Policy Debate Manual (PDF) - Georgia Forensic Coaches Association

Owner InformationOwners' General InformationSubmitting Owner's InformationRSC Property InformationEnvironmental ConditionContaminant ConcentrationsESA InformationQP Profile InformationCertification StatementSupporting DocumentsOwner's InformationSubmitting Owner's InformationType of Owner *Owner Name *Municipal CorporationCity of OttawaStreet Number * Street Name * Apt No. /RR No.110Laurier Avenue WestCity, Town or Village *Province *Postal Code * CountryOttawaOntarioK1P 1J1CanadaSubmitting Owner's Contact InformationContact First Name * Contact Last Name *GordonMacNairPhone Number * (including area code) Fax Number (including area code) Email Address(613) 580-2424 (613) 560-6051gordon.macnair@ottawa.ca

(the topic) does not look or sound like a question— it looks and sounds like a statement. Insteadof asking “what should we do about racism?”(for example) a debate resolution would say “weshould pass better laws to punish businesses thathave racist hiring practices.” Just to make surethat you know a debate resolution when you seeit, we start every topic with the word “resolved.”So, continuing the example above, a debate resolutionmight be something like “Resolved: thatthe United States Federal Government shouldenact a policy to eliminate racist hiring practicesin the United States.” Some resolutions deal withproblems within the U.S., while others deal withinternational issues or foreign policy.The Structure of a Debate RoundThe two debate teams who are competingagainst each other have specific jobs to do. Oneteam’s job is to argue that the resolution — thestatement that we should make some specificchange to address a national or internationalproblem — is a good idea. We call that team “theaffirmative” because it is their job to affirm theidea of the resolution. The other team’s job isto argue that the resolution is a bad idea. Wecall that team “the negative” because it is theirjob to negate the idea of the resolution. Oneteam is for the kind of change described in theresolution, the other team is against that kindof change.An important thing to know is that the affirmativeusually proposes a very specific policycalled the "plan." So, if the resolution says theU.S. should enact a policy about racism, theaffirmative has to come up with aspecific proposal, or plan.Will you be affirmative or negative?Well, there’s the interesting part— in some debate rounds, you will bethe affirmative, and in other roundsyou will be the negative. We’ll talkabout debate tournaments more injust a minute, but get ready for theidea that you will learn to debate bothsides of the resolution!In a single round of debate competition,each person gives two speech-es. The first speech eachperson gives is called a“constructive” speech,because it is the speechwhere each person constructsthe basic argumentsthey will makethroughout the debate.The second speech iscalled a “rebuttal,” becausethis is the speechwhere each person triesto rebut (or answer) thearguments made by theother team, while usingtheir own argumentsto try to convince thejudge to vote for theirteam.The affirmative hasto convince the judge tovote for a change, whichSpeechesIn a Debate1ACCross-Ex1NCCross-Ex2ACCross-Ex2NCCross-Ex1NR1AR2NR2ARmakes their job hard since people are usuallyunwilling to do things differently. Because werecognize this difficulty, the affirmative gets tospeak first and last — this makes them kind oflike the prosecution in a criminal trial, trying toovercome the presumption of innocence. Theorder of speeches in a debate is listed in the boxto the right.What do all these numbers and letters mean?Well, each debater on a team is either the firstspeaker or the second speaker. That is to say, asingle debater gives the first constructive speechAND the first rebuttal speech. The other debatergives the second constructive speech ANDthe second rebuttal speech. The numbers in thelist above indicate which debater we are talkingabout (the first or the second), the letters indicatewhat team the person is on (affirmative ornegative) and what speech the person is giving(constructive or rebuttal). Thus, 1AC means“first affirmative constructive” and 2NR means“second negative rebuttal.”But wait, there’s more. In a debate round,you don’t just get to give speeches. You also getto ask questions. Each debater gets to spend aperiod of time (usually 3 minutes) asking oneNational Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page

of the debaters on the other team questions.We call this question-and-answer period “crossexamination”because it’s a lot like the timeduring a trial when a lawyer asks a witness forthe other side questions. There is one cross-examinationperiod after each constructive speech.The person who just finished speaking answersthe questions. That makes sense, since the pointof the cross-examination is to talk about thespeech that just ended. The person on the otherteam who is not about to speak asks the questions.So, when the 1AC is over the second negativespeaker asks the questions and the first affirmativespeaker answers the questions.Debate TournamentsDebate tournaments are held so that studentsfrom different schools can get togetherat a central location in order to compete againstone another. This brings us to one of the mostimportant things about competitive policy debate:teams from the same school almost neverdebate against oneanother at a tournament.The point ofhaving a tournamentis to allow many differenttwo-person debateteams from manydifferent schools toc o m p e te w i t h ou thav ing to debateagainst people fromtheir own schools.One school (or someother debate-relatedorganization) usuallyhosts a tournamentand invites schoolsfrom all over the area (and sometimes all overthe country) to come debate.Going to a debate tournament means thatyou and your partner will debate several times.Everyone at the tournament debates for acertain number of rounds. At the end of thispreliminary series of debates (or “prelims”), theteams with the best records advance to the eliminationdebates (or “elims”), where they continueDiagram of a Debate Round1A 2A 1N 2NTableTableJTable• The debaters sit facing the judge• Instead of tables, debaters may have desks or something else• There may be an audience, but most debates don't have oneto compete in a single-elimination format until asingle team is crowned champion. Tournamentsusually have 4 or 6 prelims, though college tournamentsmight have as many as 8. An individualteam will debate half their prelim rounds onthe affirmative and half on the negative. So, ina tournament with 6 prelim rounds, you andyour partner would be affirmative 3 times andnegative 3 times.If this whole situation sounds really complicated,don’t worry. You and your partner willnot have to deal with the complicated part. Instead,when you arrive at the tournament, youwill be given a piece of paper that tells you whoyou and your partner are debating in the firstdebate round, what side you are debating on(affirmative or negative), who is judging you,and what room you are debating in.. This pieceof paper is called a “pairing” or a “schematic.”Before every round, you will receive anotherpairing that tells you where to go and who todebate. Remember that debate tournamentscan be busy and confusingplaces, so youmay have to find thepairings yourself if noone shows you wherethey are. There maynot be enough copiesof the pairing foreveryone, so bringwriting supplies tocopy down your owninformation for eachround.Pairings will usuallytell you when eachround is supposed tobegin. However, a debateround cannot start until both teams (all 4debaters) and the judge are present in the room.Teams and judges are sometimes late, so do notassume that your debate has been cancelled ifthe other participants are not there when youarrive. Most students do not have a clear ideaof what to do in the first few debate rounds. Ifyou get confused, don’t hesitate to ask the judgefor help.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page

“I have four arguments in favor of letting me stayout. First, I’m very responsible. Second, I havea cell phone so you can call me to check on me.Third, I’ve gotten three As on my report card forthree semesters in a row. Fourth, the other kidsall get to stay out later than me and I’m worriedthat your reputation as cool parents will start tosuffer if you don’t change your policy.”Another thing about debate that’s importantto know is that debaters rely on evidence whenthey speak. The word “evidence” can mean alot of different things, but in debate it generallymeans arguments made by experts and journalistsin published documents like newspapers,magazines, web sites, and books. Debaters copyparts of published arguments to use in their ownspeeches. This doesn’t mean they’re stealingother people’s ideas. Debaters are careful to tellthe judge who wrote their evidence and whenit was written. You might hear a debater makean argument and immediately follow it with thename of an expert, a year, and a long quote. Thisis an example of a debater reading evidence in aspeech. Because debate is so reliant on evidence,you will end up reading a lot of things that havebeen written by experts on the topic. You willeven end up doing your own research to findnew arguments about the debate topic. Don’tworry — it’s not homework, so it’s not as boringas stuff you have to do for school.There are definitely kinds of evidence thatdon't involve academic experts. Personal experiences,stories written by normal people directlyinvolved with important issues, and even argumentsmade in music or on film can count asevidence in debate rounds.Arguing About ChangeThere are many different ways to debate,and every year creative debaters and coachescome up with even more new ideas. Overtime, however, debaters have developed somestandard kinds of arguments that help themunderstand how to debate issues of nationaland international policy. For an affirmative toprove that the judge should vote for them — thatthe judge should vote to change the way we aredoing things right now — the affirmative mustaddress five “stock issues.” The part of the 1ACthat addresses these issues is called the affirmative"case" — as in "the case for change."TopicalityRemember that the affirmative is generallyexpected to have a specific policy proposal forchange called “the plan.” Topicality deals withwhether the affirmative plan is an example ofthe resolution — whether the plan does what theresolution says should be done. If the plan doesnot support every word of the resolution, theaffirmative team may not actually be supportingthe resolution. This is unfair to the negative team,who is prepared to debate the resolution and notsome random idea the affirmative has. The negativewould say that the affirmative is “not topical”and should therefore lose the debate.Significance and Harms“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” This classic argumentreflects the assumption that most peoplehave about change — it isn’t necessary unless somethingis wrong with the way we’re doing thingsnow. The affirmative must demonstrate thatsomething bad (“harms”) is happening now, andthat the harms are important (or “significant”).If nothing is wrong right now, the judge won’t bepersuaded that a new plan is necessary.SolvencyIt’s great to have a plan for change, but notall plans work. Remember that time when youwere 6 and you thought you would make thecat happy by plugging its tail into an electricaloutlet? Didn’t work too well, did it? Affirmativesmust use evidence to prove that their plan solvesthe problems they have described as significantharms. If a plan doesn’t solve any problems, thejudge won’t vote for it.InherencySometimes you don’t need to do anythingabout a problem because it’s not going to bea problem for very long. One day, you mayhave a substitute teacher who is really annoyingand smells bad. You think about going totalk to the principal about this problem, butNational Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page

The Constructive Speeches1AC 1NC 2AC 2NCSignificance/HarmThere is or there will be asignificant problem.InherencyThe present course of actionis insufficient to copewith this problem. Absentpreventative or correctiveaction, the problem willcontinue to occur.PlanA specif ic proposal tochange the present systemin order to solve theproblem. The plan mustbe an example of the sortof action called for by theresolution.SolvencyThe plan is sufficient tosolve the problem, or atleast to mitigate it to somesignificant degree.The 1AC StructureThere are 2 basic types:I-Significance/HarmII-InherencyPLANIII-SolvencyI-Description of StatusQuoPLANAdvantagesA) Significance/HarmB) InherencyC) SolvencyDebaters are creative,so don’t be surprised bystrange case structures.“Case” ArgumentsThe negative may argue thatan element of the affirmativecase is incorrect—there is noproblem, the present systemis sufficient to cope with theproblem, or the plan is insufficientto cope with the problemin a significant way.The negative may also arguethat any argument made bythe affirmative is not onlyincorrect, but is actually theopposite of the truth.Topicality (T)The plan is not an exampleof the sort of action calledfor by the resolution.Disadvantages (DAs)The plan causes undesirableside-effects, not necessarilyrelated to the resolution orthe case.A) BrinkB) LinkC) ImpactThe negative argues that thebad effects of the plan outweighwhatever advantage(s)the affirmative claims.CounterplansA Negative proposal for actionto solve the problemforwarded by the affirmative.These proposals aredifferent from the plan andcan be non-topical.Another requirement forcounterplans is that theydemonstrate some reasonwhy the case is a bad idea—”competitiveness.”CritiquesThe negative may arguethat the plan should berejected because the basicassumptions of the affirmativeare bad or it uses badlanguage or ideas.Answering theNegativeThe 2AC attempts to answerthe arguments madeby the 1NC, but it is also thejob of the 2AC to pre-emptthe arguments that will bemade by both of the nexttwo negative speakers. The2AC must therefore makemuch more extensive argumentsin certain areas thanthe 1NC. This is a definitedisadvantage strategically,as the arguments madeby the 2AC must be goodenough to withstand theentire block of negativeattacks.Using the 1ACMost 2AC’s will attemptto use arg uments andevidence which have beenforwarded in the 1AC toanswer arguments madein the 1NC. Affirmativeswrite their first constructivespeeches not only to maketheir case to the judge, butalso to provide them witharguments that will be usableby the 2AC.This is the last speech inwhich affirmatives are usuallyallowed to make newarguments.Extending PARTof the 1NCThe 2NC must choosesome (but NOT ALL) ofthe arguments made bythe 1NC to extend. The2N and the 1N must communicatewith each other tomake sure that they are nottrying to extend the samearguments.Most of the 2NC will bespent extending and expandingon argumentsmade in the 1NC. The 2NCmust also answer the argumentsmade by the 2AC.The negative argumentsmay change substantiallyfrom their original formduring this speech.There is no requirementthat the 2NC cover particulararguments, butmany 2NC’s like to coverplan arguments, especiallydisadvantages.New ArgumentsIt is not common, but2NC’s will sometimes makecompletely new arguments.Even when the 2NC doesnot make a completely newargument, there will oftenbe new links, impacts, orspecific case or counterplanarguments. The 1ARcan respond freely to bothkinds of new arguments.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page

