Introduction to Policy Debate

Contents

Overview
The Topic
The Sides
The Judge
The Speeches
The Format
Preparation Prep Time
The Role of the Affirmative
The Role of the Negative
The Roles of the Speeches
Cross-Examination
Stock Issues
Topicality
Inherency
Harms

Solvency
Negative Arguments
Topicality Overview
Topicality Exercises
Topicality - 5 Steps
Arguing the other Stock Issues
Disadvantages
Counterplans
Kritiks
Evidence
Flowing
Tournaments
Review

Back to Table of Contents

Overview
Policy Debate is also known as CrossExamination CX Debate
Policy debate gets its name, quite
apparently, from what almost all debates of
this type center around: a policy.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The Topic
Generally, topics (also called resolutions)
in policy debate suggest that an actor
(usually the US federal government) should
take a particular action (a policy)
For example, many topics begin with
Resolved: The United States federal
government should
The US federal government is the actor
The action usually follows the word should
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The Topic
More examples of policy topics/resolutions:
Resolved: The United States federal government should increase
public health services for mental health care in the United States.
Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a
policy significantly limiting the use of weapons of mass destruction.
Resolved: The United States federal government should
substantially increase the number of persons serving in one of the
following national service programs: Armed Forces, Senior Corps,
Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Learn and Serve America.
Resolved: The United States federal government should decrease its
authority either to detain without charge or search without probable
cause.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The Topic
Did you notice what all of the above CX topics
had in common?
All start with Resolved: The United States federal
government should The US federal government has
traditionally been the actor in high school policy debate
All propose a significant or substantial policy
change. This is to limit the scope of the topic to include
only large policy changes.
All introduce a topic that is controversial (e.g. health
care, government authority, etc.) so that it is debatable.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The Topic
This years topic is
Resolved: The United States federal
government should.
Notice that it is similar in structure to the
previous examples of CX topics, but the subject
is different.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The Sides
Like most forms of debate, policy debate has two opposing sides: the
affirmative and the negative.
The affirmative team consists of 2 debaters that support the proposition
in the topic, usually by proposing a specific policy that relates to the
topic.
The negative team consists of 2 debaters that oppose the topic and
refute the affirmatives specific policy.
The debaters on both teams are usually assigned a number based on the
order in which the debaters speak. For example, the first affirmative
speaker is the 1A and the second negative speaker is the 2N.
This means that there are usually at least 5 people involved in any given
debate - 2 affirmative debaters, 2 negative debaters, and the arguably
most important person in terms of wins or loses the debate.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The Judge
The judge is the 5th person and he or she usually sits and
observes the debate and almost always takes some form of
notes to keep track of the arguments made.
The judge could be anyone that can understand what the
debaters are saying. This means that, at tournaments, the
judge could be a parent of a student from the hosting school,
another schools debate coach, a college student, or anyone
else available to judge.
Usually, other high school students are not allowed to judge
varsity debate, and students that have graduated or teachers
from a high school are not allowed to judge teams from the
high school he or she graduated from.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The Judge
In practice debates, almost anyone makes a good judge.
The most important thing to remember about the judge
is that the judge is the final say on who wins and who
loses, regardless of how the debaters feel. Challenges to
judges decisions are rarely successful, if at all. This means
that your job as a debater is to convince the judge that
youre right, not the other team (or even yourself!).

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The Speeches
Both debaters on both sides get 2 speeches, a constructive
speech (8 minutes) and a rebuttal speech (5 minutes) to
speak.
Constructive speeches are generally reserved for
constructing (making) arguments and counter-arguments
Rebuttal speeches are generally reserved for refuting the
other teams arguments and counter-arguments, extending
your teams arguments, and weighing the arguments.
Constructive speeches are always followed by a crossexamination period, when a debater from the other side
gets to question the debater that just gave the speech.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The Format
All policy debates follow the following format:

1st Affirmative Constructive (1AC) - 8 minutes

Cross-Examination of the 1AC by the 2N - 3 minutes
1st Negative Constructive (1NC) - 8 minutes
Cross-Examination of the 1NC by the 1A - 3 minutes
2nd Affirmative Constructive (2AC) - 8 minutes
Cross-Examination of 2AC by the 1N - 3 minutes
2nd Negative Constructive (2NC) - 8 minutes
Cross-Examination of the 2NC by the 2A - 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR) - 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) - 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR) - 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) - 5 minutes
Both sides get equal preparation time.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The Format
Why should you know the format?
To know which person on your team will be
giving the next speech and asking the other
team questions
Not knowing the format may make your team
look unprepared to a judge
To know how much preparation time you have

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The Format
What is important to know about the format?
Who speaks when and for how long
The negative team has 2 speeches in a row: the 2NC
followed by the 1NR. This is called the negative block.
This is fair because the affirmative team gets to speak first
and last and both teams get the same amount of time to
speak (26 minutes for each team).
Who cross-examines who and for how long
Cross-examination period is always 3 minutes.
If you look carefully at the format you will notice that, except for
the 1AC, the person asking questions is the last person who gave a
speech. Can you guess why?
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Preparation Prep Time

Usually, prep time varies in different regions of
the countries. Some areas have 5 minutes of prep
time for each side, others have 8 minutes and
some have as much as 10 minutes for each side.
The tournament invitation will usually indicate
how much prep time a team will have.
Prep time is, quite obviously, to prepare for your
speech.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Preparation Prep Time

However, you can always prepare while someone
is giving a speech, during the other teams prep
time and during cross-examination. This does not
come out of your allotted prep time.
The reason why, for example, the 2N crossexamines the 1A after the 1AC; this gives the 1N 3
extra minutes (the time the 2N cross-examines the
1A) to prepare for the 1NC.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The Role of the Affirmative

