Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!
The Mechanics of Debate
Areas of
Debate		 Resolutions Policy Case
Structure		 LD Case
Structure		 Policy
Tactics		 Topicality
Disadvantages Kritiks &
Counterplans		 LD Time
& Tactics		 LD Arguments
& Theory		 Flowing Helpful
Hints














What is debate and why should I do it?

Debate is like a contest, or a game, where two or more people present arguments in order to persuade a judge to vote for them. Mankind has been doing it since the beginning of time, but for different reasons. In high school competitive debate, we don't do it for awards, although you will get some. We don't do it to prove our ideas are superior, although you will have to do that as well. Debaters primarily do it to grow as people and as speakers. You will also learn to analyze, distinguish between the vital and the unimportant, support statements with valid proof and then demand the same from others, and learn to present yourself and your arguments in a clear effective manner. Besides, you build muscle from carrying around boxes of evidence! If you don't believe that debate is wonderful, read what these people have to say about it:
"I think debating in high school and college is the most valuable training whether for politics, the law, business, or for service on community committees such as the PTA and the League of Women Voters. A good debater must not only study material in support of his own case, but he must also, of course, thoroughly analyze the expected argument of his opponent. The give and take of debating, the testing of ideas, is essential to democracy. I wish we had a good deal more debating in our educational institutions than we do now."
-- John F. Kennedy, August 22, 1960
 "If it is a disgrace to a man when he cannot defend himself in a bodily way, it would be absurd not to think him disgraced when he cannot defend himself with reason in a speech."
-- Aristotle in The Rhetoric
"One of the greatest benefits to debate is the people you meet and the friends you make. Whether on North's team, or competitors from other schools, there's a tremendous sense of community"
-- Joshua Claybourn, team President 1998-99
 "I started debate because I was curious, I stayed in debate because it was the most mind challenging and diverse team activity that high school has to offer, and I'm leaving debate with memories and lessons to last forever."
-- Diana Moers, team President 1999-2000

Debating is the ultimate mind exercise.


The three types of debate
  1. Lincoln-Douglas Debate (LD): Named after the famous congressional debates of Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, this category is largely based on values and ethics. There are two sides to every resolution, Affirmative and Negative. The Affirmative debater must 'affirm' the topic of resolution, or show why it must be upheld. The Negative, means just the opposite; they must 'negate' the resolution, or show why it is faulty. The resolutions, and hence arguments, usually involve ethical and moral issues. Heavy emphasis on logic and philosophy.

  2. Cross Examination Debate (aka Team or Policy Debate): Just as in LD, there are two sides to every resolution. Unlike LD, where there is a single debater, policy debate is made of an Affirmative team of two debaters against a Negative team of two. Policy resolutions are typically matters of "policy" and require statistical and concrete evidence. Therefore policy usually requires more research and evidence, but since you have a partner, the burden is shared. You must be able to work well with your partner and enjoy the thrill of battle to do well in this category.

  3. Parliamentary Debate (Congress): The setup and design of H.S. Congress is much like Congress at the state and federal level. You are given bills and resolutions (in the form of legislation) on which you debate. Speeches are three minutes long and sometimes involve cross-examination. These contestants are usually interested in politics. Speeches are often done impromptu (on the spot) and the research burden is relatively low compared to Policy and LD. Unfortunately Congress isn't offered at every tournament, so most debaters pick it up as an alternative event when they can't do Policy or LD. Some people though focus solely on Congress.
Back to the top

What is a resolution?

Each year the topics for Policy and LD are voted on by the high schools across America and decided upon by the National Forensic League (NFL). The Policy resolution stays the same year-round while the LD topic changes bi-monthly. Congressional bills almost always change from tournament to tournament. Here are example resolutions:

Resolved: That the federal government should establish a program to substantially reduce juvenile crime in the United States. (1996-97 Policy topic)

Resolved: That the United States should substantially change its foreign policy toward Russia. (1998-99 Policy topic)

Capitalism is superior to socialism as a means of achieving economic justice. (1996-97 LD topic)

Human genetic engineering is morally justified. (1996-97 LD topic)