The Rebuttals1NR 1AR 2NR 2ARExtending OTHER1NC ArgumentsIn many ways, the 1NR islike having several moreminutes of 2NC. This is thesecond speech in what iscalled the “negative block.”Because the 2NC and the1NR are like two parts ofthe same speech, the 1NRmust be careful to extenddifferent but complementaryarguments from the 2NC.For example, if the 2NCextends disadvantages, the1NR might extend argumentsagainst the affirmativecase.Unlike the 2NC, the 1NRis not allowed to make newarguments unless they arein response to argumentsmade by the 2AC.Pick and ChooseThere is no requirementthat the 2NC and the1NR extend ALL of thearguments made by the1NC. Most negatives pickand choose their bestarguments. However, theaff irmative can extendarguments made in the2AC that aren’t answeredby the negative block,so BE CAREFUL! If thenegative does not extenda disadvantage that the affirmativehas “turned,” theaffirmative is free to claimthat disadvantage as an affirmativeadvantage.The HardestSpeech in the Debate(maybe)The 1AR must respond toBOTH the 2NC AND the1NR in a very small periodof time. This means thatmost 1AR’s tend to be fastand at least somewhat confusing.This is the speechin which the affirmativebegins to select the issueson which they will base thedebate.Good 1AR’s will makethese issues clear to thejudge while still giving the2AR plenty of options.Don’t Forget YourPrevious SpeechesThe 1AR must answer thearguments made by the2NC and the 1NR, butdon’t forget to extend thearguments made in the2AC. Even though it mayseem like the 1AC was along time ago, rememberto extend your “case” argumentsas well.Overcoming thePresumptionof the 2ARTrue, the 1AR has morespeech time to cover,but the 2NR has to be sopersuasive that the judgeremembers his or her argumentseven after the 2AR isover. The 2NR must makesense out of the 1AR andrefute those argumentsin a clear and conclusivefashion.At the end of a good 2NR,the judge should understandthe fundamentalnegative position in thedebate as well as the reasonsthe negative feels itshould win the round.Telling the StoryGiven the number of argumentsin the round, it iseasy to get bogged down.Make sure to put all thearguments together intoa “story”—an explanationof which issues (such asdisadvantages and casearguments) the negativeis winning and why thoseissues are more importantthan any arguments theaffirmative might be winning.This story is usuallytold at the beginning of the2NR as an “overview.” Theoverview should be shortbut comprehensive.The Final WordThe 2AR is probably themost powerful speech inthe round because therecan be no response to thearguments made in it. The2AR usually walks a fineline between extending thearguments made by his orher partner and makingarguments which have notbeen made before in thedebate. Because new argumentsare not allowed inmost rebuttal speeches, itis important to stay on theright side of the line!Telling the StoryA good 2AR traces the affirmativeline of argumentationfrom the 1AC to thefinal speech, making thejudge understand why, inlight of the argumentsmade in the 2NR, the affirmativeshould still win theround. As with the 2NR,this “story” usually appearsin the form of an overviewto the speech.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page

Flowing Tips1. Don’t ever give up and stop. When flowinga fast debater do not stop and listen. If youmiss a response, go on to the next response.You can always ask the debater in cross-examinationfor your missed responses. Remember,the more you practice, the easierflowing gets.2. Don’t be disorganized. When flowing thedisorganized speaker, do not follow his orher example. Write all of his or her argumentsin one column on a separate legalpad. Then in you speech, answer all of his orher arguments. Then go back to the structureand point out what you are winning andwhat your opponent failed to answer in hisor her speech.3. Use structure. Structure and label all thearguments on your flow the same way thatthe speaker you are flowing is structuringand labeling his or her arguments. Be sureto write down all the numbers and lettersyou hear on your flow so that you can referto specific subpoints of your partner or theother team later in the debate.4. Use pre-flows. Flow all of your argumentsclearly before you speak. Before the debate,it will sometimes be possible to pre-flow genericarguments on post-it notes.5. Use your partner. If you cannot flow allof your arguments before you speak, handyour flow to your partner during cross-examinationand have him or her fill in yourflow for you. Use the other team’s prep timeto talk to your partner about arguments youmight have missed.6. Label your arguments. On your briefs andpre-flows, label your arguments with short,accurate, precise, and specific labels, whichare no more than four words long. As youare labeling, put the crucial words first. Ifyou label arguments correctly, you will beable to give a better speech because yourjudge, partners and opponents will find youeasier to flow.The Need for Lots of Flowpads andMany Sheets of PaperYou should use many sheets of paper foreach argument and you many wish to use differentflowpads for different arguments. In anydebate you will have:• a flow related to the 1AC structure.• a flow listing arguments of the 1NC whichare not related to the case (disads, T, counterplans,etc.)• a flow listing any 2AC arguments• a flow listing extensions of the 1NC or newarguments made by the 2NCFlowing Speech by Speech1AC:1NC:2AC:Everyone flows this speech. The Affirmativeteam should have this speechpre-f lowed on post-it notes or legalpads. Use lots of space between eachargument.Everyone flows this speech. The negativemay have their generic arguments alreadypre-flowed. During the cross-examinationperiod following the 1NC, the 2NC flowsonto the 1NC’s flow any responses thatthe 1NC didn’t get.Everyone flows this speech. Use crossexamination to get parts that you missedor have your partner fill in the missinginformation.2NC: Everyone but the 1NC flows this speech.The 1NR follows this speech with extensionarguments.1NR: Everyone flows this speech.1AR: Everyone flows this speech.2NR: Everyone flows this speech.2AR: Everyone flows this speech.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 10

Symbols and Abbreviationsbecausebcoutweighsow or o/wcauses/caused/leads to→overviewOVchangeΔplan/policyPcompetitiveconstitutionalcompCquestion ?ratios/per /counterplanCPreal worldRWdecision ruleDRrepeat citeId or SSdisadvantageDAshould s/dropped/conceded argumentØshould nots/nevidence/cardev or X or PsignificancesigfiatFsolvency, solvedSgreater than >impact I or !standardtakeout (or takes out)stdto or t/oincrease/high↑theoryΘinherencyInh or Itherefore∴is/equals/approximately =is related to ~threshholdtopicalityTHT or Tisn’t/not equal/not/won’t/don’tkritik/critique≠K or Kturn, turnaround T/unconstitutionalUCless than

This Is What It Sounds Like In a SpeechFirst AffirmativeConstructive (1AC)Now, Observation 2: thereis too much crime in America.This problem presents itself inseveral different ways. SubpointA: Violent crime is ravishing ourcountry. The Wall Street Journalexplains in 2006: “There can beno question that gun violence isa major problem in this country.Last year alone, over ten thousandpeople fell victim to gunviolence. The carnage has notbeen limited to the inner cities.The still of the suburban nightis regularly broken by the soundof gunshots.”This impact is worse thana full-scale war. The New YorkTimes reports in 2005: “Whatis most surprising is that it hastaken Americans so long to reactto the horrible cost of gunownership. After all, thousandsof people are killed by guns everyyear. In some smaller countriesin the world, this kind ofloss of life would rival the deathtoll of a border war or a majorfamine.”Subpoint B: Robberiesplague our cities. John Willis,a reporter for the AlpharettaGazette, in 2006: “The problemseems to be escalating. Itis nearly impossible to attenda gathering of any size in thiscity and not hear stories ofrobberies, muggings, and carjackings.These criminals donot discriminate between oldand young, rich and poor, manand woman. All are potentialvictims. If we do not address thisproblem soon, we will not beable to leave our houses withoutfearing for our lives.”First NegativeConstructive (1NC)On observation two, subpointA, they say violent crimeis a problem. Group the twocards. One, both these cardsassume that we should passgun control laws, not that violentcrime is a problem. Two,neither of these cards says theproblem is getting worse. For allwe know, ten thousand deathscould be significantly less thantwo years ago. Three, violentcrime is on the decline. CelesteBrown, professor of sociologyat Emory, in 2005: “Ironically,amidst all this panic and paranoia,violent crime is on thedecline. Unnoticed and virtuallyunreported by the supposedlyliberal mainstream media, ratesof murder, rapes and other violentassualts have reached tenyearlows.” Four, they over-statetheir impacts. The second cardonly says we’re a large country,not that crime is worse than war.Five, there are no qualificationsfor their sources. Are these realarticles or letters to the editor?On Subpoint B, they sayrobberies are bad. One, theirauthor is awful. He’s a reporterfor a tiny newspaper I’ve neverheard of. Two, the evidence isweak. It only says that the authorthinks there’s a lot of crime inher city. There’s no research andno warrant for her claim. Three,most robberies are insignificant.The Los Angeles Times in 2004:“Although robberies have beenon the rise since the early 1990s,the increase has largely beenin the area of small break-ins.More people are losing their carstereo, but there are few majorrobberies.” Four, the evidenceoverstates the impact. Robberymeans you lose stuff, not thatyou fear for your life.Second AffirmativeConstructive (2AC)Now, observation two, subpointA. Group their first threeanswers. One, they concedethat the problem is significant.It doesn’t matter if our authorsagree with our plan or if theythink progress is being made,ten thousand people are dyingevery year. Two, both 1ACcards are from prestigious newspapers.The authors are bothreporters. Three, predictionsof a decline in violent crime arewrong. The National Review in2006: “Those who think violentcriminals are going to fade intothe night are mistaken. Minorassualts are down, but newspapersare full of stories of massmurders. These reports will onlyincrease in the years to come.”On 1NC number four, Ihave two answers. First, extendthe New York Times card. Itproves that thousands die everyyear. Second, our card gives perspective.Just because we don’tthink much of killing thousandsof people in the US doesn’tman that is the right mentality.On 1NC number five, that’sanswered above.Now, subpoint B. Grouptheir first two answers. One, thiscard proves that robberies arethreatening the suburbs. Two,their answers are elitist. Justbecause Willis is writing for asmall paper doesn’t mean herarguments are wrong. Three,narratives like this prove thatnormal citizens think crime isa major problem, even thoughthe negative refuses to opentheir eyes. 1NC three and fourare nonresponsive. So whatif robberies are small, they’restill bad. Even if you don’t die,you are robbed of your rightfulproperty.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 12

This Is What It Looks Like On the FlowFirst AffirmativeConstructive (1AC)OB 2: CrimeA) Viol CrimePWSJ 06Gun crime 10K dead.PNYT 05Gun ctrl? Like war.Ev bad - US=bigFirst NegativeConstructive (1NC)1) Ass gun ctrl2) Ev ≠ viol ↑3) Viol Crime ↓PBrown 0510 yr low4) Exag !Second AffirmativeConstructive (2AC)1) Grant sig2) 1AC ev = auth qual3) Viol crim ↑PNat Rev 06aslt ↓, murder will ↑1) X NYTproves sigNote: On anactual flow, youwould NOT writethe full titles ofthe speeches onthe top of thepage.5) No qual2) = perspect1) AB) RobberyPWillis 06quals? Only SAY robs bad1) Auth Bad2) Ev bad1) Grant sig2) Ans = elitist3) Narr = pop perc crime3) Robs ≠ sigPLAT 04Small robs1) NRStill lose prop4) Exag !National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 13

understanding in their audience. Often, non-traditionaldebaters use different kinds of structurein their speeches than traditional debaters do.Pros: Develops speaking skills that translate easilyinto traditional public speaking situations.Allows great depth of discussion on certainissues. Appeals to a broad audience, includingthose with no formal debate training.Cons: Slower speech means fewer argumentsmade in a given time period. Slower debatersmay be at a strategic disadvantage when competingagainst fast talkers. Fewer issues can bediscusssed in a single debate, and there is lesstime for expert evidence to be read.Best for: Judges who have no formal debate training,or who express a preference for slower debate.Hybrid (no known alias)Because debaters are beginning to recognizethe advantages of both fast and slow speech,some are working to develop a style that incorporatesthe best of both worlds. Typically, hybriddebaters speak faster than conversational speedbut do not work to achieve their maximum rate.This style also emphasizes speaking efficiently(so as to compete with those who speak fast) andmaking a few arguments that deal with many ofthe other team's claims at the same time.Pros: Allows discussion of multiple issues withoutsacrificing depth or acquisition of usefulspeaking skills.Cons: By trying to walk the line between speedand slower styles, hybrid debate runs the riskof missing out on the advantages of both otherstyles. This style has not been developed as fullyas the others, and can be difficult to learn.Best for: If you are good at this, you can adapt toalmost any judge. If not, it is best for judgeswith debate training but who are most comfortablewith debate that is not topspeed.Transitions, Signposts &Roadmaps: Speaking withStructureRegardless of which style ofspeaking you choose, it is inevitablethat you will end up dealingwith many different issues in a single debate. Thebest way to ensure that the judge understandsthe order in which you address these issues issignposting. Signposting is the practice of labelingarguments during your speech so that the judgeand the other team can easily tell which issue youare talking about at any given time.Transitions between arguments also helpthe judge to follow the order in which you movefrom argument to argument. This will be helpfulnot only to the other team and to the judge, butalso to your partner. Having a coherent discussionof the issues will help the whole debate tomove in a much smoother way and allow moreclash with the other team.Several terms are important to understand:On-Case. The arguments on the flow pagesthat begin with the 1AC. These are argumentswhich are used to prove the stock issues of inherency,significance, and solvency.Off-Case. These are the arguments thatare brought up by the negative which do notdirectly refute the case arguments of inherency,significance, and solvency. They are usually disadvantages,counterplans, topicality arguments,or critiques.Roadmap. Allows the judges and the otherteams to know which major arguments will beaddressed in what order.A. Usually done at the beginning of thespeech for the judges and the otherteam. Usually short and not timed.B. Debaters usually put the most importantarguments first (in the 1NC, that meansoff-case first, usually).C. Examples:1NC:"3 off case, then the case debate."2AC:Will identify the off-case argumentsto be answered first, then the case.2NC:Since the 2NC usually extends someoff-case arguments, the 2NC usuallyidentifies the specific off-case argumentsin the sequence they will be answered.Signposting. Allows the judge and otherteams to identify the specific argument beingaddressed within each major argument.A. Done throughout each speech, thisrequires distinguishing between eachNational Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 15