The affirmative is often though to have the burden of proof
This does not mean however that the affirmative is the only
team that needs to prove its arguments, of course.
The burden of proof means that the affirmative team must
prove the resolution true (i.e. that the US federal government
should increase health care services, aid to Africa, etc.)
Since all resolutions require the affirmative to defend a
change to the status quo, then the affirmative must argue that
the status quo has problems and that the plan fix those
problems.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The Role of the Negative

The negative team is said to have the burden of rejoinder also
known as the burden of clash.
This does not mean that the negative is the only team that has to
respond to the other teams arguments.
The burden of clash means that the negative team must
respond to the affirmatives arguments that support that the
resolution is true.
The negative team usually does this by proving that the
affirmative plan is a bad idea. This means usually arguing that
plan changes society for the worse.
Thus, the negative is often given the burden of defending the
status quo.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The First Affirmative

Constructive (1AC)
8 minutes
Presents the plan and arguments supporting that the plan is a good idea
and that, if the plan is an example of the resolution (i.e. an example of
how the US federal government could increase health care or aid to
Africa, etc.) then the plan proves the resolution true
Presents the stock issues. Generally, they are arguments that (1) the
plan is not currently being done (inherency), (2) there is a problem
now that needs to be fixed (harms), (3) the plan would help solve the
problems (solvency) and (4) the plan is an example of the resolution
(topicality). These will be discussed more in depth later
Followed by a 3 minute cross examination (CX) period where the 2N
asks questions
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The First Negative Constructive

(1NC)
8 minutes
Refutes the affirmatives stock issues - (1) that the
plan has already passed or will pass (2) the harms are
insignificant, (3) the plan doesnt solve the harms,
and (4) the plan is not an example of the resolution
Introduces other arguments that the resolution is not
true based on the affirmative plan (e.g. that the plan
causes more harm than it would solve)
Followed by a 3 minute CX period when the 1A asks
the 1N questions
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The Second Affirmative

Constructive (2AC)
8 minutes
Extends arguments made in the first
affirmative constructive
Refutes arguments made by the first
negative constructive (1NC)
Followed by a 3-minute CX by the 1N

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The Second Negative

Constructive (2NC)
8 minutes
The first part of the negative block
Extends SOME arguments made by the 1NC (the
1NR will extend the other arguments - this is
called splitting the block)
Responds to ALL the refutations made by the
2AC on the arguments chosen from the 1NC
Followed by a 3-minute CX period by the 2A
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The First Negative Rebuttal

(1NR)
5 minutes
The last part of the negative block
Extends ALL arguments from the 1NC not
extended by the 2NC (to split the block)
Responds to ALL of the 2ACs refutations
of the arguments

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The First Affirmative Rebuttal

(1AR)
5 minutes
Extends the strongest arguments and extensions
from the 2AC
Responds to arguments made in the 2NC and 1NR
Often thought of the toughest speech because the
speech is 5 minutes and it must respond to ALL of
the important arguments from the negative block

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The Second Negative Rebuttal

(2NR)
5 minutes
Extends ONLY the strongest arguments from the
negative block
Extends responses to ALL of the refutations of the
negative arguments made in the 1AR
Explains reasons why the judge should vote for
the negative team
The reasons are called voting issues or voters
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The Second Affirmative Rebuttal

(2AR)
5 minutes
Extends the strongest affirmative arguments
that were made in the 1AR
Extends the strongest refutations of the
negatives arguments
Explains the affirmatives voting issues

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Cross-Examination
What should you ask about?
Arguments made by the other team you did not understand
Arguments made by the other team that you think you may
have missed
How some arguments made by the other team are
consistent with other arguments they made
How the arguments the other team made relate to the
arguments you made
Dont ask questions, just to ask questions. Have a purpose
for asking them aside from needing to use your crossexamination time.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Cross-Examination
How should I ask my questions?
Always politely. Judges dont particular enjoy civilized
debates turning into shouting matches.
If you have many questions, ask closed-end questions (e.g.
yes or no or either-or questions )
If you have only a few questions, asking open-ended
questions (i.e. questions that allow for more explanatory
answer instead of a yes or a no answer)
If you are running out of time and have more questions, and
if the other debater is still answering your previous question,
simply state politely. Thanks, my next question is..

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Affirmative Arguments The Stock Issues

Generally, there are 4 stock issues:
Topicality - that the plan is an example of the
resolution
Inherency - the plan is not a law that already
exists
Harms - there are currently problems with
society that could be fixed
Solvency - the plan corrects or solves these
problems
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Affirmative Arguments The Stock Issues

Significance as a fifth stock issue?
Many still view significance as a stock issue. This means
that the plan must be a significant change to the status quo
(i.e. the way society is now) or the plan must solve for a
significant harm.
Others view significance as a topicality issue since most if
not all resolutions have the word significantly or
substantially in them.
Many also think that the plan does not have to solve a
significant harm, just solve for more harms than it causes.
If the plan makes society even just a little bit better, then it
is a good idea and, thus, the resolution would be true.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Topicality
The root of the word topicality is the word topic. This
helps to remember that this argument is about how the plan
relates to the topic
The affirmative will argue that the plan is topical. The
negative may argue that the plan is not topical.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Topicality
The current trend in policy debate is to presume
that, if the affirmative presents a plan, that the
affirmative does not need to present more
arguments in the 1AC about why the plan is
topical.
The affirmative generally only has to defend that
its plan is topical in the 2AC if the negative first
argues that it is not topical in the 1NC.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Topicality
It is important to remember that topicality is about how the plan
relates to the topic, not about the affirmatives arguments about
why the plan is a good idea. For example, if the topic concerns
increasing health care and the affirmative argues that the plan
increases health care and that this increase of health care helps
people to become healthier so that they work better and that the
economy is improved as a result, this is topical because, even
though the affirmative is arguing about the state of the economy,
there is a sufficient connection to the topic because the plan
relates to health care. However, if the topic was health care and
the plan was to cut taxes to improve the economy, this would
not be topical because the plan is about cutting taxes, not
increasing health care!