Back to the top


CASE STRUCTURE

In order to argue, you must take a stance. In competitive debate, you organize and structure your argument in the form of a case. Both Policy and LD cases should be no more than 8 minutes long. It should be noted that LDers have both a negative and affirmative case. This information can help you grasp and understand the basics, but looking at a varsity member's case is usually the best way to learn. The structure of an LD and Policy case differ greatly. (excerpts taken from essays by Jeff Lindemyer)

Policy Case Structure

In the beginning, Policy cases were set up in a "stock issues" format. Many debaters, especially on the local level, still use this format. More and more, however, debaters turn to what is called a "comparative advantage" structure. You should choose whichever structure best fits you, but many novice find that a stock issues case is easier to write and can lay a better foundation for future debating. I will explain both here. All plans must be considered Prima facie. Prima facie is Latin for "On face value," which means that the Affirmative case has all the requirements to be a valid case.

Stock Issues Format

INTRODUCTION: The Policy introduction usually contains a fact or quotation that grabs the judge's attention and will highlight the harm and/or significance of the status quo (current situation). The introduction should be very short (a few sentences) and should state the resolution. Some debaters define the wording of the resolution here.

CONTENTIONS: To further support his/her case, a debater will then offer Contentions (or main points). A debater uses sub-points beneath the contention to further illustrate the contentions point. The sub-points are labeled like a thesis statement in an essay, but are called "tags". Tags summarize what the point is mainly about. This is so both your opponent and judge can flow your arguments. (We'll cover flowing later). The tags are supported by pieces of evidence that are often referred to as "cards".

STOCK ISSUES: The stock issues are five voting issues in a round. A judge often focuses on these issues and gives them the most weight in a round. The easiest way to remember the stock issues is to think of them as the SHITS: Significance, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Solvency.

Each contention in a case is a stock issue. The order is usually Harms/Significance, Inherency, then the Plan, next Solvency, and finally the Advantages of the Plan. (Topicality will be discussed later)

HARMS/SIGNIFICANCE: Significance and Harms is simply asking the question, "What is the problem with the status quo and is it significant enough that it needs attention?" The Affirmative wants the Harms stock issue to prove that there is a problem in the status quo. Significance shows why this problem matters. For example, a harm could be that global warming is occurring. Significance would be that global warming causes drought and famine. These two are fairly similar and can be grouped together in a contention.

INHERENCY: Inherency is the reason why the Affirmative Plan is not currently in effect. Inherency is basically asking, "What is stopping the current system from solving the harms or preventing the plan from being put into action?" Examples of Inherent barriers would be funding, attitudes, current laws, or others. This stock issue basically proves that the plan is not in the status quo. There are two types of inherent barriers: "structural" and "attitudinal". Structural barriers are actual laws or programs that prevent the case, attitudinal barriers are attitudes opposed to it.

PLAN: This contention is often the hardest for novice and varsity debaters alike. It is the heart and guts of a case, but it often gets overlooked. Four "planks" make up a plan: Mandates, Funding, Enforcement, and Fiat.

Mandates outline, point-blank, what it is that your plan is doing (example: All school systems will allow, permit, and provide for a voucher system). A plan usually has at least three mandates and sometimes as many as ten. Mandates are the most important plank.

Funding is also crucial. Many debaters will only fund their case by "normal means". Be creative and resourceful with how you will fund your plan and mandates. Enforcement is merely the agency and means in which you will enforce and carry out your plan (example: Department of Education). Fiat, or "the power of fiat", allows the affirmative to frame the debate in terms of assuming that the plan has already been passed through Congress and signed by the President. The affirmative team has this "power" so debates don't get hung on arguing whether or not the plan would pass through Congress. Instead the debate should center on the case's merits, or lack thereof. Always read the plan, specifically the mandates, slowly and carefully in a round so that the judge can write them down on the "flow".

SOLVENCY: The last stock issue, Solvency, is one of the most important. Solvency asks, "Does the Affirmative plan action rectify the harms presented?" The Affirmative must prove that their plan solves for their harms, hence Solvency. This contention should have the strongest and evidence of all.