argument and labeling each argument.B. Usually numbers and letters are used, butdebaters might also use other forms ofdistinguishing between each argument.C. Examples include: “One. Not-Unique.Present policies will cause the disad.Two. No link. The plan does not causethe disadvantage. Three. Turn. Theplan solves the impact to the disad.”Debaters can substitute the word “next”in place of specific numbers, but theimportant thing to do is post a signwhich indicates that the next thing youare about to say is a different argument.This will notify the judge and the opponentto record each argument andnot miss your brilliance.Transitions. Transitions provide informationabout where you are on the flow, while also providingthe judge time to organize their flows.A. This addresses the way that we movefrom one off-case argument to anotheror between the off case and on case.B. Often in the 1NC, one disad will be readand when moving it to a second one, youshould say “Next off-case.”C. When moving from the off-case to theon-case, you should say, “Now, on thecase debate.”“Covering” the Other Team's ArgumentsOne of the most important idea in most debaterounds is the principle of clash, also knownas the burden of rejoinder. These phrases simplymean that it is each team's responsibility toanswer the arguments their opponents make.When it comes to delivery, this means you needto explain to the judge how the arguments youare making relate to (and answer) the argumentsmade by the other team. If you forget to talkabout an argument, the judge may assume youare admitting the other team is right about it.One way to accomplish this is to do what'scalled "going straight down the flow" or "goingline-by-line." This style of delivery means thatyou think of your opponents' arguments as akind of check-list. For each major issue (such asa disadvantage or a case advantage), you answereach one of the arguments the other team madein the same order they originally made them.A classic technique for covering argumentsin this way is to use the "They Say - We Say" patternof speech. Debaters signpost each of theiropponents' argument, then provide at least oneof their own arguments to answer the otherteams claim. For example, in a debate aboutcrime, you might hear someone say "They saywe must pass new laws to prevent crime, but ourevidence proves that criminals are not deterredby the threat of prison."There is more than one way to "cover" anotherteam's arguments, however. Instead ofdealing with every single argument individually,you can "group" several similar argumentsand answer them all at once. For example, ina debate about politics, you might hear someonesay "The other team reads about 5 piecesof evidence claiming that the president getscredit when new laws are passed, but none oftheir authors have qualifications. They are allnewspaper reporters. Our authors are politicalscience professors, and should be preferred." Inthis way, a single argument can answer multipleclaims by the other team.It is possible to cover your opponents' argumenteven more efficiently if you can locatesimilar themes among many arguments. If theother team makes 15 arguments against one ofyour disadvantages, for example, you may noticethat these 15 claims are not all very different.Instead of answering all 15 claims in order, youcan treat similar arguments as a single claim andsimplify the entire issue for the judge. You mighthear a debater in this situation say "they have 15answers to the disad, but there are only 3 argumentshere. The first is a bunch of answers to ourlink, the second is three cards that disagree withour impact claim, and the last is cards that say thelink is inevitable. Here are my answers to thesethree arguments." Debaters who choose to speakin a slower style often use techniques like this toovercome a faster opponent's speed advantage.Speaking with structure is not something wenormally do in our everyday lives. Learning todo it well takes practice, but you'll be surprisedat how quickly you catch on!National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 16

Delivery and Staying "In Shape" for DebateDebate DeliveryAs the previous section on speaking styleshould make very clear, it is difficult to generalizeabout exactly how you should speak whenyou debater. Obviously, what style of debate youchoose will do a lot in terms of providing youwith appropriate models for good speech.That having been said, there are some tipsyou should always follow when you speak.1. Act like you freakin' care! This is the most importantrule of public speaking. If you don'tact like what you are saying is important, whyshould anyone else care? Sound passionate,and your audience will follow you.2. Speak loud enough for everyone to hear you.It's natural to be a bit nervous in a publicspeaking situation, and that often translatesinto less volume. Everyone in the roomshould be able to hear you without straining.Also, reasonable increases in speech volumeare often interpreted as evidence of forecfulargument. It's better to be a bit too loudthan a bit too quiet.3. Stand up when you speak. You may see somedebaters who sit down when they speak.Don't they look cool? Oh, well, maybe theydon't look quite as cool when they turn redin the face and pass out. Standing up whenyou speak is the best way to make sure thatthe part of your body involved with breathing(from your mouth to your waist) staysstraight. Sitting down or bending over cutsoff your air flow. Also, standing up gives youmore presence and makes you look bigger.4. Look at the judge. Although you will probablyspend a lot of time in your speech readingfrom evidence or your own notes, it iscrucially important to look at your judgefrequently. Eye contact gives people a senseof involvement and makes them think you'rea more powerful speaker. It is also importantto see the judge's face so you can see, forexample, if they are giving you the "whatthe @#$*! are you talking about?" look. Youcan't adapt to what you can't see.5. Don't do anything stupid with your body.There are a lot of potential landmines waitingfor you that can distract the judge orruin your speaking cred. Chewing gum whenyou talk? Such a bad idea. Playing with yourpen? It's always fun until it flies out of yourhand and causes the judge to lose an eye.Drinking a bunch of carbonated soda rightbefore you speak? Ew, yuck. Pounding thetable or podium constantly when you talk?Can you say "migraine"? Pacing around theroom while you talk? The judge will thinkyou're leaving or you really need to pee. Gotit? Just don't do anything stupid. These areimportant life rules we're teacing you here.How to stay in shape for debateLike any other sport, debate requires physicaland mental stamina. In order to win, you haveto maintain your peak performance level. Hereare some common ways to keep in shape—evenduring the off-season!Do speaking drillsThe importance of speaking drills cannot beemphasized enough! Even if you do not want tospeak fast in debates, you should do speakingdrills to enhance your clarity of speech. Fastor slow, the most effective way to impress yourjudge is by reading as comprehensibly as youcan.Each drill should be done for at least 10 minutes.Since constructive speeches are 9 minuteseach, it is important to be able to maintain yourpace for more than 9 minutes. Otherwise, yourisk running out of steam. Gasping for breathat the end of your speech will only hurt yourspeaker points. Since different drills addressdifferent problems, one strategy is to alternatedrills for a period of thirty minutes to an hour.Still, even 15 minutes of drills can be helpful.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 17

Some basic drills1. The Wide-Mouthed Frog. Based on a badjoke, and it makes you look stupid, but boydoes it work. Read through yourevidence slowly, over-enunciatingevery syllable (e-verysyl-la-ble). For everysyllable, open yourmouth as wide as youcan, but don'y forget toover-pronounce anyhard consonant at theend of the syllable.Do this until your jaw starts to hurt.2. The Pen In the Mouth. Place a pen horizontallybetween your teeth as far back in yourmouth as it will go without hurting yourself(like a horse's bit). Read as fast as you canand as comprehensibly as you can. Focus onoverpronunciation and volume. The point ofthis drill is to learn to talk without openingyour mouth too wide. It's a great thing to doafter the frog drill.3. Flip the Script. Read your evidence backwards,word by word, as clearly and comprehensiblyas you can. This helps you toget through difficult evidence and solvesany problem you might have with readingahead of yourself.3. And-Infinity. Read a piece of evidence, whilesaying “and” after every word. Go as fast asyou can, but don’t forget to insert “and,”and stay comprehensible. This helps solveany problem you might have slurring wordstogether, and aids enunciation.Have practice debatesSet up intrasquad practice debates. Ask acoach or fellow debater to be the judge and givea real critique. Treat them like real debates. Youshould speak and conduct yourself in the sameway you would in an actual debate round. Youcan use the speeches you give in these debates todo speech re-dos later or immediately followingthe debate. Make sure to set up enough debatesso that you get practice being affirmative andnegative.Of course, between classes, jobs, and extracurricularcommitments, there is not alwaystime to have a full-length practice debate. Ifthis is the case for you, set up mini-debates withyour teammates. Instead of the 8-5-3 or 9-6-3 format, you can do 4-2-1 debates. Youcan also have practice debates thatfocus on your specific weakness. Forexample, you can pretend specificanswers were read in the constructivesand start the debate with rebuttalspeeches. You can do the same thingfor cross examination by having debateswith shortened speech times andelongated cross ex time.Practice debates are also a great way to getmore experience flowing. If you hear that someteammates are having a practice debate, youcan sit in to flow their arguments. After thedebate, compare your flow to your teammates’to see where you need to improve and what youdid well.Do "re-dos"Save your flows from every tournament.Make sure you can tell by looking at them whateveryone said in the round. Write down thesuggestions your judge gives you as well. Whenyou get back home, give one of the speechesagain in front of a coach or a more experienceddebater until you both agree that the speech isnear perfection. This may require giving thesame speech over and over again, but it will beworth it. The more you give great speeches, themore likely it is you will give one on the first tryat the next tournament. The goal is to eventuallygive such good speeches that you will havea hard time making them better in re-dos!Read or watch the newsA huge variety of arguments is made indebate rounds over the course of the year. Ofcourse, it is impossible to be able to anticipateevery argument, but being aware of what is goingon the world can help a whole lot. Havingsmart analytical arguments about the currentstate of affairs will increase your credibilitywith judges.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 18

You can keep abreast of current events bywatching the news every night or reading thenewspaper every day. And that doesn’t mean justthe first 5 minutes of your local news or the frontpage of the newspaper. Watch an entire newscastor browse through an entire paper. Keep youreyes open for articles that could relate to thetopic, speak to the current political climate, orprove an argument you’ve heard (or you make)true or false.If you happen to have regular access to theInternet, the possibilities are endless. While alot of quality content on the Internet requiresyou to pay, there are great resources like GoogleNews (news.google.com) that allow you to keepyourself educated. However, for this to work youhave to have some regular practices. Instead ofjust browsing the Internet, make it a practiceto, for example, enter the same search of keytopic words into Google News every day. Thiswill make your Internet time more like readingthe paper and less like playing around.Read about debateKnowing what is going on in the debateworld is an important as knowing what is goingon in the rest of the world. Preparation is a hugepart of winning debates. The Internet gives youthe ability to access a lot of debate informationonline. While the college and high schoolcommunities use different forums to talkabout debate, there are resources availablefor you to learn more about theory orkeep up with national trends.For example, after some tournaments,caselists are released to thedebate community or posted on freeweb sites. Caselists outline both the affirmativeand negative arguments madeby the teams who attended. You shouldalways read these! They will tell you whatarguments you need to be ready to answerand perhaps give you some ideas on argumentsto include in your own arsenal.Be aware that some debate web siteswill charge you for high-level access, butmany (such as www.planetdebate.com)offer basic caselist and judge philosophyinformation for no charge. One more thing:the fact that people are involved in debatedoesn't necessarily make them any smarter,more informed, or more mature than the nextperson. Like anything to do with the Internet,the online debate world is full of both geniusesand crazy people (and some who are both). Becareful who you talk to, and don't take candyfrom anyone.Talk about debateA lot of beginning debaters tend to forgetabout debate when they are not at practice ortournaments. This is a big mistake! It is importantthroughout the season to keep your headin the game! That means, talking about debatewith your teammates on the ride home fromtournaments, calling, e-mailing, or instant messagingyour friends and teammates with yourthoughts about debate on your time off. Yourteammates and friends in the debate communityare a great resource. Talking with them canteach you ways to look at an argument that youwould have never thought of on your own.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 19

Cross-ExaminationCross-examination is a series of questionand-answerperiods in a debate round designedto allow debaters to clarify issues, gather information,and achieve strategic advantage. Whilemost beginning debaters (and many judges) saythey enjoy cross-examination (a.k.a. “cross-ex”or “CX”) more than any other part of debate,few can say they are truly skilled. With somepreparation and basic strategy, you can becomeone of those few.Who speaks when?The basic principle that will help you rememberwho cross-examines whom is this: theperson who just spoke answers the questions,and the person from the other team who is notabout to speak asks the questions. Here’s howit works:After the 1AC: 2NC asks 1AC answersAfter the 1NC: 1AC asks 1NC answersAfter the 2AC: 1NC asks 2AC answersAfter the 2NC: 2AC asks 2NC answers“Tag team” cross-examinationOkay, so now you know who is supposed totalk, but is that really a rule? Is it okay for you toanswer a question someone asks your partner?Is it okay for you to ask a question when it isyour partner’s turn to ask? The answer to thesequestions is “it depends.”Like anything else in the debate round, theattitude of the judge is critical. Some judges considerthis kind of “tag team” cross-examination aviolation of basic rules, and they will not allow it.Others have no problem letting partners sharecross-ex questions and answers. If you and yourpartner do this kind of thing regularly, makesure to ask the judge before the round what hisor her attitude is. You can adapt to a judge whodoes not like tag team cross-ex by doing thingslike talking to your partner before you start askingquestions to see if they have specific requestsor passing notes to help out your partner if theyare struggling. The bottom line is that you andyour partner both need to have the ability to askquestions and give answers. If you are the 1ACand you cannot explain your own affirmativeplan, for example, you are in trouble.But what do I do?Cross-examination gives you, the personwho is asking the questions, an important opportunityto accomplish several basic tasks.Generally speaking, cross-ex is used to achieveone or more of the following five objectives,listed in the order of importance:1. To clarify points or gather information2. To expose errors3. To set up arguments4. To obtain admissions5. To save prep timeClarifying points and gathering informationRegardless of what style the other teamschooses to speak in (fast or slow, simple orcomplicated), it is likely that something will besaid by the other team that you do not reallyunderstand. Even if you understand the words,you might not understand the meaning. Evenif you understand the meaning, you might notunderstand what the other team is trying toachieve by making a particular argument. Themost important thing you can do in cross-exis make sure you understand the other team’sarguments.One way you can accomplish this is to ask theother team questions. This is particularly usefulwhen you are asking questions of interpretation(“but why is that good?”). However, it doestend to take a lot of time, especially if you havea lot of questions. Another thing you can do incross-ex is ask the other team for their evidenceand their “blocks” (sheets of prepared evidenceand analytical arguments). For example, if theyother team reads a 1AC you have never heardbefore, it is common for you to ask them to letyou look at their 1AC.Do you have to let another team see yourNational Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 20