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Inherency
The 2nd stock issue
There are 3 types of inherency:
Existential inherency - the most basic type of inherency; this type means
that the plan is simply a law that does not exist in the US; it usually the
easiest to meet.
Attitudinal inherency - this type of inherency means that there is an
attitude in the government that prevents the affirmatives plan from being
passed. For example, the plan could embody democratic values and, if the
government was controlled by republicans, a republican government
would not pass such a plan.
Structural inherency - this type of inherency means that there is a law or
regulation that prevents the policy from being passed.
The trend in policy debate is to ignore this distinction because it tends to
only really matter to judges that the plan is not a law that already exists.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Inherency
Why does it matter?
Inherency matters because if the policy is already an
existing law, then the affirmative is not proposing a
policy change, but is rather advocating the status quo.
Inherency overlaps a bit with topicality because all
topics require a substantial change to the status quo. If
the resolution requires, for example, an increase of aid
to Nigeria and that particular aid policy already exists
as a law in the US now, then the affirmatives proposed
plan would not be increasing any aid.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Inherency
Why does it matter?
The trend in policy debate is to ignore inherency on the
negative, unless the plan clearly exists in the status quo.
It may also be strategic for the negative to NOT argue
inherency. If the plan already exists in the status quo, then
nothing bad could happen as a result of the affirmative plan
being enacted because it already has been enacted!
While inherency is disappearing in policy debate, it is
important to never rule out making the argument if it would
be strategic in the particular debate.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Harms
The 3rd stock issue
Harms are the problems with society that could be fixed
There are 2 types of harms:
Systemic Harms: these problems have existed in the past and exist now and,
without change, are presumed to occur in the future. Examples would include:
Poverty
Hunger
Crime
The benefit of claiming systemic harms is that they are certain to persist if
nothing is done to counteract them.
The downside systemic harms is that they may be so rooted in society that a
simple new policy would not be enough to fix the problem that have existed
for a very long time.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Harms
Probabilistic Harms: these problems are not harms
that exist now, but are problems that are likely to make
a specific future harm to occur.
For example, if US relations with China are poor then it is
more likely that US and China would go to war in the future.
There is no war between US and China now, but a plan could
claim to improve relations with China to prevent a future war.

A benefit of probabilistic harms is that they can be

claimed to be prevented and stopped more easily than a
harm like poverty.
A downside to probabilistic harms is that they are not
certain to happen in the future as systemic harms are.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Harms
Why does it matter?
Without harms, the plan cannot claim to make
society better in any way. If the plan does not
make society better, then it is not necessarily
something the US federal government should
do. This relates back to the affirmative burden
to prove the resolution true.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Solvency
The 4th stock issue
Solvency is that the plan prevents the harms (e.g.
preventing war between US and China) or makes the
harms better (e.g. fewer people living in poverty).
While this stock issue is relatively easy to explain, it
is still very important. If the plan does not solve the
harms, then it cannot claim to make society better in
any way. Thus, without solvency, the affirmative
may not be meeting its burden of proof.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Solvency + Harms = Advantage

Solvency and harms are closely linked. Without harms, there
would be nothing to solve for and without being able to solve
the harms, the plan cannot claim any benefits to the plan.
If the affirmative wins at least one harms argument and at least
one relative solvency argument, this is called an advantage.
Example: One advantage is that plan prevents a war between US
and China. First, the harm is that US and Chinas relations are
weak. Second, the plan would improve relations between US and
China because

To prove that the resolution is true and that the policy should be
passed, the affirmative must prove that the plan is more
advantageous than disadvantageous.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Sample 1AC Structure

Inherency: the plan is not a law that already exists.
Harms: there are problems with society that could
be fixed.
Plan: The United States federal government
should (remember, the 1ACs plan is the
affirmative assertion of topicality)
Solvency: This plan would solve the harms
mentioned above, which gives the plan the
advantage of
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Negative Arguments
Negative arguments are separated by off case
positions and on case arguments
Off case positions include

Topicality
Disadvantages
Counterplans
Kritiks (Critiques)

On case arguments include

Arguments against the affirmative harms
Arguments against the affirmative inherency
Arguments against the affirmative solvency
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Topicality
Topicality is usually only first argued in the 1NC.
Topicality arguments are usually based on a word or phrase in
the resolution. For example, if the resolution is Resolved: the
US federal government should substantially increase its aid to
Nigeria, any of the words or phrases within the quote could be
used as the basis for a topicality argument.
The following slide has some topicality exercises based on the
wording of this topic. Which words or phrases would you argue
that the following plans dont meet?

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Topicality Exercises
Resolved: The US federal government should substantially increase its aid
to Nigeria.
Plan 1: The US Congress should cease its funding of all Nigerian
foreign health assistance programs.
Plan 2: The US Congress should give $10 to Zimbabwe to help
Zimbabwes farming economy.
Plan 3: The US Congress should convince Russia to give Nigeria
money for Nigerian HIV/AIDS relief.
Plan 4: The state of Texas should give $10 dollars for Nigerias
farming economy.
Plan 5: The US Congress should give Nigeria $10 billion for its
farming economy.
Which words or phrases of the resolution would each of these
plans violate?
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Answers to Topicality Exercises

Plan 1 is probably not topical because it
violates, or does not meet, the phrase
increase its aid. If the US stops funding
all Nigerian assistance programs, how can it
afford to pay for an increase of aid or
assistance to Nigeria?

