of Children is Exaggerated.
Reed Karaim, Staff Writer, American Scholar, Summer 2005, p. 53. Any rereconsideration of DDT ought to
begin with a look at malaria. Advocates of the pesticide cite two statistics over and over again as
justification for greatly expanding DDT use. The first is that malaria is killing between 1.1 million and 2
million people a year. The second, to quote Rosenberg, is that "each year, 300 to 500 million people get
malaria." (This is often phrased as "malaria infects” 300 to 500 million people every year.) The first number
is chilling, particularly when you consider that malaria is largely concentrated in Africa and most often kills
children under the age of five. But if mortality rates are the measure of a disease problem in the developing
world, the truth is that malaria ranks fourth. It trails respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases and, in Africa,
AIDS. Among children under five worldwide, the World Health Organization ranks the leading causes of
death by disease as "acute lower respiratory infections, mostly pneumonia (19 percent of all deaths),
diarrhea (18 percent), malaria (8 percent), measles (4 percent) and HIV/AIDS (3 percent)." The HIV/AIDS
number is deceptive since children born with the HIV virus do not necessarily die in the first years of their
life. The largest killer of young children is not even on that list. The World Health Organization has a catchall
category called "neonatal conditions," which includes preterm birth, low birth weight and other immediate
problems that kill 37 percent of the 10.6 million children the World Health Organization estimates die every
year before their fifth birthday.
2. Great Progress Is Being Made Against Malaria.
David Brown, Staff Writer, Washington Post, 17 December 2006, p. A30. Before 1999, 86 percent of children
in the most severely affected part of Mozambique were infected with malaria annually. That fell to 21
percent four years later. In the Swaziland district, malaria incidence fell from 130 cases per 1,000 people to
1.7 cases per 1,000. In the South African area, several game parks and tourist areas no longer have high
malaria incidence, and in some places the infection is now so rare that it cannot be detected by random
blood sampling.
Sample Inherency Argument
Note: This argument refers to an affirmative claim that day care facilities in the U.S. are inadequate. The
negative inherency argument claims that grandparents offer a superior alternative to daycare.
GRANDPARENTS BEST MEET CHILD CARE NEEDS
1. GRANDPARENTS FILL THE GAPS IN CHILD CARE.
Peggy Liuzzi, (Staff, Syracuse Post-Standard), CHILD CRE MATTERS, Apr. 11, 2009. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2009 from
http://blog.syracuse.com. According to the survey, 40% of grandparents, with grandchildren under age 13
who live less than an hour away, provide child care for their grandchildren. Beside providing regular care, 50%
of grandparents provide back-up care, 31% provide care when their grandchildren are sick, and 38% provide
summer care.
2. GRANDPARENTS SOLVE THE HIGH COST OF CHILD CARE.
Stacey Garfinkle, (Staff), WASHINGTON POST, Nov. 3, 2008. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2009 from
http://voices.washingtonpost.com. Grandparent care can cost far less -- or nothing at all -- for families who
simply can't afford the high child care costs of licensed day cares and nannies. Plus grandparent care helps
build bonds across generations.
3. GRANDPARENT CARE IS SAFER FOR CHILDREN THAN TRADITIONAL DAY CARE.
Robert Preidt, (Staff), BUSINESS WEEK, Nov. 3, 2008. Retrieved Apr. 28, 2009 from www.businessweek.com.
"Recent growth in the number of grandparents providing child care has some observers concerned they don't
adhere to modern safety practices. To the contrary, this research tells us not only is there no evidence to
support this assumption, but families that choose grandparents to care for their children experience fewer
child injuries," study author Dr. David Bishai, a professor in Bloomberg's department of population, family and
reproductive health, said in a news release.
4. GRANDPARENT CARE HAS CULTURAL ADVANTAGES OVER CENTER-BASED CARE.
Valerie Polakow, (Prof., Educational Psychology & Early Childhood, Eastern Michigan U.), WHO CARES FOR OUR
CHILDREN? THE CHILD CARE CRISIS IN THE OTHER AMERICA, 2007, 145. While reliance on grandparents
(usually grandmothers) is often precipitated by a child care crisis, or the lack of good quality and affordable
care, it is also a reflection of strong intergenerational ties and family cohesiveness.