evidence? It is normally considered extremelyrude to refuse a request for evidence or blocks.However, make sure that the other team givesyou back your blocks when it is your turn to usethem to prepare or at the end of the debate.Many teams carry two copies of their 1AC—oneto read, the other to give their opponents afterthe 1AC.Exposing ErrorsSome debates are won and lost in the crossexamination.One of your jobs as a debaters is topay close attention to what the other team saysto see if it is logically consistent. If you find amajor flaw in the other team’s logic or in theirevidence, you can use cross-examination to pointthis out.Flaws in logic often occur in terms of whatwe call “links,” or explanations of how one actioncan lead to another. Let’s say the affirmativeplan calls for a ban on building campfires innational parks as a way to prevent forest fires.However, as the 2NC, you know that studiesshow most forest fires are either caused by lightningor cigarettes. You might ask the 1AC “whatevidence do you have that campfires cause mostforest fires?”Another common place to find flaws is inthe other team’s evidence. Especially if the otherteam is using quotes from experts, you will needto pay close attention to ensure that the quotesmatch up with the claims made by the otherteam. Because experts often make complicatedargument, debaters sometimes oversimplify ormisrepresent their authors’ opinions. It is alsocommon for debaters to read only parts of aquote (or “highlight” the quote) so that onlythe important words are read in the debate.In these cases, you may notice that key quotesmake arguments that might undermine youropponents’ claims. Let’s stay with the forestfire example Suppose the 1AC reads a piece ofevidence from an expert that is labeled “mostforest fires are caused by campers.” If you readcarefully, you may find out that the part of thequote that is not read by your opponent goeson to say that campers cause fires by throwingcigarettes into the forest while they are still lit.You might read that part of the quote to the 1ACand the judge, then ask “doesn’t this mean thatyour plan doesn’t prevent most forest fires, sinceyou only deal with campfires?”Setting Up ArgumentsWhile debaters often try to simulate realworldpolicy-making by advocating real pieces oflegislation and using quotes from policy experts,a lot of debate is about interpreting argumentsthat are made in the round. Cross-ex allowsyou to encourage your opponents to interprettheir own arguments in a way that will makeyour arguments seem better. There are severaltraditional strategies for setting up arguments.Here are two of the most famous:The Pit of DoomA classic cross-ex strategy is to “push” youropponent closer and closer to an answer thatwill help you destroy them. But how do you talksomeone into walking closer to the edge of thepit? By acting reasonable and pretending thereis no pit there, of course. Let’s say that the 1ACis advocating a plan to offer financial incentivesto get people to vote in presidential elections.You are trying to get your opponent to admitthat their plan won’t work. You can’t just tellthem to admit the plan is bad. You have to coaxthem gently toward the pit. Here is one way youmight do this:You: So, you’re going to pay people to vote, right?Your Opponent: Yep. Our authors say this will increase voter turnoutby 50%You: Wow. I’d vote if they’d pay me. But there are stillgoing to be people who don’t vote after the plan,right?Your Opponent: Maybe.You: I mean, my uncle doesn’t vote because he thinks thegovernment is controlled by aliens. You can’t get himto vote, can you?Your Opponent: Probably not.You: And the people who refuse to vote as a protest, youcan’t buy them off, right?Your Opponent: Yeah, but that’s not many people.You: Sure. What about people who have to work all day andhave families to take care of. They don’t vote becausethey’re too busy. Will you get them to vote?National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 21

Your Opponent: Actually, yes. Our authors say that paying them $20to vote will get them interested.You: Oh, sweet. So, you’ve got evidence that $20 is enoughto get people to quit their jobs?Your Opponent.: What?You: Well, you know if I skip out on my job at WalMartto go vote, they’re going to fire me. So , you’ve gotevidence that $20 is enough to get me to quit myjob?Your Opponent: No, that’s stupid. You’d just go after you got offwork.You: Oh, okay, now I get it. So, you’ve got evidence that$20 is enough to pay the babysitter to watch mykids and make dinner for them while I spend 3 hourswaiting in line to vote? Can I see that evidence?Your Opponent: Um…At the end of the above exchange, your opponentis a lot closer to the edge of the pit. You’vegotten them to say that their plan won’t solvefor people with fringe beliefs, people who hatepolitics, people who have to work all day, andpeople who have to take care of their families.That’s a lot of people, especially if you’ve preparedby finding statistics about what percentageof people who don’t normally vote fall intothose categories.The Reverse Pit of DoomYour opponent is not entirely stupid (well,probably not). They may be aware that you’re tryingto get them to say things that aren’t in theirbest interest. They will be trying to figure outwhat you want them to say so that they can saythe opposite. The “reverse pit” takes advantageof this situation by making your opponent thinkyou want to answer one way when you really wantthem to answer the other way.Let’s suppose you are negative and the affirmativeis going to pay people to vote. But thistime, you don’t want them to say the plan won’twork. You’ve looked, and you can’t find any evidenceattacking the plan that way. Instead, youwant to argue that the affirmative plan wouldbe too expensive. To make that argument, youneed the affirmative to say that everyone willtake their money and vote. To get them to saythat, you start by convincing them you are reallyattacking their ability to solve. The exchangemight go like this:You: You’re going to pay people to vote? That’s ridiculous.Your Opponent: Whatever. Our authors say that the plan will increaseYou:voter turnout by 50%.Come on. You’re not serious. Nobody’s going to votejust because you pay them. Most people don’t votebecause they don’t care.Your Opponent: Wrong. The 1AC contains five quotes by four differentexperts who’ve done studies that prove more peoplewill vote if we offer them money. You got nothin’.You: Puh-lease. When my partner gets up and reads 10pieces of evidence that says your plan won’t work,why should the judge vote for you?Your Opponent: Bring it.You: We will. What’s your best piece of evidence say? 5million more people will vote?Your Opponent: You wish. Our evidence from Smith in 2006 says thatthe plan results in 20 million more votes, and Smiththinks that estimate is low. We’ll claim that 30 millionmore people will vote after the plan is passed.You: 30 million? That’s your claim?Your Opponent: Yep. Take that to the bank.You: I think I will.See how nice your opponent was? They gave youa giant link to your argument that the plan willcost the government too much money. The factthat they thought you were trying to push themto admit one thing caused them to overreact andgive you 10 million more reasons (times $20)why the plan is a bad idea.Obtaining AdmissionsI’ve got some bad news for you. You knowall those cop shows you watch on TV? The oneswhere the cops catch this guy who they thinkcommitted a murder, and the guy confesses? Iam sad to tell you that those are all lies. In thereal world, no one confesses. In fact, one ofthe best ways to guarantee that someone won’tconfess is to say “you’d better confess becausewe know you did it!” Debate is like that, too. It isnearly impossible to get someone to admit theyare wrong.Still, there are times when you might askNational Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 22

“Look, I don’t carehow many timesyou ask me thequestion, the answeris still NO!You also need abreath mint orsomething.your opponent to admit that something they saidis wrong (or, at least, not relevant). For example,let’s say the 1NC reads 10 pieces of evidence sayingthat your plan to lower gas prices by gettingpeople to buy hybrid cars won’t work. The thirdpiece of evidence says that electric-only carsare not practical. You might point out to youropponent in cross-ex that you aren’t advocatingelectric-only cars. If they are willing to admit thisis true, you might ask “so, I don’t have to answerthis argument, right?” If you’re lucky, they’ll saysomething like “no, but those other 9 pieces ofevidence are all reasons you lose.” See what Imean? Nobody confesses.Saving Prep TimeHere’s a dirty little secret we don’t normallylike to tell people. One of the most importantuses of cross-ex from the perspective of thequestioner is that it allows your partner time toprepare for their speech. Remember, the personwho is not about to speak is the one who asksthe questions. This means that, while you areasking questions, your partner is scrambling tofigure out what to say.What does this mean? The most importantimplication of this is that you should never cutyour cross-examination short unless your partnertells you it’s okay. Use every last second, even ifyou can’t think of any brilliant questions. If youare negative, ask the affirmative to explain whythe judge should vote for you. If you are affirmative,ask the negative to explain the basic idea oftheir major argument. Pick important pieces ofyour opponents’ evidence and attack them evenif you haven’t read them. Whatever you do, keeptalking until the timer goes off. Your partner willthank you, and you will make it more likely thatyou will have some prep time left at the end ofthe debate for your own rebuttal.Speech-By-Speech TipsHere are some questions that each speakershould try to get answered during their cross-examination.These tips will make even more senseafter you have read the sections of this manualthat discuss possible negative strategies.2NC Cross-X 1AC1. Get missing signposts and arguments.2. Center most of your questions on the plan.Look for plan errors and possible links todisadvantages. Ask for a copy of the planand read it.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 23

3. Make sure that you understand the thesisof the case and what advantages are beingclaimed. If you are not sure ask-now is thetime do it not after the 2AC!1AC Cross-X 1NC1. If the 1NC argued topicality, make sure thatyou know what the violations are and whatstandards they are using to prove that youare not topical.2. Make the 1NC explain any arguments thatyou do not understand.3. Ask the 1NC to explain the links, thresholds,and/or impacts to the disads that were runout of the 1NC.4. Ask the 1NC to explain why the counterplanis better than the affirmative. Ask themto compare specific quantifiable disadvantages.1NC Cross-X 2AC and 2AC Cross-X 2NC1. Ask for any responses that your partnermissed.2. Ask for any briefs or evidence that you oryour partner need in order to answer everyresponse given by the 2AC/2NC3. Ask the 2AC/2NC to explain why he or shemay have granted out some arguments—especiallyon advantages or disadvantages.Answering Cross-Ex QuestionsOne of the best ways to be a good answererof questions in cross-ex is to understand how toask good questions. If you know what strategyyour opponent is using, you can anticipate theirgoals and adjust your answers accordingly. Hereare some other tips for getting out of cross-exwithout doing too much damage to your ownteam:1. Answer requests for information clearly andhonestly. You are not generally going to windebates by misleading your opponent about,for example, what the plan does—and if youdo, the other team and the judge will hateyou forever. You have prepared to answerlogical arguments the other team mightmake against your claims. If you misleadthem, they are more likely to make argumentsthat you have not anticipated. Inother words, there are good reasons to behonest.2. Don’t be a jerk. Judges might sometimes likeyou to be aggressive, but nobody likes a jackass.If your opponent is hostile in cross-ex,respond by being reasonable. In fact, one ofthe best ways to take advantage of anotherperson’s hostility is to be even nicer than younormally would. This tactic helps the judgenotice that the other person is being inappropriate,which will decrease their speakerpoints and increase yours.3. If you don’t know the answer, say so. Morerounds have been lost by people who makethings up than by people who admit theydon’t know the answer to every question.4. Avoid making claims beyond the ones in yourspeech. The “reverse pit of doom” exampleabove is a good case of what can happenwhen you exceed the basic claims you madein your speech or your evidence.5. Avoid hypotheticals. Debaters like to ask“what if” questions like “what happens ifwe prove that your plan doesn’t work.” Youshould answer “you won’t.” Another kind ofhypothetical question involves asking you torespond to arguments the other team hasnot yet made. You are not under obligationto answer those questions. A common wayto answer those kinds of questions is to say“if you make that argument in a speech, wewill answer it” or “we have not taken a positionon that question yet.”6. Refer back to your evidence. If someone asksyou about an argument you have made thatis supported by a quote from an expert,explain the quote to them. They may tryto get you to make arguments that aren’tin the quote. In general, you should resistthis and continue to explain the quote. Yourevidence is a great source of explanation forquestions you may not know how to answercompletely.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 24

Case AttacksThe negative team has the obligation ofproving the affirmative’s claims false. Thereare three major strategies of which at least onemust be used: Disadvantages, Topicality, andCounterplan. These three options will be discussedin separate chapters.Generally speaking, the 1NC would runthese positions and the 2NC would attack thecase and/or extend (advance) these positions.Your strategy will vary from debate to debate,but always try to have at least one disadvantagein your negative approach.Let’s took a look at what the negative couldargue about the affirmative case. We will callthese case attacks.1. Anecdotal evidence. If you hear the affirmativetalk about one isolated example, youshould make the claim that this is anecdotalevidence. Further, you should claim that oneshould not base policy on one example.2. Assertions. If the affirmative makes a claimwithout giving any supporting evidence orreasoning, this is an assertion and not aproven argument. You should point this outto the judge as an unsupported claim willusually not stand.3. Conclusionary evidence. If the affirmativereads evidence which merely states the conclusionof the author without the reasonsand evidence used to support that conclusion,then the validity of the claim cannotbe assessed. This is a poor use of evidenceand should be noted to the judge who willusually dismiss such evidence.4. Biased source. Be on the lookout for whyan author might make certain claims.Sometimes bias can be revealed in theirjob, their affiliations, or the manner inwhich they state their case. Identifyingbiased sources will hurt the credibilityof some evidence.5. Dates. On rapidly changing issues, thedate of the evidence is extremely important.If the affirmative reads evidence that saysthe economy is on the brink of collapse, ora war is about to start or some other timelyissue, when the evidence was written can beextremely important.6. Vague references. Many times differentauthors will use the same word to refer todifferent ideas or situations. A politicaldisaster for a Democrat is entirely differentthan an political disaster for a Republican.7. No causality. Sometimes evidence will referto correlations between events, but thisassertion does not mean that one causesthe other. The tragedy at Columbine HighSchool illustrates how some saw the causeas access to weapons, some as access to theInternet, some as access to violent gamesand movies, and others as part of an alienatedsuburban youth. The existence of allthese variables in the same place does notguarantee that there IS causation betweenany of these problems and the tragedy inColorado.The affirmative would win if there were moreadvantages than disadvantages.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 25