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Answers to Topicality Exercises

Plan 2 is probably not topical because it does not meet the word to
Nigeria, since the plan increases aid to Zimbabwe, a country that is
not Nigeria.
Plan 2 is also arguably not topical based on the word significantly
since $10 probably will not be much of an increase in assistance, even
if the plan was changed from Zimbabwe to Nigeria It is important
to remember that plans can violate multiple words of the resolution.
You may be able to see the difficulty of arguing something is not
substantial. If $10 is not substantial, would $100 be substantial?
Would $100 billion? What about $1 million? $10,000? Reasonable
minds could differ about what is substantial when it is not as clear as
simply increasing funding by $10.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Answers to Topicality Exercises

Plan 3 is probably not topical based on the word
its since the US is trying to get Russia to give
Nigeria aid. Assuming the US would be effective
at convincing Russia to do so, the US would not
be increasing American aid to Nigeria, but at best
would be acting to increase Russias aid to
Nigeria.
Its important to realize that even small words in
the resolution (such as its could be grounds for
arguing topicality).
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Answers to Topicality Exercises

Plan 4 is probably not topical because it
violates the phrase federal. Texas is a
state government where the US federal
government refers to the national
government located in Washington D.C.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Answer to Topicality Exercises

Plan 5 is probably topical because it meets
all the words and phrases of the resolution
because it is an example of the US federal
government (not a US state government)
increasing (rather than decreasing) its
(rather than Russias) aid to Nigeria (rather
than Zimbabwe).
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Topicality
Why does it matter?
Topicality is important because it relates back to the affirmatives
burden of proof. If the affirmative has the burden to prove that the
US should increase its aid to Nigeria by presenting a plan that
would be an example of the US giving aid to Nigeria, and the
affirmative plan instead has a plan that proves that it would be a
good idea that Texas convince Russia to give $10 to Zimbabwes
to help its farming economy, is this plan really proving that the US
should increase aid to Nigeria? Probably not. This means that the
affirmative is not proving the resolution true.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Topicality
Why does it matter?
Topicality is a strategic argument for the
negative to make because if the negative wins
this argument, then, if topicality is argued well
by the negative, it does not matter how great
the affirmative policy is if it does not prove the
resolution true.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Topicality
Unfortunately, topicality is a little more
complicated than simply stating the plan is
not a substantial increase of aid to Nigeria.
However, pinpointing the specific word or
phrase that the plan violates is the first step
of arguing topicality.
So whats the next step?
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Topicality
Step 1: Pinpoint the word or phrase that the plan
does not meet.
Step 2: Define the word that plan does not meet.
Step 3: Argue why the plan does not meet the
particular word based on the definition.
Step 4: Argue why this definition should be used
to define the word in the resolution.
Step 5: State why the judge should vote for you if
you win the topicality argument.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Topicality
Step 2 - Define the Word - Interpretation
Many times a simple dictionary definition will
work
For example: Aid is defined as help or
support; assistance by the Random House
Unabridged Dictionary, 2006.
This part is identified as the interpretation of
the resolution
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Topicality
Step 3 - Argue why the plan does not meet the word Violation
Assume Plan 1 from the exercise above for example, The US
Congress should cease its funding of all Nigerian foreign health
assistance programs.
Since the plan cuts funding of health assistance to Nigeria, the
plan does not increase help or support or assistance of Nigeria
because cutting funding for health assistance would be a decrease
in assistance.
This part of the argument is called the violation.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Topicality
Step 4 - Argue why the definition should be used to define
the word in the resolution - Standards
For example, one may argue that dictionary definitions are more
accessible and commonly used by the average person and that the
use of a definition from a dictionary provides more predictability
of terms.
On the other hand, one may argue that a definition from the state
department or a law journal concerning foreign affairs would be
more accurate precise in context of the resolution of giving foreign
aid to Nigeria than would a common and ordinary dictionary.
Keep in mind that a definition can have multiple reasons why it is
a valid definition.
These arguments are generally referred to as standards.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Topicality
Step 5 - State why the judge should vote for you if you win
the topicality argument. Voters
Generally, it would suffice to argue that the affirmative burden
must prove the resolution true and if the plan doesnt relate to the
specific words of the resolution is not proving the resolution true
and, thus, the affirmative has not met the burden of proof.
The reasons to vote for the negative if the negative wins the
argument are called voters.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Sample Topicality Argument

Interpretation: Aid is defined as help or support; assistance by
the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006.
Violation: Since the plan cuts funding of health assistance to
Nigeria, the plan does not increase help or support or assistance
of Nigeria because cutting funding for health assistance would be a
decrease in assistance.
Standards: Dictionary definitions are more accessible and
commonly used by the average person and that the use of a
definition from a dictionary provides more predictability of terms.
Voters: the affirmative burden must prove the resolution true and if
the plan doesnt relate to the specific words of the resolution is not
proving the resolution true and, thus, the affirmative has not met
the burden of proof.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Arguing the other Stock Issues

Inherency - To disprove inherency, the negative team would
want to argue that the affirmative policy is already. In most
debates, this will not be a viable argument as affirmative
teams usually do research before writing their cases and will
likely not select a plan that is already law.
Harms - Refuting harms may be difficult. The trick of
arguing harms is to argue that the harms of the 1AC arent
as significant as the disadvantages. Another strategy is to
argue that the harms arent really harms but are advantages.
These arguments are not always available on the negative
because most teams will pick harms that are generally
accepted as bad (e.g. nuclear war, death, poverty, etc.).
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Arguing the other Stock Issues