Comparitive Advantage Format

Comparative advantage cases, as mentioned earlier, are growing in popularity, especially on the national and state circuit. They essentially involve the same ingredients as a stock issues case. The first contention is usually Inherency, followed by the plan. Finally, there are three to four Advantages. The Advantages typically have three sub-points, or tags. The first one or two tags are harms/significance, followed by solvency tag(s). Each Inherency point should correspond to an Advantage. The main thrust of a Comparative Advantage case weighs the advantages against the disadvantages. As the affirmative you want to show that your case has more advantages to voting for it than the negative has legitimately shown disadvantages to it. This case structure makes it easier to show that the advantages "outweigh" the disadvantages.
Back to the top
LD Case Structure

INTRODUCTION: An LD case is basically written in the form of an essay. To start off, a debater either uses an opening quote or resolutional analysis, as an introduction. The quotation is both a way to grab attention and begin to explain your case. The resolutional analysis, on the other hand, explains a certain facet of the resolution in a way that typically benefits you and your case.

An LDer often offers what is called "Observations." Observations are simply something that you say about the resolution.

VALUE: Next, a debater defines what he/she believes are the key terms in the resolution. The Affirmative should define most words in the resolution, whereas the Negative only needs to define words that they are not in agreement with. For fairness, both sides should use definitions that are from reliable, unbiased dictionaries, as well as definitions that best interpret the resolution.

VALUE: After the definitions, the debater then introduces the 'heart' of their case. The center of every case should revolve around a specific value that best upholds or negates the resolution, if Affirmative or Negative, respectively. This is called a "Core Value" (sometimes called a value premise), or CV. The core value should be repeatedly referred back to throughout the case.

CRITERION: In addition to a core value, a debater often offers what is called a 'Criterion' (sometimes called a value criterion). A criterion is basically a standard that evaluates and weighs the round.

CONTENTIONS: To further support his/her case, a debater will then offer Contentions (or main points). Contentions are labeled like a thesis statement in an essay, but are called "tags". Often, a debater uses sub-points beneath the contention tag to further illustrate the contentions point. Tags summarize what the point is mainly about. This is so both your opponent and judge can flow your arguments. (We'll cover flowing later.) Analysis and evidence, usually in the form of quotes, are then placed below the contention tags. A case should consist of three contentions.

CONCLUSIONS: In the conclusion, a debater summarizes their case, restating their key points. A closing quote is appropriate. The quote should be short, concise, and profound.

A Final Thought on Case Structure

As you can see, there are significant differences between LD and Policy that's reflected in their case structures. Hopefully you have an idea by now as to what category best suits you. The rest of the page will be divided between Policy and LD. I will first present Policy arguments and negative attacks. Then I will discuss "flowing" for both LD and Policy. Next I will present LD arguments and attacks. The final section will discuss strategies for cross-examination and tips for everyone.

Back to the top
Time Allotment and Speaking Order (Policy)

First Affirmative Constructive (1AC): 8 minutes; 1AC gives the case. The Affirmative speaker should be fast, clear, and have an excellent understanding of the case.

Cross-examination (CX): 3 minutes; During this time, the Second Negative Speaker (2N) asks the First Affirmative Speaker (1A) questions about the affirmative case. Often the questions are for clarification. The following is an example of CX:

2NC: Who funds the Affirmative plan?
1AC: The federal Government.
2NC: What part of the government?
1AC: The Department of State.
2NC: How much will this plan cost?
1AC: Around 20 million dollars.
2NC: Does the DoS have that much money?

Generally, a judge will allow someone a 15 second 'grace period' to finish answering a question after their three minutes are up, but they will allow no further questions afterwards.

Typically the Negative uses a large amount of its 'prep time' at this point. Usually five minutes of prep time is allotted to each team, in which, speeches should be prepared and evidence located for those speeches.

First Negative Constructive (1NC): 8minutes; This speech, by the 1NC, is the first in the round that should provide a roadmap. A roadmap is a list of what arguments will be brought up and where they should be written on the flow. This is to make the speech more clear for the opposing team and the judge. Any argument can be brought up in the 1NC, although disadvantages (DA's) are usually saved until the 2NC. Most novice 1NCs should concentrate on Harms, Significance, and Inherency. Counter plans, kritiks, Topicality, and Justification should be brought up in the 1NC for reasons of fairness and abuse. Also these issues are a priori, which means they must be top priority and brought up first.