DisadvantagesDisadvantages (also called “disads” or “DAs”) are negativearguments which prove the effects of the plan would bebad. Thus, the disadvantages are compared to the advantagesto decide whether the effects of the plan are moreadvantageous than disadvantageous. There are manydifferent parts to a disad and most disads have some orall of these parts. These parts are:A disad can be thought of like a person standingon a cliff:BrinkThe brink states that a certain situation exists where somethingcould go either way. This means there is a risk of aproblem happening at some point in the future.The brink would mean that the person is standingon the edge of the cliff:Nice viewUniquenessThe uniqueness states that this problem will not happenin the future, or is happening now. This is referred to asthe status quo, or what is going on right now.The uniqueness would mean that the person willnot jump off the cliff unless pushed:I ain’t movin’LinkThe link states why the affirmative plan causes this problemto happen. The negative usually reads a piece ofevidence saying why the affirmative plan causes the waythings are now to change.The link would mean that plan comes up andpushes the person off the cliff:PlanPersonImpactThe impact describes the problem that will happen andwhy it is bad. This impact is usually something very largeand harmful. The negative uses this impact to say thatthe affirmative plan should not be done because althoughthe plan might cause something good to happen, theproblems the plan causes are worse.The impact would mean that the person hits thebottom of the canyon really hard:Ow! That’s gonnaleave a mark.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 26

ThresholdThe threshhold is how big the plan has to be to cause theproblem presented in the disad to happen. If the plan isa very big one, it will probably cause the problem. If theplan is tiny, it probably won’t cause the problem. Sayingthat a disad has a small threshhold indicates that it won’ttake a very large force to push the person off the cliff.The threshhold would measure how hard the planwould have to push for the person to fall off thecliff. If the person was seven feet from the edgeof the cliff, the plan would have to be huge topush them off.No pushing!PLAN!Time FrameThe time frame is how long before the problem the disadpresents happens. If there is an especially short timeframe, then the problem the plan creates might happenbefore whatever good things the plan creates. If that happens,then the plan probably isn’t a good one. If there isa long time frame, then the good things the plan createswould happen before the problems it creates. If this is thecase, the plan probably is a good idea.The time frame would measure how long beforethe person fell of the cliff. If there was a long timeframe, then the person would teeter on the edgeof the cliff for a while before falling.Little help?If there were a short time frame, then the personwould fall off the cliff right away.Well, thatwas quick.Internal LinkSometimes when the plan changes something, it does notcause a problem right away. This is when an internal linkis needed. The internal link states that when the plancauses something to change, which is the link, then thatcauses the problem, which is the impact.The internal link would be that when the planpushes the person off the cliff, the fall will be sobig that the person will hurt. Connecting the falland the hurt requires an internal link: falling hurtsand the hurt is the impact.This isn’tgonna be prettyNational Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 27

Answers to DisadvantagesNon-uniqueThe non-unique argument states that the problem thedisad presents will happen anyway in the status quo. If itwere to happen anyway, it doesn’t matter if the affirmativeplan causes the problem or not.There are many affirmative arguments that givereasons why disadvantages are not true. Here area few of the more popular ones:The non-unique argument would mean that theperson was jumping anyway. It doesn’t matter ifthe plan pushes them or not.I amsuperman!Link TurnThe link turn states that when the affirmative plan happens,the problem the disad presents is avoided. Thisoften means that when the affirmative plan happens theexact opposite of the problem happens.The link turn would mean the plan pushed theperson away from the edge of the cliff.planLink Take-outThe link take-out states that the affirmative plan doesn’tactually cause the problem the disad presents.The link take-out would mean that the plandoesn’t push the person at all.planImpact TurnThe impact turn states that the problem the disad presentsis actually a good thing.The impact turn would mean that the person landsin lime jell-o. Mmmmm! J-E-L-L-O!Impact Take-outThe impact take-out states that the problem the disadpresents is not serious or harmful.The impact take-out would mean that the cliff wasonly two feet tall. The person stubs their toe.Weak!National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 28

TopicalityWhat Is Topicality? (a.k.a. “T”)Debate is about making good policy, and youcan’t have a good policy unless you know whatthe key words of the policy mean. Some wordsare very difficult to define, and there are hugedebates about them. How do you define “good”or “bad,” for example? It’s easy to understandthis concept by thinking about a conversationyou might have with your parents. Let’s say yourparents tell you to be home “at a reasonablehour.” When you show up at 2:00 a.m., you getin big trouble. “But I was home at a reasonablehour,” you complain. “All my friends stay outuntil 4:00.” Your parents are not impressed bythis argument. “Reasonable means midnight,”they say. How were you supposed to know what“reasonable” meant? Topicality deals with argumentsabout what words mean.Every year there is a different resolutionfor high school policy debate. It is the affirmative’sjob to come up with specific policies (or“plans”) that support the general idea of theresolution. What if the affirmative policy is agood idea, but it doesn’t support the resolution?For example, the affirmative might arguethat every hungry child in America should befed. This may seem like a good idea, but whatif the resolution says we ought to make schoolsbetter? The plan is fine, but it doesn’t supportthe resolution. The negative would argue thatthe affirmative plan is “NOT TOPICAL.” Thiskind of argument can be even more powerfulthan a disadvantage.Arguing About DefinitionsOf course, most affirmative plans seem fairlytopical at first. However, if you research differentdefinitions for the words in the resolution, it iseasy to find definitions that contradict what theaffirmative plan does. For example, what if theresolution says we should increase aid to Africannations? The affirmative might offer a plan toincrease aid to Egypt. Is Egypt an African nation?Many people might say “yes,” since Egypt ison the continent of Africa. Many experts mightsay “no,” however, because Egyptian culturemight be considered “Middle Eastern” insteadof “African.” There is no right or wrong answerfor what a word means, but it is possible to makearguments about which definition is better.Winning With TopicalityTopicality exists to LIMIT what the affirmativemay talk about so the negative can have a reasonablechance to argue against the case. If theaffirmative could talk about anything, how couldthe negative prepare for the debate? The negativeargues that topicality is a VOTING ISSUE.In other words, they argue that the affirmativeshould lose the debate if the negative can provethat the affirmative plan does not support theresolution. You can win the debate by talkingabout definitions!Topicality is a very powerful argumentbecause the affirmative can lose the debate ontopicality even if they are winning every otherargument in the debate! After all, if the planis not an example of the resolution, then whocares what a great idea it is? The judge wouldthrow out all the affirmative arguments, just likea judge in a courtroom can throw out a case ifit is irrelevant. This argument is referred to as“jurisdiction.” It means that the judge cannotvote for a non-topical plan because it is not inher jurisdiction.Making a Topicality ArgumentTopicality arguments can be written aheadof time, just like disadvantages. In general “T”arguments have the following format:A) DefinitionEvidence that defines one or more importantwords in the resolution.B) ViolationAn explanation of why the affirmative planNational Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 29

CritiquesA Different Way to Attack the AffirmativeMost of the arguments in a debate roundare based on the kinds of arguments made bytraditional policymakers, such as legislators andpolitical analysts. Traditional policymakers arenot the only people who comment on importantpublic issues, however. Increasingly, debatershave begun to model some of their argumentson the objections of philosophers, rhetoricalcritics, and other scholars.The critique—a.k.a. the kritik or the K—isan argument usually used by the negative toattack the affirmative’s fundamental assumptions.Sometimes the affirmative makes theseassumptions by choice, and sometimes theymake these assumptions because it’stheir job to defend the resolution. Ineither case, the negative focuses onwhat the other team says IN THEROUND, not what they propose todo outside the round.One of the simplest examplesof a critique might be an argumentthat the language the affirmative usesis racist. For example, some scholars arguethat certain kinds of policy language containshidden racism, such as some of the argumentsmade against welfare. If the affirmative wereto make one of these arguments, the negativemight use a critique to point out the hiddenracism in the case as a reason to vote againstthe affirmative.Huh? What? Excuse Me?Don’t worry if you’re confused. Critiques arecomplicated arguments, and many people arenot familiar with the kinds of ideas associatedwith critiques. Let’s answer some basic questions.What is the critique? A critique is a way to criticizethe assumptions an affirmative makes or the languagedebaters use to make their arguments.KWhat is an assumption? An assumption is a partof an argument which people think is true, butthey never explicitly prove to be true.How are assumptions revealed? Sometimes assumptionsare revealed by the language thatwe use to make our claims and arguments.Sometimes assumptions are revealed in the waywe claim to know something. The first type ofcriticism is a language critique and the secondtype of criticism is a philosophical critique.How does a negative attack the assumptions? First,the negative must identify the assumption andhow it is revealed. Second, the negative mustexplain how the assumption links to the critique.And, third, the negative must explain theimplications of the critique. Sounds likea disadvantage, doesn’t it?What are the possible implications ofthe critique? Generally, critiquescan have three implications. Oneis that they might prove that theaffirmative case does not prove theharm. Second, they might prove thatthe affirmative is unable to solve. Third,they might have consequences similar to thoseof a disadvantage. In other words, a critiquemight justify voting against the affirmative altogetherin order to reject the assumptions theaffirmative makes.Another ExampleThe critique can operate in the simplestfacets of your life. You witness some of these inyour own classroom. Thinking about testing andtest-taking can illustrate how a critique mightfunction.1) Challenging the harm assumptions. Manypeople assume students do not learn asmuch as they used to because test scores arelower than they were in the past. However,the negative might challenge the assump-National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 33

tion that test scores are a reliable measureof student achievement. This challengesthe way proponents of testing assume testscores provide useful information. If thetest scores are unreliable, then the affirmativecannot prove the harm by proving testscores are low. Test scores, the negativewould argue, do not reveal accurate informationof student achievement, therefore theycannot be used to prove that students areunderachieving.2) Challenging solvency. Many people arguethat testing should be used to guide curriculumchanges in order to enhance studentlearning. However, if tests are critiquedbecause they do not truly measure what astudent has learned, then using test resultsto revise the curriculum is a wasted exerciseand will not achieve the goal of improvingstudent achievement.3) Disadvantageous consequences. The negativemight argue that there are disadvantageimplications of supporting the affirmativein light of the critique. Some might arguethat testing does not measure knowledgebut instead indicates how good studentsare at taking tests. Consequently, increasingtests or making tests more rigorous willonly serve to perpetuate racism and sexismin education. The negative might arguethat the judge should reject any policy thatresults in greater racism and sexism.Why Are Critiques Valuable?Critiques are valuable arguments for severalreasons.1) Critiques are highly generic—that is, they canbe applied to a large variety of cases. Theresolution always makes critical assumptions,such as who should act, how the policyshould be implemented, why a particulararea is important, etc. The critique providesa general argument that can be used to attackthose critical assumptions.2) Critiques have multiple consequences—thatis, they can minimize the affirmative advantagewhile also providing an argumentto weigh against whatever advantage theaffirmative can claim.3) Critiques integrate many arguments intoone position. Because the case argumentsfrequently stem from the critique, the negativehas a position in the debate that iscoherent.4) Critiques frequently have a priori implications.An a priori argument is one thatmust be resolved first, usually before thesubstantive issues of the debate are resolved.In our example of testing, the negative couldargue that policies that reinforce racism orsexism are so noxious that they need to beavoided absolutely. If testing is racist orsexist, it should be rejected regardless ofsubstantive benefits that might result fromincreased testing.5) Critiques frequently avoid uniqueness problems.Critiques are often found in the writingsof those who criticize current policies.Affirmative debaters frequently rely on someelement of the current system to implementtheir plans or to prove why new policieswould better achieve the goals of the presentsystem. Critique writers frequently argue, ineffect, that the goals of the present systemshould be rejected at every opportunity. Inaddition, many critique writers argue thatthe most important place to reject acceptedideas is in individual settings, thus makingthe critique unique each time a judge hasthe opportunity to reject the affirmative.6) Critiques shift the debate to negativeground. Affirmatives are used to debatingon THEIR ground: the case evidence andthe implications of the plan. Critiques offernegatives the opportunity to shift the focusof the debate to an issue they are more familiarwith: the intricacies of the critique.This can give the negative a sort of “homeNational Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 34