Solvency - Refuting solvency requires closely
looking at the affirmative plan and how it relates
to the harms the affirmative claims the plan would
solve for. Ask yourself, Is it truly likely that the
plan would solve for the harms as it claims? If
not, state why not. Many judges are receptive to
common sense arguments and will appreciate
attempts to use common sense in debate if it is
used effectively.
The Forensics Files
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Disadvantages
Negative disadvantages are reasons why, even if
the plan has advantages, the affirmatives plan
would make society worse off.
If the negative can prove that the plan is more
disadvantageous than advantageous, then the plan
is a bad idea, and the resolution is false because
the US federal government should NOT enact the
policy proposed by the affirmative.

Back to Table of Contents

Disadvantages
There are 3 main parts of a disadvantage:
Uniqueness
Links
Impact

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Disadvantages
Part 1 - Uniqueness
The first part of a disadvantage involves arguing a
favorable description of society (of the status quo - i.e. the
way things are now)
Remember that the negative is usually given the burden of
defending the status quo. Defending something is much
easier if you argue that what you are defending is good.
Uniqueness simply means describing that there is
something good about the status quo (e.g. the prevalence
of poverty in the US is low, the US economy is strong, the
US has good relations with China, etc.)
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Disadvantages
Part 2 - Links
A link connects the plan to the favorable description
of society (uniqueness) by claiming that the plan in
some way changes this aspect of the status quo for the
worse.
The link argument shows that the plan causes a change
in society that is not favorable. The plan changes that
specific description set out by the uniqueness argument.
For example, the plan increases poverty, hurts the US
economy, or hurts relations between the US and China.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Disadvantages
Part 3 - Impact
The impact basically describes the impact of the
change the plan would cause (as argued by the link) in
terms of how it would hurt society.
For example:
An impact of a weak US economy is that people would lose
their jobs and not be able to provide for their families.
An impact of a poor relations between the US and China is
that the US and China are more likely to go to war.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Sample Disadvantage 1
Uniqueness: The US economy is strong
now.
Link: The plan hurts the US economy.
Impact: A poor US economy would leave
many people jobless and unable to provide
for their families.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Sample Disadvantage 2
Uniqueness: The US and China have good
relations now.
Link: The plan hurts US-China relations.
Impact: Poor US-China relations increase
the likelihood that US and China would go
to war.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Disadvantages
Notice that the uniqueness aspects of the disadvantages
above were positive descriptions of the status quo (i.e.
things are good now; the economy is strong now and
US-China relations are good now)
The links show how the plan changes this positive
situation for the worse (plan hurts the US economy and
hurts US-China relations)
The impacts show how this change has a undesirable
effect on society (people are unable to provide for their
families and the US and China are more likely to go to
war)
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Disadvantages
Why do they matter?
In most cases, disadvantages wont matter UNLESS the
negative team argues how the disadvantages outweigh the
plans advantages (i.e. the plan is more disadvantageous
society than it is advantageous to society)
Simply because a plan has a disadvantage does not mean
that it is automatically a bad idea. The disadvantages
must be weighed against the advantages.
The affirmatives job is to prove that the advantages
outweigh the disadvantages and the negatives job is to
prove that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Counterplans
Counterplans propose an alternative policy that is different from
the affirmatives plan that would be able to solve for some or all of
the harms the affirmative claims and would avoid one or more of
the disadvantages the negative argues.
Many people do not view counterplans as acceptable, since they
view the negatives job solely as defending the status quo, but the
trend in debate is that counterplans are acceptable.
One basis for this is the situation where an affirmative case only
claims racism as its only advantage. The negative may be stuck in
a position of having to defend a racist policy. Counterplans would
give negative teams more leeway to avoid having to defend
positions they were not morally comfortable with.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Counterplans
Parts of a Counterplan
Text
Solvency Arguments for the Counterplan
Net Benefits

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Counterplans
Part 1 - Text
The text of the counterplan is a short and plain
statement, like the plan text, that suggests what
the alternative policy is.
Assume the Nigeria topic again. An example of
a counterplan would be:
The European Union (EU) should give the same aid
identical to the amount plan increases to Nigeria.
This counterplan is different from the plan because it
has the EU give aid to Nigeria instead of the US.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Counterplans
Part 2 - Solvency for the Counterplan
Solvency was discussed earlier as being a stock issue for a plan.
However the same concept can be applied to a counterplan.
Instead of how the plan solves for the harms, counterplan solvency is
how the counterplan solves for the harms the affirmative presents.
For example - If the plan was to have the US give $10 billion to
Nigeria to help it develop its farming communities, and the
counterplan was to have the EU give the equivalent of the same
amount ($10 billion) to Nigeria for its farming communities, then the
solvency argument would be that if $10 million dollars from the US is
sufficient to solve the harms, then $10 million from the EU would be
just as effective to solve for the harms.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Counterplans
Part 3 - Net Benefit
The phrase net benefit simply means that
there is a reason why the counterplan is better
than the plan.
This reason why the counterplan is better could
be that the counterplan does not cause a
disadvantage that the plan would.
This reason could also be that the counterplan
has an advantage that the plan does not have.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Counterplans
Part 3 - Net Benefit
Taking the EU counterplan above for example, a net
benefit could be that the US is not in a financial
situation to give $10 billion away and doing so would
hurt the US economy whereas the EU did have the
extra money to donate without experiencing much
economic harm.
The net benefit would be that the counterplan avoids
the disadvantage of hurting the US economy.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Sample Counterplan
Text: The European Union should give Nigeria the
equivalent of $10 billion dollars in aid for its farming
communities.
Solvency: if $10 million dollars from the US is
sufficient to solve the harms, then $10 million from the
EU would be just as effective to solve for the harms.
Net Benefit: that the US is not in a financial situation to
give $10 billion away and doing so would hurt the US
economy whereas the EU did have the extra money to
donate without experiencing much economic harm.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Kritiks
A kritik (pronounced critique) is an argument that
challenges the premises of the affirmative case. Kritiks
tend to be based on very dense, philosophical literature
that is frequently difficult to understand.
Kritiks tend to argue broader than just whether the plan
is a good or bad idea.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Kritiks
For example:
If a team proves that its policy is a good idea but the team uses
racist words, then many people would agree that the team should
lose even though they have met the burden of proof. Thus, the
kritik operates on a broader scale.
Assume that there is a presidential candidate that proposes one
good policy, but agrees with the worldview of Nazism. Many
people would not vote for this candidate even though they agree
with one policy, because they disagree with the worldview.
Similarly in debate, a judge may not want to vote for a policy
thats a good idea because the teams worldview is not good.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Kritiks
There are generally 3 types of kritiks:
Kritiks of words
Kritiks of worldviews
Kritiks of method