CX: 3 minutes maximum. During this time, the 1AC asks the 1NC questions. The easiest way to remember who should ask questions is that you never ask questions before your own speech. This provides your partner with time to prepare arguments for their upcoming speech. During CX, you are allowed to ask opposing teams for their evidence, however, they are not required to give it to you. If a team asks you for evidence, the ethical and polite thing to do is to give it to them.

Often the Affirmative uses a small amount of its 5 minutes of 'prep time' at this point.

Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): 8 minutes maximum. The 2AC must answer all the arguments brought up by the 1NC. It is a good idea to support your speech with evidence called extensions. Extensions are answers to common Neg. arguments and more of the same case cards that the Affirmative has on their own case. The majority of your cards should be new, though.

CX: 3 minutes maximum. The 1NC asks the 2AC questions.

Second Negative Constructive (2NC): 8 minutes maximum. The 2NC can bring up any new arguments, excluding those listed under the 1NC. The 2NC can also extend on the 1NC's arguments. DA's are usually run in the 2NC. The 2NC is the Negative's last chance to bring up new evidence.

CX: 3 minutes maximum. This is the last CX of the entire debate round. It is asked by the 2AC to the 2NC.

First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): 5 minutes maximum. Notice that up until this point, the teams have taken turns speaking. This time period during the last Constructive and First Rebuttal is called the Negative Block. The Negative team gets two speeches in a row. The 2NC and the 1NR should not discuss the same issues because it would bore the judge to hear similar speeches twice in a row. The best use of the Neg. Block comes from having the 2NC bring up new issues and the 1NR talk about issues brought up in the 1NC. This speech can be an advantage or disadvantage for the Negative team depending on how it is used.

First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR): 5 minutes maximum.This speech, if the Negative Block is used efficiently, is the hardest speech in the round. The First Affirmative Speaker must address 12 minutes of Negative speaking in 5 minutes. A good way to handle the 1AR is to "group," or combine, the similar Negative arguments. Pull evidence from the 1AC and 2AC, or carry it through. This saves time.

Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): 5 minutes maximum. The 2NR is the last negative speech, spoken by the Second Negative Speaker. It is the time for the Negative team to pick their most important arguments and elaborate on them. Pull out of the worst arguments, so there is more time to focus on the best arguments in the debate. This speech should be the most convincing Negative speech.

Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): 5 minutes maximum. This is the last speech of the round. The Second Affirmative speaker should sum up the round, convince the judge to vote Affirmative, and give an overview or under view of the round.
Back to the top
TOPICALITY

Topicality is designed to check abuse. Topicality simply asks, "Is the Affirmative debating the resolution?" It can be run from any word in the resolution. For example, regarding the 98-99 Russia resolution, if a plan is not towards Russia, you could run topicality on the word "towards". Topicality is over used, but it is a vital stock issue because it cuts out squirrelly Affirmative cases.

When arguing Topicality on the Negative, it is customary to define one or more of the words in the resolution. Then you should explain how the Affirmative's case does not meet the definition you provide. This is called a violation of the resolution. Next you should provide some standards to evaluate your definition. These are basically reasons why your interpretation should be accepted. Some of the most popular standards include:

  1. Preserves the precise meaning of the word and protests grammatical preciseness.
  2. It is a more even division of ground, so as to provide for a fairer debate.
  3. Bright line-The negative team clearly and fairly defines ground and makes an obvious line for what is topical and what is not.
Lastly, when arguing Topicality, tell the judge why they should vote on Topicality. For example, "Topicality is a voting issue because it is a stock issue, it sets jurisdiction, provides fair ground, it is a rule of the game, and it should be decided first in the round."

Two branches of Topicality are Effects Topicality and Extra Topicality. Extra topicality is arguing that the Affirmative has gone outside the bounds of the resolution. A topicality argument should first have a definition, second-a violation, third-standards, and fourth-voters. For example, regarding the 98-99 Russia resolution, they might provide a plan to increase aid to Russia, China, and Japan. You can see how this would unfairly delimit the resolution and provide the Affirmative with advantages not related to a policy with Russia. Effects topicality is arguing that the Affirmative team is only topical by the effects of their plan. For example, again regarding the 98-99 Russia resolution, Effects Topicality is when a plan occurs in the US, by the US, and only affects Russia in it's results.
Back to the top