Answering CritiquesWhile critiques are a valuable negative argument,they are also vulnerable to some generalaffirmative answers. The following argumentsare suggestions that require more substantivedevelopment from you as you research and debatecritiques during the academic year.1) Debate the specific critique. There are manyanswers to critiques that merely require researchlike any other negative argument.Remember that philosophers and rhetoricalcritics get into arguments with each otherjust like legislators and policy analysts do.The general rule is: for every group ofscholars who support the ideas behind thecritique, there is a different group of scholarswho think the ideas in the critique areterrible. If you find out that a certain critiqueis being run, research it just like you wouldany other argument in order to find thosescholars who disagree with it.2) Use cross-ex time to ask about the critique.You can’t debate what you don’t understand,and critiques can be very difficult to understand.Often, evidence in critiques uses academicjargon and obscure words. Don’t beintimidated. If the other team can’t explainwhat these words mean, the judge won’t bewilling to vote for them. If they CAN explainthem, then you will be able to understandthem, too. Ask how the plan links to thecritique and what implications the critiquehas in the round. Don’t let the other team3) Don’t forget to use your own brain! Onceyou understand what the critique says, youcan answer it with arguments that makesense to you. Also, remember that theevidence in the 1AC is designed to answerobjections to the case. Use that evidencecreatively.4) Utilize your specific affirmative answers.Many of the implications of the critiqueare very generalized, but the affirmativecan point to specific evidence to prove boththeir harms and their solvency. Thus, generalindictments might not be as persuasive as thespecific proofs offered by the affirmative.5) Debate the uniqueness of the critique.Negative critique debaters try to avoid theuniqueness debate and argue that it is irrelevant.However, the implications of thecritique frequently occur at the margins ofincremental impact. In other words, thecritique often talks about harms that arealready occurring all around us. The affirmativeshould stress that if the affirmativeadvantage is intact, the marginal increasein disadvantage beyond the present systemdoes not merit rejection.6) Argue that there is no alternative. If the affirmativeharm is substantial, the plan is largelysolvent, and the critique has uniquenessproblems, press the negative to defend whattheir alternative to the plan and the presentsystem will be. If there is no alternative, thenit makes uniqueness arguments against thecritique that much more valuable.7) Attack the alternative. If the negative offersalternatives to the plan and the presentsystem, then the affirmative can argue thatthe alternative is a bad idea.8) Make the negative defend the idea of critiques.Many members of the debate communityhave accepted the idea of critiquingassumptions as acceptable. However, manyothers do not believe that philosophical andrhetorical ideas have any place in policydebate. Make the negative explain why weshould consider these kinds of argumentsif the goal of debate is to train students tostudy policy issues like legislators and politicalanalysts do.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 35

Running CounterplansA counterplan is an alternative to the affirmative plan thatis presented by the Negative team. Sometimes the negativewill not only argue that the affirmative plan is a bad idea,but will also present their own way of solving the problemscited by the affirmative team.I have my ownidea on what to do!Like the affirmative team, the negative team must prove the counterplan is fair and a good idea.Counterplans have to meet two burdens.1. Counterplans should be different from the plan.Counterplans can be very similar to the plan, or they can be completely different from the plan.Some counterplans (called "plan-inclusive counterplans") advocate parts of the plan. The point isthat you must be able to explain how the couterplan is not exactly the same as the plan.2. Counterplans must be competitive.Competition is a term used to describe the battle betweenthe Affirmative plan and the Counterplan. Fora counterplan to compete with the affirmative plan,and to win, it must be proven that the counterplanalone is better than the affirmative plan alone or betterthan adopting the counterplan and affirmativeplan together. The competition of the counterplan isdetermined in two ways.Anything you can do,I can do better!A) Mutual Exclusivity. This means the counterplanand the affirmative plan cannot occur at the sametime. They cannot exist together.B) Net Benefits. This means that doing the counterplan alone provides more benefits than doingthe plan alone and provides more benefits than doing the counterplan and plan together.Counterplans, like affirmative plans, can have advantages. These advantages prove why thecounterplan is better than the affirmative. Often, the advantages of the counterplan are negativedisadvantages to the affirmative plan.You Can’t Have Your Cake AND Eat It, Too.vs.Eatthatsucker!This old saying describes net benefits pretty well. If the problem is that you arehungry, the plan might be to have a cake. The counterplan would be to EAT thecake. The counterplan is net beneficial because eating the cake solves your hungerproblem AND if you try to “have” the cake at the same time that you eat it, youwill be very confused (and probably messy). “Eating the cake” is more advantageousthan just having it, and “eating the cake” is also a better idea than BOTH“eating the cake” and “having the cake” at the same time.A counterplan must meet these burdens in order to beat the affirmative plan.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 36

Answering CounterplansCounterplans must meet certain burdens in order to beat the Affirmativeplan. Therefore, it is the job of the affirmative to show how the counterplandoes not meet these burdens. Affirmative answers should expose theflaws in the counterplan and show why it is a bad idea.Affirmative answers can be found while looking at different parts of thecounterplan.Hey!Wait a second!This doesn’tlook right.Thecounterplan1. The counterplan is too similar to the plan.Some counterplans include so much of the plan that the affirmative can argue they should not beseen as a legitimate alternative to the plan. Some affirmatives argue that couterplans should berejected if they include any part of the plan. Others suggest different standards for legitimacy.2. The counterplan is not competitive.Affirmatives should argue that the counterplan is not competitive with the affirmative plan. Inorder to do this, affirmative teams have three choices.A. Prove it is not mutually exclusive.B. Prove it is not net beneficial.C. Offer permutationsPermutations are an affirmative’s special weapon against counterplans. Permutationsare arguments that prove the entire plan can be combined withparts of the counterplan in orderto gain the advantages of the counterplanwithout rejecting the plan.Permutation:Eating half the cake will satisfy our hungerwithout rotting our teeth or causing weight gain.And, we still get to see our beautiful cake.of the counterplan, and avoids the disadvantages.3. SolvencyAffirmatives can argue that the counterplan does notsolve. The affirmative should look to see if the counterplansolves the affirmative advantage, the advantages4. DisadvantagesCounterplans, like affirmative plans can have disadvantages. The affirmative should argue thatif the counterplan is done something bad will happen that wouldn’t otherwise happen if the affirmativeplan is done.Better thana single plan! Able tobeat counterplans everywhere!counterplanYou, sir,are verydangerous.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 37

How to Give Good RebuttalsMost debaters, coaches, and judges wouldagree that rebuttals are the most difficult andyet the most important parts of the debate. Notonly is there less time within each speech, buteach debater has to sort through all of the issuesto determine which ones are the most importantones! What a debater does or does not do inrebuttals will decide who wins the debate. Veryfew debaters (especially beginners) can hope toextend everything that happened in the constructivespeeches. Debaters don’t have to dothat and just because a team may have dropped apoint or an argument is not an automatic reasonto vote against that team. What matters is thetype of argument that is extended or droppedin rebuttals—this will determine the winner ofthe round.Think about these four issues whenrebuttals happen:• Which arguments have more weight at theend of the round?• Which outcomes (disads, counterplans) aremore likely given lots of internal links?• What about time frame—what happensfirst?• What about the quality of evidence?Here are some other helpful hints:1. Avoid repetition. Don’t just repeat yourconstructive arguments. Beat the otherteam’s arguments and tell the judge whyyour arguments are better.2. Avoid passing ships. Don’t avoid what theother team said. You must clash directlywith their responses.3. Avoid reading evidence only. You must beexplaining and telling the judge why theseissues win the debate.4. Avoid rereading evidence that has already beenread in constructives. You can make referenceto it by pulling it, but don’t re-read it.5. Avoid “lumping and dumping.” Don’t tryto go for everything. You can’t make 12responses to each argument in a few minutes.6. Be organized. Don’t mindlessly talk aboutissues at random. Be specific and logicalabout winning issues.7. Don’t be a blabbering motormouth. Speakquickly but not beyond your ability. If youspeak too fast, you will stumble and not getthrough as much.8. Don’t whine to the judge about fairness orwhat the other team might have done thatyou think is unethical. Make responses andbeat them.9. Don’t make new arguments. You can readnew evidence but you can’t run new disadvantagesor topicality responses. You arelimiting to extending the positions laid outin the constructive speeches.10. Use signposting. Make sure the judge knowwhere you are on the flowsheet. This is notthe time to lose the judge on the flow.11. Use issue packages. Organize your argumentsinto issue packages. Choose argumentswhich you want to win. Don’t go foreverything. Extend those arguments thatyou need to win.12. Cross-apply arguments. If you dropped anargument in a prior speech that you thinkwas important don’t act like your losing.Cross-apply arguments you made somewhereelse in the debate.A rebuttal is not the time to go slow.Umm...well...judge...National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 38

The First Negative RebuttalThe general purpose of the 1NR is twofold:to select winning arguments andto pressure the 1AR.The single biggest mistake 1NR’s make is torepeat or “extend” exactly what the 2NC did. Ifyou remember only a single idea from this sectionit should be this: DO NOT COVER THE2NC ISSUES! The proper division of labor inthe negative block allows the 2NC and 1NR topursue separate issues to increase their chancesof winning the debate. When the 1NR merelyrepeats the 2NC, the opportunity for pressuringthe 1AR is lost, and the debate becomesmuddled and confused.If you rememberonly ONE idea fromthis section it shouldbe this:DO NOT COVERTHE 2NC ISSUES!W h a tyou need to do is to balloon something. Whichargument you balloon will vary from round toround. Typically, the 1NR must realize that willless speech time, they can only balloon one majorissue and consequently they must select theright one. Remember, the purpose of the 1NRis to establish winning arguments and put thepressure on the 1AR. It follows that the argumentchosen must have enough impact to winthe round and be developed enough to requiretime and attention in the 1AR.This strategy necessitates the dropping ofarguments. The negative has the luxury offocusing on the weakest part of the affirmativecase, so they can strategically drop certain argumentsin order to concentrate on those parts.In addition to ballooning one major issue,and strategically dropping inconsequential ones,the 1NR has the option of quickly arguing a fewkey case attacks. For example, you may havesome clear and persuasive solvency presses.Finally, the 1NR must cover any additionaladvantages that were claimed in the 2AC (theseare sometimes referred to as “add-ons”). The2NC could cover add-ons, but usually doesn’tbecause the 1NR has more time to prepare.Tips for the 1NR1. Give a ten second intro and a one-line conclusionwhich persuasively states the impactyour speech has in the round.2. When ballooning, it is crucial that you carefullyanswer 2AC responses point-by-point.3. Don’t repeat tags. Extending an argument isnot repeating the argument. It is rebuttingthe affirmative’s argument and explainingwhy yours is better.4. Use no prep time. The biggest favor youcan do for the 1AR is take lots of prep timebefore your speech. The 1NR speech shouldbe prepared during the 2NC.5. “Steal” prep time and use it wisely. You haveall the prep time used by the 2NC, all thespeech time used by the 2NC, and all thetime spent cross-examining the 2NC to getyour speech ready. That’s more time thananyone else in the round! Use it to prepareexcellent, written-out explanations of keypoints in your speech.6. Anticipate 1AR responses and pre-emptthem. As the season progresses, you willknow what to pre-empt by flowing the 1AR.Resist the temptation to close up shop afteryour 1NR.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 39

The First Affirmative RebuttalThe purpose of the 1AR is simple: don’tlose the debate.The strategy is equally simple: don’t dropanything. Cover every important argument. Youcannot answer each subpoint on an argument,but you should answer any argument whichcould potentially win the debate for the negative.There are three areas in which you maydrop some points to cover the entire issue:• Disads. Pick a set of 2AC arguments toextend. Or, if the disad was introduced in2NC, go for links or impacts, but not both.You simply don’t have time.• Counterplans. Again, go for a set of 2ACresponses. Go for either topicality, competitiveness,or disadvantages. The affirmativeshave the luxury of picking and choosingwhich counterplan take-outs to extend.• Case attacks. You don’t have to win everycard on case. You need to win enoughto outweigh disad risks. You need to winenough of the prima facie burdens of the1AC. If you have more than one advantageyou may choose to jettison the weakestone.Tips for the 1AR1. Word economy. Be concise. Everythingshould be on blocks. Use abbreviations.Highlight your evidence. Eliminate petphrases. Don’t overexplain. Preflowyour speech. Place important wordsfirst on the label.2. Refer to previous evidence. It is notpossible to read much evidence inthe 1AR. Use the evidence fromthe 1AC and 2AC by extending thecards.3. Be organized. It is important to beorganized for all speeches, and it iscritically important to be organized for the1AR. Have all of your briefs in order beforeyou begin to speak.4. Order of issues. Always put topicality firstin the 1AR. Then go to disads/counterplans.Go to case last. Ending on familiar groundhelps you allocate the time.5. Time allocation. The last thing you do beforeyour delivery of the 1AR is to count thenumber of issues you will be covering. Thiswill give you a sense of how much time youcan spend on each argument.6. Exploit negative contradictions. Look forsome of these popular contradictions:A. Inherency-Disad. If negative says thestatus quo is working, then why haven’tthe disads happened?B. Solvency-Disad. You may be able togrant a negative solvency argument inorder to evade the link to a disad.C. Disad-Disad. Negatives often run disadswith contradictory theses. You can grantone disad to prevent another. Caution:do not grant negative arguments thatcould beat you. For example, if you aregoing to grant out one solvency argumentsto evade a disad, make sure youhave another solvency mechanism leftto gain an advantage.Remember, the 1AR has to speakquickly and use good word economybecause the 1AR has only a fewminutes to answer the entire negativeblock.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 40

The Second Negative RebuttalNow is the time to put all of youreggs in one basket!The negative search for truth ends in the2NR. Winning requires the 2NR to choose theissues and approach to create a persuasive bottomline negative position. The 2NR cannotpursue everything in the debate because thejudge must be told which arguments to consider.If not given a rationale or “bottom line”position, the judge will not know why to votenegative. A winning 2NR writes the ballot forthe judge.There are two ways to win in the 2NR: “Winthe Drop” or “Win the Position.”• Win the Drop. Many debates are decidedbecause the 1AR could not coverthe negative block or because debaterscould not flow very well and missedresponses. The 2NR’s job would simplybe to pull the dropped argument andexplain why it is sufficient to vote negative.This entails weighing the droppedargument against the affirmative case.Examples include dropped disads, topicality,or major case arguments.• Win the Position. The 2NR must pullall negative issues together in a waythat jettisons all irrelevant material andfocuses the debate on the single negativestrategy. Listed below are severaltypical negative frameworks that canbe used alone or in combination withother frameworks. Remember the importanceof narrowing the debate to asimple bottom line position and do notemploy too many frameworks at once.Either way, you will still need to win specifickinds of arguments in order to win theround. Here are some examples of the kinds ofarguments you need to win in order to win thedebate:High Impact Disads. Win a disad with animpact that outweighs the case advantage(s).Topicality. Argue that topicality is an absolutevoting issue. In other words, the judgeshould decide topicality before evaluating theIt can be very difficult todecide which issues tofocus on in the 2NRrest of the debate. The 2NR may combine thetopicality framework with some other frameworkor the 2NR may wish to pursue topicalityexclusively.Prima Facie Issue. The 2NR may succeedin totally beating the affirmative on their ownground with one of the case requirements. Theonly problem with this is that, without a gooddisad, the affirmative can always argue that thejudge has nothing to lose by voting affirmativesince, at worst, nothing bad will happen—wemight as well try to improve the status quo. Thisis why it is important to make arguments thatturn the case—arguments that the plan actuallymakes the problems identified by the case worsethan they are in the status quo.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 41