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Kritiks
Kritiks of Words
Many kritiks challenge words that the affirmative uses.
Generally, these bad words that the negative kritiks are
sometimes obvious bad words such as racial or sexual
slurs
But many times, though, the words that are frequently
kritiked are less obvious such as woman, terrorism,
mankind, the United States federal government, war
on, and acronyms.
Many kritiks of words and phrases claim that because the
affirmative used a particular term that it should lose because
the word/phrase used has an actual affect on the debaters
The Forensics Files

Kritiks
Kritiks of worldviews
A worldview is simply how a person perceives
the world and how the world should be.
Some examples of worldviews are free-market
capitalism, the political platforms of democrats
and republicans, Nazism, etc.
Kritiks of worldviews argue that the worldview
assumed by the affirmative is bad, even though
the plan may be a good idea.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Kritiks
Kritiks of Methods
These kritiks challenge certain practices a team
engages in.
Examples include when a team talks too
quickly, or one of the other debater sits down
(or stands up) when the team speaks, or any
other act that the a team physically does in a
debate.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Kritiks
3 or 4 main parts

Link
Impact
Alternative
Framework

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Kritiks
Links
Like disadvantages, kritik links attempt to relate the
affirmative to the kritik
For example:
The link to a language kritik would be the particular word or
phrased used (e.g. The affirmative team used a racial slur.)
The link to a worldview kritik would be that the policy is
supported by justifications that are similar to that of a worldview
that the team is kritiking (e.g. The affirmative plan endorses a
capitalist worldview.)
The link to a methodology kritik would be pointing out what the
other team did during one of the teams speeches (e.g. The
affirmative spoke too quickly.)
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Kritiks
Impact
Like disadvantages, kritik impacts are the
undesirable effects of voting for the affirmative
because the affirmative links to the kritik.
Unlike disadvantages, the kritik impacts dont
occur as a result of the policy, but rather
because of the words/phrases, worldview or the
method the affirmative team uses or supports.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Kritiks
Alternative
The alternative acts somewhat like a counterplan by
proposing a different phrase, method, or worldview
Alternatives can be simple (e.g. Instead of using racial
slurs, the alternative would be to not use racial slurs.)
Alternatives can also be complex (e.g. Instead of
endorsing capitalism, the worldview of communism
should be adopted).
Many kritiks dont have an alternative because teams
argue that simply rejecting the affirmative team for use
of the word/phrase, method or worldview

Kritiks
Framework
Since kritik impacts dont occur as a result of the plan,
it is helpful to tell the judge how to evaluate the kritiks
impacts
For example, are the kritik impacts more important than the
advantages of the policy the affirmative proposes? Or should
the judge weigh the kritik impacts against the advantages of
the policy?
Without telling the judge how to evaluate the impacts, it is
difficult to predict how the judge will decide to evaluate the
impacts and thus you may not get the full weight of the
argument if you dont argue how the judge should evaluate it
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Kritiks
Kritiks are a relatively new type of argument in policy
debate. Many judges and coaches in regions in the US
will refuse to listen to kritiks and may even vote
against a team for making such an argument because
they do not reflect traditional styles of policy debate.
However, there is a growing trend of acceptance of
kritiks in many regions.
In any case, if you plan to argue a kritik on the
negative, make sure to ask your judge if he or she has
strong opinions about that type of argument.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Evidence
In general, debaters should try to support each argument
made with a piece of evidence
Presenting evidence usually means reading a selection or
quote from a credible and external source (such as a
newspaper article, law review, scholarly journal, book,
etc.)
Each piece of evidence should contain an argument. An
argument consists of a claim and a warrant.
A claim is the conclusion the evidence is reaching.
The warrant is the reason why the one should believe that
the conclusion is true.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Evidence
The following are examples of claims:
The economy is doing well now.
The US is in a good position to give foreign aid
to Nigeria.
Abraham Lincoln was the best president.
Each of the claims ARE NOT arguments
because, as stated before, an argument
generally consists of a claim AND a warrant.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Evidence
The following are examples of warrants for the claims
above:
Taxes are low and thus consumers have more money to purchase to
promote commerce in the US, thus, the economy is doing well now.
The US has been effective at collecting taxes, thus the US has extra
revenue that it can give aid to Nigeria without hurting its economy.
Thus, the US is in a good position to give foreign aid to Nigeria.
Abraham Lincoln was the most honest president. Thus, Abraham
Lincoln was the best president.
While some of the arguments make assumptions, they would
generally be considered arguments because they consist of a claim
and a warrant.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Evidence
Quotes or selections from reputable sources
are usually referred to as cards.
Cards consist of
Tag
Cite
Quote