Sample Solvency Argument
Note: This argument refers to an affirmative case claiming that a “cap-and-trade” system will reduce
reliance on fossil fuels without harming the economy. This solvency argument disputes such a solvency
claim.
1. Europe’s experience proves cap-and-trade will seriously hurt the economy.
Joe Barton, U.S. Representative from Texas, Dallas Morning News, 8 Feb. 08, p. 21A. “The price that
Europeans are paying in lost jobs and constrained economic activity is growing, and so are
greenhouse gases. It doesn't look much different for America. Projections on the household impact
of various cap-and-trade proposals now pending range as high as $6,000 per home per year, with
job losses topping 8 million under some scenarios.”
2. Cap-and-trade fails to restrict new sources of CO2 emissions.
Hoff Stauffer, Analyst with the Wingaersheek Research Group, Energy Policy, Nov. 2007, p. 5433.
“New sources, not existing sources, will be primarily responsible for global CO2 emissions in the 21st
century, since new sources provide for growth and replace existing sources at the end of their useful
lives. Hence, policy initiatives should be designed for new sources rather than for existing sources,
and cap and trade may not be the best approach.”
3. Cap-and-trade is much less efficient than other incentive mechanisms.
Christopher Horner, Senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, The Politically Incorrect
Guide to Global Warming, 2007, p. 254. “The environmentalist group Resources for the Future
counted that cap-and-trade is actually about four times as expensive to the economy as an energy
tax designed to achieve the same outcome.”
Sample Disadvantage Argument
Note: This argument refers to an affirmative case proposing that the U.S. immediately withdraw troops
from Afghanistan.
PULLING OUT OF AFGHANISTAN UNLEASHES NUCLEAR TERRORISM
A. Link: The Plan proposes to pull U.S. troops out of Afghanistan.
B. Uniqueness: U.S. troops in Afghanistan are now succeeding against al-Qaeda.
1. Terrorists are now on the run.
David Goure, Analyst at the Lexington Institute, States News Service, Feb. 15, 2010. Retrieved Apr.
15, 2010 from Nexis. Over the past year, the Obama Administration has decimated al-Qaeda,
killing twelve of the terror group’s top twenty leaders as well has hundreds of rank and file. The
very week that the Christmas Day bomber conducted his abortive attack, U.S. drones conducted
multiple attacks against al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula.
2. Pakistan is stabilized by success against the terrorists.
Stephen Hadley, Former U.S. National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush, Washington
Post, Dec. 11, 2009, p. A29. It will take time and great effort, but we can succeed by convincing
friends, foes and our own forces that we are committed to success and will not fail; motivating
and enabling the Afghan government and people to accept greater responsibility for their future;
and helping Pakistan in its effort to put down its own Taliban threat and control its territory. The
last goal is paramount. A destabilized Pakistan would threaten regional stability and ensure that
Afghanistan could not be stabilized. Success will depend on proving to Pakistan that it has an
enduring partner in the United States. Our strategy can succeed in Afghanistan if we are
committed to succeeding, not just getting out.
Sample Disadvantage Argument (Continued)
C. Brink: The stability of Pakistan is at a critical point.
John Mulligan, Staff Writer, Providence Journal-Bulletin, Dec. 4, 2009, p. 1. Gates said al-Qaeda is
operating near the border to support a number of other terrorist groups in ways that are
destabilizing not just for Afghanistan but for the entire region including nuclear-armed Pakistan. If
the Taliban were to operate freely from eastern and southern Afghanistan, Gates told the House
panel, the Pakistani Taliban could use that region to strengthen itself and expand its ranks, and be
even more effective in its efforts to destabilize the government of Pakistan.
D. Impact: Destabilizing Pakistan will unleash nuclear terrorism.
1. Destabilization of Pakistan puts terrorists in charge of nuclear weapons.
David Petraeus, Commander, U.S. Central Command, United States Policy Toward Afghanistan And
Pakistan, Sen. Hrg., Apr. 7, 2009, p. 21. Destabilization of the nuclear-armed Pakistani state would
present an enormous challenge to the United States, its allies and our interests. Pakistani state
failure would provide transnational terrorist groups and other extremist organizations an
opportunity to acquire nuclear weapons and a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks.