The Counterplan Position. The 2NR maychoose to focus exclusively on the counterplanposition-especially if it competes with the affirmative’sadvantage(s) and the negatives areunique to the affirmative solvency.Tips for the 2NR1. Preempt the 2AR. Cliches include:• No new arguments in the 2AR.• No new cross-applications in the 2AR• If you can’t trace it back to the 1AR,ignore it.2. Do not go for everything. You must win aposition or a dropped argument. Now is thetime to consider putting all of your eggs inone basket.3. Extend your negative block arguments.Don’t just summarize. There are two partsto extending an argument. Deny the truth/relevance of the opposition argument andexplain why yours is better. Many 2NR’s fallinto the “no clash trap.” You must draw theconnection between your arguments andtheirs. Cliches include:• “They have good evidence here, but oursanswers it.”• “We post-date their uniqueness evidence”• “On topicality, they do not extend theirown definition, our definition is the onlyone in the debate.”Each of these cliches considers the opponent’sargument and attempts to answer it.4. Sequence. Go to your best arguments first.Spend a significant amount of time on theargument you want the judge to vote on.5. Compare arguments. Frequently, debatersassume that if they extend their argumentsthe judge will simply know that their argumentsare more important than theiropponents’. Do not be so trusting. Clichesinclude:• “They may be winning a little advantage,but the disadvantage will outweigh.”• “They have a good definition, but it unfairlyexpands the grounds of the topic,so it is not good for debate.”• “Even if they are winning a risk of a turnon this disadvantage, the counterplanwill solve the turn.”6. Take all of your prep time. Use all of yourprep time to write out responses to the issuesyou have narrowed down. Take a momentto look over the flow and be certain you arenot going to miss an important affirmativeresponse. Check with your partner to seewhat issues he or she might think are important.Remember: the 2NR and the2AR represent each team’s FI-NAL OPPORTUNITYto explain its point of viewto the judge.If you have anything importantto say, NOW IS THE TIME TOSAY IT! Arguing with the judgeafter the round is over mightmake you feel better, but itwon’t change the outcome ofthe debate and it will probablymake the judge hate you.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 42

The Second Affirmative RebuttalThe Affirmative gets the last speechin the debate, and they need to takefull advantage of it.The general strategy of the 2AR is to re-establishcase advantage(s) and to minimize or take outthe impacts of the negative arguments. In orderto minimize the impact of the negative arguments,go to the best issue in the middle of yourspeech. This trick tends to de-emphasize thearguments that the 2NR claimed were criticalin the debate. In order to re-establish your caseadvantage, begin your speech with your ownagenda or overview that puts forth the mostcompelling reason to vote affirmative. For example,your case strategy may have been to runa low impact, high probability advantage thatevades all disad links. In that case, you wouldfirst go back to your advantage and claim it tobe absolute, then cover the disad, arguing zerorisk on each.Tips for the 2AR1. Extend. Don’t just repeat or summarize yourarguments.2. Group. Select the strongest 1AR responsesto go for.3. Sequence. Set your agenda. Cover the 2NR.End with a short explanation of why youhave won the round.4. Re-tell the story. Every affirmative has anarrative behind it. Emphasize how yourstory is more plausible or more compellingor more anything than theirs is.5. Allocate time like the 2NR. Spend time onthe issues that the 2NR spent time on. It willdo no good to re-explain case for 3 minutesif the 2NR spent 4 minutes on a disad, acounterplan, and a topicality violation.6. Wrap up the debate. Explain why youshould still win the round even if you havelost a few issues. If you are unable to beat anargument, then say something like: “evenif you grant the negative a partial solvencyargument, then you still vote affirmative onthe chance the plan will solve.” Or, “evenwith only 50% solvency, you should still voteaffirmative since it is comparatively betterthen the status quo.”The routine . . .1. 1AC-Case and plan.2. 1NC-Topicality, disads,counterplan, or case.3. 2AC-Answer 1NC andextend case.4. 2NC-Case and answer2AC-leave case argumentsfor 1NR.5. 1NR-Answer rest of2AC.6. 1AR-Answer 2NC and1NR.7. 2NR-Isolate the votingissues.8. 2AR-Isolate the votingissues.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 43

Strategic Considerations for Rebuttals1NR (First Negative Rebuttal)1. Select issues not covered by your partner(NEVER, EVER RE-COVER THEIR ARGU-MENTS) and extend them as comprehensivelyas possible to be winning issues (andto put pressure on the 1AR).2. Finish extending issues that your partnerdidn’t finish.3. Make sure that the major impacts claimedby the other team are minimized.4. Take NO preparation time for your speech,as you will have the 2NC and cross-ex (whichis a minimum of 11 minutes.)5. Read extension evidence to make sure thatyour positions are well explained and evidenced.6. Do not go for all your arguments. Pick thestrongest and most winnable and blow themup.7. Be careful to not extend arguments thatcontradict your partner’s.1AR (First Affirmative Rebuttal)1. Extend several winning arguments againsteach negative position extended in the blockto give your partner flexibility in the 2AR.2. Don’t get bogged down in explanation—there’s too much to cover to try and explaineverything.3. Take as little prep time as possible, try to flowyour answers to the 2NC during the cross-exof the 2NC.4. Have your partner look for evidence foryou so you can concentrate on your flowinganswers to arguments.5. Order your arguments and cover them inorder of importance (the first being the mostimportant), and make sure to answer newblock arguments first.6. Try to group and consolidate arguments,as well as cutting back the number of cardsread to maximize your efficiency.2NR (Second Negative Rebuttal)1. Don’t go for everything. It is far better tomake strategic choices and go for a fewthings well (this will also probably entailreading FEW cards).2. Assess impacts to try and get into the mentalityof the judge and determine what theywill find the most compelling.3. Close the door on likely 2AR argumentsand the things that they’re winning themost clearly as well as closing the door onnew arguments.4. Don’t go for Topicality unless you can winit in a minute or you intend to go for it exclusively.5. Spend sufficient time on you partner’s argumentsand try to order what you can go forin terms of importance.6. When kicking out a disadvantage, make surethat you leave no room for a turn-around.7. When extending disads, make sure to extendthe arguments dropped by the 1AR and assessimpacts as compared to the affirmative case.2AR (Second Affirmative Rebuttal)1. Be selective in the answers you go for andREALLY explain them.2. Assess impacts well and compare the caseto the disads that the negative might win.3. Re-order from the 2NR: address the issuesthat you’re winning first and then deal withthe rest of the issues in the debate.These suggestions appear as explained by DavidCheshier in his “rebuttal skills” lecture at theEmory National Debate Institute.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 44

Checklist for Winning and LosingListed below are some brief guidelines on whatthe affirmative must do in order to win the debatebased on different arguments. Remember,the presumption falls on the negative, and theaffirmative has the burden of proving that theaffirmative policy is desirable. If the negativecan win just one of many issues, that may beenough for a negative win.1. Topicality: The affirmative does not initiatethe topicality argument. If it is notpresented by the negative, then it will not bean issue in the debate. If it is presented bythe negative team, then you must rememberto do several things:a. Answer the standards. Make sure youhave reasons why their standards areunreasonable.b. Argue each violation. Make sure thatyou have extension briefs on the definitionsthat you think will be debated.Make the negative prove why their definitionsare better than yours.c. Ask for their Topicality briefs in CXand make sure that you have coveredall of the violations. If time permits,examine the definitions that they readand look for inconsistencies within theevidence.d. Argue that Topicality is not a voting issue.Make sure you have briefs on thisresponse.e. Never drop topicality in rebuttals-formost judges that becomes an absolutevoting issue and an easy way to decidethe debate. Don’t let any judges havethis luxury of decision.2. Disadvantages: Next to topicality, the disadvantagesare the most important issues in theround. Judges are looking for comparisonsafter the round-affirmative advantages incompetition with negative disadvantages.Make sure you review the section of disadvantages.a. Attack the links.b. Disprove or turn the impacts.c. Argue threshhold or brink is notunique.d. Prove disads won’t happen.e. Anticipate what the disads will be andhave briefs ready to respond to thesearguments.3. Affirmative Case Issues: Probably the mostimportant case issue will be solvency. However,there are some other issues you needto be able to defend.a. Inherency. The negative will argue thatthe plan is already being done or willbe done in the status quo. Sometimesthe negative will press that the affirmativemust show what the “core motive”is behind the inherency barrier. Thebottom line is that over the years, inherencyhas become a somewhat mediocreargument. As long as the affirmativekeeps extending the evidence that theSQ cannot solve the problem without theaffirmative plan, and that the affirmativeplan will not be passed in the status quo,the affirmative should be able to win thatthere is some unique advantage to begained by voting for the affirmative.Even if the status quo is likely to solvelarge portions of the affirmative harm,without a disadvantage, the affirmativeplan is still desirable.b. Significance. If any affirmative loses onthe question of significance, then theaffirmative was never really prepared todebate anyway! Negative teams rarelyget by arguing that the quantifiableharm selected by the affirmative is notNational Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 45

significant. If an affirmative argues that50,000 homeless people died of AIDShow can the negative determine thatnumber has to be 150,000 in order to besignificant? All an affirmative has to dois argue that the case is comparativelyadvantageous compared to the statusquo. If there is more advantage with theaffirmative position than the negativeposition, then the affirmative should winsignificance.c. Solvency. Really this issue is the startingpoint for comparing advantages to disadvantages.The negative might attacksolvency three ways.First, they might simply indict the affirmativeevidence. Put good solvencycards in the 1AC. Prepare to extend withadditional evidence. Be able to extendthe qualifications of your sources. Beprepared to read evidence indicatingothers believe the plan will solve.Second, they might argue plan-meetneeds(PMNs). PMNs indicate thatstructural inadequacies prevent solvingeven if the plan is a good idea. Perhapsthe personnel, equipment, expertise, andother resources vital to solving the problemare not available. Thus, the affirmativemust not only show the plan is agood idea, but that the plan is sufficientlyeffective to attain some advantage.Third, they might argue circumvention.Actors outside the bounds of control ofthe affirmative might act to block theplan. Frequently identifying who opposesthe plan and why, will provide thenegative with arguments for individualswho will obstruct the outcome of theplan. These are usually individualswho have a vested interest in keepingthe status quo. The affirmative cananswer this argument by proving thatthese individuals or groups do not havean interest in blocking the plan, or thatthey are unable to do so.4. Counterplans. Sometimes the best way tobeat a counterplan is to throw it back to thenegative. In order for the counterplan towin it must meet three criteria: It shouldbe nontopical, it must be competitive, andit must have an advantage which is greaterthan the affirmative plan. The affirmativecan respond several ways. First, youcan prepare solvency arguments againstthat particular counterplan. Second, youcan argue that the counterplan does notcompete—that you can do them both at thesame time. Third, you can argue that youradvantages are superior to the counterplanadvantages. For more discussion on the issueof counterplans, review that section ofthe manual.Most beginning debaters will lose the debateby dropping or not responding to arguments.Don’t be afraid to offer answers to argumentsyou are unprepared for. That will cost you thedebate. Just think clearly and you will come upwith answers.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 46

Cutting Cards and Citing EvidenceSimple Guidelines for Evidence CitationCutting CardsThere are several main things to remember asyou begin the process of research.1. Try to cut only cards that make arguments.There is definitely a place for informationalcards, but they should be labeled assuch so they’re not used inappropriately inrounds.2. Never, Ever cut one sentence cards.3. Cards should be complete thoughts, and thiswill always mean complete sentences (cardsshould begin with a capital letter and endwith a punctuation mark.)4. Try to cut at least a paragraph for each card,so there is a context for the author’s ideas.5. Don’t ever cut cards that aren’t what theauthor advocates. This includes cards wherethe word after the card is BUT.1. Evidence should always have full andcomplete citations. Just as articles shouldfootnote their sources, debaters shouldmake it possible for others to identify whereevidence comes from. This includes the following:a. The authorb. The author’s qualificationsc. The publicationd. The date of the publicatione. The page number ofthe original quotation.2. All evidence should be clearly cited ona brief. Cite lists which can be coded areacceptable, but BEFORE THE BRIEF ISREPRODUCED FOR OTHERS, the citationof every card should be clearly identified.Unacceptable:Acceptable:Wade 99 Wade, Adjunct Education Professor, Emory U,Fall 99 (Melissa, Journal of Debate Love), p. 233. Number coded citation sheets are acceptable,BUT DO NOT FAIL TO PUT THECOMPLETE CITATION ON THE BRIEFWHEN IT IS COMPLETED.4. The rules for citation don’t change whenciting the world wide web. There still mustbe an author, qualification, publication,date, and a FULL WEB SITE ADDRESS.Saying www or internet as a source is NOTacceptable. If you can’t find the FULL citefor a source from the web, DON’T USE THEEVIDENCE.An example web site is: www.emory.udl/htmlNational Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 47