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Evidence
Tags of Cards
The tag is the headline or main point the quote
is arguing. Generally, tags should include a
summary of the claim and a warrants presented
in the quote.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Evidence
Cites of Cards
Cites or Citations should generally include
The author of the quote, first name and last name (e.g. Michael
Smith)
The qualifications of the author (e.g. Professor of law at Loyola
University)
The publication date (date, month and year if possible - e.g. January
1, 2009)
The URL of the website, if applicable (e.g. http://www.citation.com/)
The name of the publication source
the name of the book
the name of the newspaper (e.g. The Boston Globe)
the name of law journal (e.g. Loyola Law Review)

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

A sample card

Evidence

Tag - Several economic indicators show that the economy is

doing well now.
Peter Morton (author), Washington Bureau Chief of the
Financial Post (qualification), December 16, 2006 (date),
Financial Post (publication), US economy given one-two
boost (article name) Lexis-Nexis (search engine) - (Cite)
International investors poured billions of dollars into US
stocks and bondsinflation showed the sharpest drop in 56
yearsthe economy remains strong and inflation remains
relatively mute. (Quote)
Can you identify the claim and the warrants in this card?

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Evidence
The claim is the economy remains strong
The warrants are
International investors poured billions of
dollars into US stocks and bonds
Inflation showed the sharpest drop in 56 years

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Evidence
Because there are so many types of
arguments, it is inevitable that a debate
round will have many pieces of evidence or
cards read
How do you keep track of all the cards read
in a debate?

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Flowing
A very specific method of taking notes in debate is
known as flowing
Flowing generally means taking notes of the arguments
in a manner that you can see how the arguments made in
the debate flow throughout the speeches
With the increase of technology in debate, many people
now flow on laptops using an excel spreadsheet
This format (writing arguments in columns for each
speech) came from the original method of flowing on
paper.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Flowing
Generally, it is best to flow the different negative positions
(disadvantages, kritiks, counterplans, and topicality) and
the affirmative case on separate sheets of paper.
This is why they are called off case positions, because
they are not flowed on or next to the case.
Negative arguments against the affirmative harms,
inherency and solvency should be made as on case
arguments.
They are on case, because the arguments are flowed on
the sheet of paper where the case has been flowed

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Flowing
For example, you would need 6 sheets of paper for
the following

Affirmative Case
Topicality Increase
Topicality its aid to Nigeria
US Economy Disadvantage
European Union Counterplan
Kritik of Capitalism

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Flowing
If you look at the bottom of the excel
spreadsheet you will notice that there are
different tabs for different arguments
If there were multiple disadvantages in a
debate, you would want to flow the
disadvantages on separate pieces of paper.
The same is true when there are multiple
kritiks or topicality arguments
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Flowing
Why does it matter?
Very few people, if anyone, can remember
every single argument and each piece of
evidence read in a debate. Flowing helps to
remind the debaters and the judge of which
arguments have been made.
Knowing what arguments have been made is
essential to success.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Flowing
If you do not answer an argument made by the other team
this may end up hurting you for 3 reasons
First, if you dont respond to an argument the judge may
think that you do not have a good response and will
accept it as true.
Second, most judges that have some experience in debate
will grant that an argument is true for the remainder of
the debate if the other team does not respond to it. This
is commonly referred to as dropping arguments.
Third, if the dropped argument is important enough,
then you may lose the debate just for not responding to
an argument.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Flowing
Is it always bad to drop arguments?
Not always. If you remember the format of CX debate,
the speeches get shorter as the debate progresses.
Speeches go from 8 minutes to 5 minutes. This means
that it is impossible to adequately extend EVERY
argument made in a constructive into the rebuttal.
The goals of the rebuttal speeches are to select your
strongest arguments and to refute all of the other teams
arguments that they have extended.
What happens to the arguments you dont extend?
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Flowing
They are considered dropped. However, dropping your own
arguments can be OK if you have better arguments to spend
your time on. But you should always be careful not to drop
your opponents arguments.
This means that you cannot bring the argument back up later in
the debate if they were not extended in one speech
For example, if you make an argument in the 2AC, but it is not
extended in the 1AR, then the 2AR generally cannot extend the
argument, because it was dropped in the 1AR.
Another example, if you argue a disadvantage in the 1NC, but
neither the 2NC nor the 1NR extend it, the 2NR generally cannot
extend the disadvantage because it was dropped in the negative
block.

Back to Table of Contents

Flowing
Why should you use so much paper?
This helps to keep the arguments organized by subject
For example, when arguing a disadvantage you will generally
have all the following arguments

Negatives link and impact arguments

Affirmatives refutations to the disadvantage in the 2AC
Negatives responses in the negative block to the the 2AC refutations
The 1ARs extensions of the 2AC arguments and the 1ARs responses
to the responses of the negative block
The 2NRs extensions of responses to the 2AC arguments and
responses to the extensions made by the 1AR
The 2ARs extensions of the 1AR extensions and responses to the
2NRs extensions
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Flowing
Why should you use so much paper?
You can see how the arguments could add up quickly. It is
not unusual for there to be 25 or more arguments,
extensions and refutations on each disadvantage throughout
the debate.
And thats just for ONE disadvantage. If there are multiple
negative arguments (disadvantages, kritiks, counterplans)
the arguments, extensions and refutations in the debate
could easily be over 100.
Keeping the arguments separated by subject (i.e. on
separate sheets of paper) you will be much more organized
in a debate round.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Flowing
Why should you use so much paper?
Another reason to use separate sheets of paper is so that
you can rearrange the order of the arguments that you
wish to address during your speech.
If you have all the arguments flowed on one sheet of
paper in the order they are made in the 1AC and 1NC
then it may be difficult to change the order of the
arguments you respond to.
Many advanced debaters will want to change the order
they address the main arguments (kritiks, disadvantages,
etc.) for the purposes of using their time more efficiently