2. Nuclear terrorists will kill millions.
Graham Allison, Dir., Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Terrorism, 2009,
p. 79. Nine months after the attack on New York, Osama bin Laden’s official press spokesman,
Suleiman Abu Gheith, made a chilling announcement on a now defunct al-Qaeda-associated Web
site, www.alneda.com. “We have the right,” Abu Gheith asserted, “to kill 4 million Americans – 2
million of them children – and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of
thousands.”
Constructive Speeches
1AC (First Affirmative Constructive Speech): 8 Minutes
Cross-Examined by 2NC: 3 Minutes
1NC (First Negative Constructive Speech): 8 Minutes
Cross-Examined by 1AC: 3 Minutes
2AC (Second Affirmative Constructive Speech): 8 Minutes
Cross-Examined by 1NC: 3 Minutes
2NC (Second Negative Constructive Speech): 8 Minutes
Cross-Examined by 2AC: 3 Minutes
Rebuttal Speeches
1NR (First Negative Rebuttal Speech): 5 Minutes
1AR (First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech): 5 Minutes
2NR (Second Negative Rebuttal Speech): 5 Minutes
2AR (Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech): 5 Minutes
Each team has 8 minutes of total preparation time
1AC: Present a “Prima Facie” Case
Plan, Harm, Inherency, Solvency
1NC: Present the Negative Attack
Topicality arguments (if any), Disadvantages, Case
2AC: Re-Defends Against 1NC
Follows 1NC point-by-point
2NC: Answer 2AC positions
Divide positions with the 1NR (division of labor)
No new arguments in rebuttal (new evidence OK)
1NR: Answer remaining 2AC arguments
1AR: Answer all 2NC & 1NR arguments
2NR: Extend winning negative arguments
2AR: Answer all remaining negative arguments &
claim all affirmative positions that are no longer
contested
Purposes of
Flowing
 Essential to an
organized
presentation
 Enables direct
clash
 Becomes your
notes during a
speech
Basic Flowing
Technique
 One argument per page
 Two colors
 Labels first, Evidence
second
 Lots of Room (especially
at top)
 Shorthand symbols
(T=Topicality,
DA=Disadvantage, etc.)
Flowsheet Example
I. Near-Earth
objects (NEOs)
threaten
catastrophic
damage.
A. Asteroid collision
caused the
extinction of the
dinosaurs
B. Many uncharted
NEOs threaten to
collide with the
Earth
C. A large NEO collision
could destroy all life
on Earth
Such an event
happens only about
every 26 million years
or so
1.NASA has already
charted all large NEOs
2. Other nations are
actively charting NEOs
3. No large NEOs
threaten Earth for at
least the next 100
years
1. Most NEOs are small
and burn up in Earth’s
atmosphere
2. The risk has been
exaggerated by the
popular media
1. Since the last event was
about that long ago, we may
be due for another catastrophe
2. Why take the chance?
NASA admits that it lacks the
resources to do an adequate
survey.
Why take a chance with so
much at stake?
How can we know when they
have not all been charted
An airburst from even a small
NEO could destroy a major city
and kill millions of people
It is not just the media;
physicists such as Stephen
Hawking are also worried.
District 12 AA UIL Tournament
Round 1: 4:00 p.m.
AFFIRMATIVE
NEGATIVE
Newton CG
Ames RE
Marshalltown RR
Ogden DC
Denver City BB
Bentonville TR
ROOM
1024
District
1041
1046
JUDGE
Edwards
Rollins
Jackson
(When the above system is in use, the initials following the school name represent
the first letter of the last names for the two students – Newton CG would stand for
Newton students Amy Charles and Juan Garza)
District 12 AA UIL Tournament
Round 1: 4:00 p.m.
AFFIRMATIVE
NEGATIVE
10A
13C
11B
15A
ROOM
District
1024
1041
JUDGE
Edwards
Rollins
(If codes are in use, you will be given a registration form identifying your teams)
District 12 AA UIL Tournament
1. Newton CG
Newton CG
4. Marshalltown RR
District
2. Ames RE
Ames RE
3. Bentonville TR
Newton CG