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Flowing
Using separate sheets of paper makes its
easier to split the block
For example - the 2NC can take the sheets
of paper that have the disadvantage and the
kritik and the 1NR can take the sheets of
paper that have the affirmative case case
and a topicality argument
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Flowing
One more reason why flowing is important is so
that you can easily give your judge a roadmap.
Outside of debate, roadmaps help drivers
determine where they will be going, the streets that
will be taken and where their destination will be.
Similarly in debate, roadmaps are given by the
debaters to the judge so that the judge knows the
order the debater will be addressing which
arguments
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Flowing
However, in debate, you do not need to
draw out a map for the judge!
Simply state the name of the positions in the
order you will address them

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Flowing
An example of a 1NC roadmap would be, 5 off-case positions
and then the affirmative case.
Judges dont usually expect the 1NC to disclose the positions they are
going to argue before they are argued.
However, in the 1NC, you should always name the position first before
you start to make arguments on the position

An example of a 2AC roadmap would be stating, Topicality

increase, Topicality its aid to Nigeria, the Economy
Disadvantage, the Capitalism Kritik, the affirmative case, then
the EU Counterplan
After the 1NC, list the order by the name given to the positions
by the 1NC to avoid confusion.
For example, if the 1NC calls the position the economy disadvantage
dont call the same position by a different name

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Flowing
A final note
Flowing is a very difficult skill to learn. It is
difficult to know what to write down, when to
write it down, and how much of what was said
to write down.
However, it becomes easier with practice.
Dont expect your flowing skills to come to
you, practice them by watching debates at
tournaments.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Tournaments
Tournaments are where you will put all of
the information you have learned together.
It is difficult to know exactly what all this
means until you go out and experience it
first hand.
Attending and debating at a tournament will
help you understand and piece together
what you have learned so far
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Tournaments
Tournaments are usually held on weekends
This is partially because tournaments are
usually held at a host school and debates are
held in classrooms of the host school.
Debates would be difficult to have if they
occurred while a class was going on and the
debate would surely disrupt the class.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Tournaments
The schedule of the tournament is usually
set by the host school
Assuming there is an even number of
debate teams, each team will be assigned to
debate a team from another school
If there is an odd number of debate teams,
one team each round will get a bye meaning a win without debating
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Tournaments
A tournament usually has anywhere from 5-11 debate
rounds
3-6 of these rounds will be preliminary debate rounds in
which all teams that have signed up for the tournament will
be scheduled to debate
The remaining 2-5 rounds are elimination rounds.
Teams that do very well in the preliminary debate rounds
will advance to the elimination rounds.
Once a team loses an elimination round (also known as an
out round), the team is out of or eliminated from the
tournament.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Tournaments
Teams that advance to elimination rounds usually
receive a trophy or an award of some sort from the
host school.
Debaters that perform well individually
throughout the tournament may win speaker
awards.
Debaters that win speaker awards dont always
advance to elimination rounds though.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Tournaments
When you dont advance to elimination
rounds, it may be helpful to watch the
elimination rounds.
Many tournaments will permit debaters who
have not advanced to watch and flow the
out rounds.
This would be wise to help you develop
your flowing skills.
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Tournaments
At tournaments you are a representative of
your school and it is important to always
behave and dress appropriately.

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Review
What are the burdens of the affirmative and
of the negative?
Affirmative - burden of proof
Negative - burden of rejoinder / burden of
clash

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Review
When can a team use its allotted prep time?
Beforeorafteranyspeechorcrossexamination
period

When can a debater actually prepare?

Beforethedebate,duringonesownpreptime,
duringtheotherteamspreptime,duringtheother
teamsspeeches,duringonespartnersspeech,
andduringacrossexaminationthatoneisnot
involvedin
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Review
What are 4 stock issues?
Topicality
Harms
Inherency
Solvency

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Review
What are the 4 main negative positions?
Topicality, Disadvantages, Kritiks, and Counterplans

What other arguments can the negative

make?
Responses to the affirmatives harms, inherency
and solvency

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Review
What are the 5 steps of topicality?
Identify the word the plan doesnt meet, define the
word, state why the plan doesnt meet the definition,
argue why the definition is valid, and give voters

What are the 4 parts of a disadvantage?

Uniqueness, Link, Impact and Weighing

What are the 4 main parts of a kritik?

Link, Impact, Alternative, and Framework

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Review
What are the 3 main parts of a counterplan?
Text, Solvency, and Net Benefit

What are the 3 essential components of a

card?
Tag, Cite, and Quote

What should a cite include?

Authors name, qualifications, date, publication
title, and other important information
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Review
What 2 things should the quote or text of a
card include?
Claim and a warrant

Why is it important to flow?

To remember what argument were made in the
debate, to not drop arguments made by the other
team, and to organize the arguments made
The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Review
If the negative has 4 off case position and
made 2 harms arguments, 3 solvency
arguments and 2 inherency arguments, how
many pieces of paper should a debater be
flowing on in this round?
5 - one for each of the off case positions and one for
all of the case arguments

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The End of
Introduction to Policy Debate

The Forensics Files