Guidelines for Briefing1. Titles and Tagging Briefs—it’s important thatthe titles and tags on briefs reflect the truequality of the evidence. It is also crucial toother debaters that the briefs must be legibleand easy to use for people who will bein time-constrained positions.A. Labels for Individual Cards1. Important not to overstate the evidenceor claim that it says things thatit doesn’t.2. Important to not simply restate thecard, but to turn it into a debate argument(for example, “High cost preventsrenewable use” is better than “can’tsolve”).3. Don’t curse on the blocks or the tags4. No symbols on the briefs, lots of peoplemight not understand what your symbolsare, and it could hurt them in adebate.5. Try to write neatly. It will help otherpeople out a lot if they can read yourtags.B. Format of Briefs1. Put the school name (or institute name)and your name in the upper left cornerof the page.2. Under these labels, put the general argumentarea (for ex., Spending Disad)3. Place the page number of the brief inthe right corner (if you have three pagessaying Clinton would be unpopular withthe plan there is a page 1 of 3, 2 of 3,or 3 of 3, etc.).4. Don’t put numbers by cards, unless it’sthe 1NC frontline, so numbers can beadded in during a debate round. By thetag of each card, put a (__) for the teamin the round to insert a number.A. For big arguments that will be used bythe whole lab, we suggest using an indexsheet to explain the argument and howto use the evidence in the file.B. For the most part, try and put the bestarguments in the front of the file and thebest cards at the beginning of the briefs,so that if someone needs to find the bestcards and arguments, they are easily accessibleunder the time constraints ofthe round.C. Try to mix analytical arguments as wellas cards on the briefs. The is FAR moreeffective than just reading lots of cardsbecause it focuses the argumentation oncrucial key points.D. Be aware that there might be contradictionsor interactions with othercards on the briefs.E. Do not cut cards in half and continuethem on the next page. This will onlyserve to confuse others trying to use yourevidence and might confuse you in thepressure of a debate.3. Taping BriefsA. Tape all of the corners of the cardsdown!!!!B. This includes the citation that should betaped to the card and then taped to thepage on both corners.C. Use only clear tape, no glue sticks or anyalternate method of sticking.2. Strategic Considerations— or how to makeyour work more usefulNational Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 48

A Sample BriefLabel your briefs with yourteam and school so you canidentify them if they are lostor misplaced. You may also listother information, such as Affor Neg or even which case theyinvolve.H/LEmoryMake sure the title of theargument is written in large,dark, clear print. Someone elsemay have to read this, so writeneatly. You should be able toidentify this brief at a glance.Courts Counterplan AnswersMake sure to include page numberson your briefs. The number to the leftof the slash is the page of this brief.The number to the right of the slashindicates the total number of pages ofTHIS PARTICULAR kind of brief.1/2This brief is writtenfor a very specificargument, so it usesnumbers for thearguments. Whenwriting more genericbriefs, leave spacesmarked by parenthesesso futuredebaters can fill intheir own numbersUse both analyticalarguments and evidencedargumentson the same brief,alternating betweenthe two. This makes itdifficult for the otherteam to group yourarguments.1) Permute: do the plan and the counterplan at the same time. This solvesthe case and avoids the disadvantages.2) CP fiats over future court decisions. It’s a voting issue.a) It fiats attitudes and solvency, which avoids the criticisms of the literatureand means the affirmative could never win a DA to the CP,crushing our ability to debate.b) 1NC strategy choices skew 2AC time and argument choice. The abuse hasalready occurred. This means you reject the negative, not just the CP.3) Turn: CP must extend the Hill precedent, which doesn’t solve and watersdown Title VII:Robin Rogers, JD Candidate @ UC Berkeley, 1990, California LR, n. 120:Even if Title VII, as presently formulated, were held to apply to uniformedmembers of the military, the use of the statute for claims of discrimination inthe military would still be problematic. The courts would probably continueto defer to military policy when considering claims brought under the statute.The Hill opinion clearly demonstrates this, concluding that the test for policydecisions is “whether the military was clearly arbitrary and erroneous, with aharmful effect present at the time the dispute reaches the court. Applicationof this test in numerous military cases could threaten to spill over into civilianTitle VII litigation and seriously weaken the established standards.4) No evidence that a case exists for the Supreme Court to call. Proves nomechanism for counterplan solvency5) Overturning the combat exclusion in the Courts won’t be enforced.Pamela R. Jones, Managing Editor of the Cornell LR, 1993, January, p. 298If the court declares the combat exclusion rules and policies unconstitutional,enforcement problems are likely to emerge. Neither Congress, the President,nor the Armed Forces seem prepared to lift the combat exclusion rulescompletely. For example, even Representative Beverly Brown, who supportsincreasing opportunities for women in the military, rejects a “wholesale liftingof the combat exclusion rules.”Many debatersuse bold lettersor highlightersto indicate theparts of the citethat are mostimportant incase time is ofthe essence.When cuttingcards, use underliningto indicatethe partof the card thatshould be readin the round.This is a goodway to makecards shorterand more powerful.NEVERphysically removepart ofa card. If youhave to, breakone card intoseveral sectionsinstead.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 49

Glossary: Boring Words You Need to Knowadd-on: n. An advantage of the affirmative planusually presented in the 2nd Affirmative constructivespeech and independent of whateveradvantages were presented in the 1st affirmativeconstructive.advantage: n. An advantage is a description usedby the affirmative to explain what beneficial effectswill result from its plan.affirmative: n The team in a debate which supportsthe resolution. This team presents theaffirmative case (see below).affirmative cases: n. This is generally used to referto the part of the affirmative position whichdemonstrates that there is a need for change becausethere is a serious problem (harms) whichthe present system cannot solve (inherency) butwhich is none the less, solvable (solvency). Theaffirmative’s case provides a specific plan tosolve the problem.affirmative plan: n. The policy action advocatedby the affirmative.agent (or Agent of Change): n. The actor thatthe affirmative or the resolution calls for toact. The agent in the resolution is usually theUnited States federal government. Affirmativescan specify specific agents within the federalgovernment, such as Congress or the Presidentto implement their plan.agent counterplans: n. A counterplan whichargues that the plan you are implementingthrough one agent of change, should instead,be implemented by another agent of change.anarchy: n. A counterplan which argues thatthe government should dissolve itself ratherthan carry on any resolutional action or otheraction. Some teams argue this action can be bythe United States alone and others argue thatall government should dissolve.a priori: n. literally, prior to. Usually an argumentwhich indicates that a particular issueshould be resolved before all others. Frequentlyused to argue that procedural concerns such astopicality should be considered before substantiveissues such as advantages.attitudinal inherency: n. this type of inherencyidentifies an unwillingness of those in power inthe present system to take corrective measuresto solve the harm cited by the affirmative.bipartisanship: n. This is a political disadvantagewhich argues that the affirmative planwill disrupt bipartisan working relations withinthe Congress making it more difficult to enactother important policies. The argument couldalso be made the opposite way. The negativecould argue that the plan will spur bipartisancooperation and therefore cause bad policiesto be enacted. Also "Bipart" (see disadvantagesand political disads).budget deficits: n. A generic negative disadvantagewhich argues that the spending of governmentfunds on a new program will break thepolitical will which holds the budget freeze online, impacting in massive economic disruption.burden of proof: n. 1) The requirement thatsufficient evidence or reasoning to prove an argumentbe presented 2) the requirement thatthe affirmative prove the stock issues.circumvention: n. This is a type of argumentwhich argues that certain actors will attempt toavoid the mandates of the plan. Because it arguesthat the plan will be avoided, it is a type ofsolvency argument which implies that the planwill not be able to solve the problem the casecites as the harm.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 50

citation: n. Specific information on the source ofevidence regarding publication, date of publication,page excerpt, and the author’s qualification.Also known as “cite.”clash: vb. To respond directly to an opponent’sargument.comparative advantage: n. Arguing that thedesirable benefits of the plan in contrast to thepresent system. For example, if the affirmativeargues that their case simply decreases racism,but does not solve it completely, they are arguingthat compared to the staus quo, the plan makesthings better.competitiveness: n. 1) The quality of a policywhich makes the policy a reason to reject anotherpolicy. 2) a situation where one policyis mutually exclusive with another policy or ismore preferable alone than in conjunction withanother policy. It is traditionally expected that anegative prove a counterplan to be a competitivealternative to the affirmative plan.conditional counterplan: n. conditional counterplansare counterplans that the negativepresents, but the negative can remove it as theiradvocacy at any time In the debate.constructives: n. The first four individualspeeches of the debate. Arguments are initiatedin these speeches and extended in rebuttals.They consist of the first affirmative constructive(1AC), the first negative constructive (1NC), thesecond affirmative constructive (2AC), and thesecond negative constructive (2NC). Thesespeeches are interrupted by cross-examinationperiods of each speaker.contentions: n. 1) A major point advanced ormaintained in a debate. 2) a subdivision of anaffirmative case.context: n. 1) The relationship of the evidenceread in the date to the original source material.It is expected that evidence read in a debate willbe consistent with the meaning of the evidenceas it is written in the original source. 2) a standardfor evaluating topicality arguments whichis used to determine if the definition offered inthe debate is consistent with the meaning of theterm in relationship to authors who write aboutthe subject matter of the topic or, to determine ifthe definition offered in the debate is consistentwith the meaning of the term in relationship toother terms in the resolution. adj. contextual.contradictions: n. This is a type of fallacy inargument. It merely says that the two or morearguments presented by one team cannot betrue because they disprove each other. Example:having one team present arguments that provethat U.S. hegemony is both good and bad.co-option: n. the influence of outside partieshampering an agency’s efforts to carry out itsinstructions.counterplan: n. a counterplan is proposed by thenegative as an alternative method of solving thesame problem cited by the affirmative or as analternative which goes beyond the affirmative’splan. It is generally thought that a counterplanshould be competitive. That means that It shouldnot be possible or desirable to adopt both theaffirmative plan and the negative’s counterplan.vb. to employ the negative strategy of presentingand defending a competitive program to solvethe affirmative need or advantage.counterplan advantages: n. benefits which resultfrom the adoption of the counterplan.Critical Legal Studies (CLS): n. a field of legalscholarship which argues that the United Stateslegal system while formally appealing with itsguarantees of equal rights and indivdual rights,remains, in fact a system which serves the elitesand denies access to the poor.critique (also "kritik"): n. an argument that theassumptions or language of an issue are the firstconsideration (or an "a priori issue") in a debate.The effects of a policy should be considered onlyafter one has decided if the assumptions and/or language of an argument are philosophicallyor morally acceptable. Frequently, the critiqueargues that—since the plan is not truly enactedNational Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 51

as a result of the debate—the impact of the language,philosophy, or political straetgy used inthe round is more "real" and more importantthan any other argument in the round.cross-examination: n. This is a three minuteperiod which follows each of the constructivespeeches in which a member of the opposingteam directly questions the most recentspeaker.cut evidence: vb. a term used to describe theprocess of compiling evidence from books,magazines, articles, etc. This involves copyingthe portion of text that you desire to use citing,and tagging the text as evidence.debatability standard: n. a topicality standardwhich argues that as long as the definitionprovides fair grounds for debate, it should beaccepted.disadvantages: n. A disadvantage, sometimesreferred to with the shorthand phrases "DA" or"Disad," is an undesirable effect of a plan. A negativeteam runs a disad to show that adoption ofthe plan is going to cause more problems thanit will solve. In order to prove a disadvantage, anegative team must prove several things. First,they must link it to the affirmative plan. Second,they must be able to prove it is unique to theaffirmative plan, and third, they must prove thatthe impact of the disadvantage is bad enough tooutweigh the affirmative advantages.discursive impact: n. Derived from the worddiscourse, this argument usually says that thelanguage used within the debate is more importantthan the issues debated. Discursive impactsare usually claimed by critiques.dispositional counterplan: n. Dispositionalcounterplans are counterplans that the negativepresents, that the negative can not abandonat anytime. The negative is forced to defendthe counterplan if the affirmative chooses notto read any theory arguments or permutationsagainst the negative. Dispositional counterplansare often compared to "conditional"counterplans.existential inherency: n. This kind of inherencyargues that if the affirmative can demonstrate amassive problem exists then the affirmative hasmet the burden of inherency by showing thatthe present system is not solving it.evidence: n. quotations which tend to prove orprovide grounds for belief; also, broadly, thereasoning which tends to prove.extending an argument: v. Bringing an argumentup again in speeches after which they wereinitially presented. This sometimes involvesreading new evidence to further explain orsupport the initial argument. Arguments thatare not extended are considered “dropped” andare not supposed to be considered by the judgewhen deciding the round.extra-topical: adj. A portion of an affirmativeplan that falls outside the resolution. Differentfrom non-topical plans, which do not fall underthe topic at all, extra-topical plans are plans thatare partially topical, but also have a part that isnon-topical.Feminism: n. a generic negative argumentwhich says that whatever policy or value presentedby the affirmative entrenches the "mindset"of patriarchy. Patriarchy is a social system whichrelies upon authoritative power structures. Thenegative argues that this system of governanceshould be rejected. The argument is frequentlyused to prove that even granting feminists poweris not good if the feminists also support thepatriarchal system.field context: n. a topicality standard that saysit is better to have a definition which is derivedfrom the writings of experts on the subject ofthe resolution.fiat: n. Fiat is a term used to describe the processthat allows us to debate an affirmative planas if it were adopted. This four letter word ismuch disputed in debate theory as to what itactually means, what powers it gives the affirmative,and what powers the negative has to implementa counterplan. For a quick reference, itNational Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 52

would be best to think of it as a little spark ofimagination which allows us to pretend a judgecould adopt the affirmative plan (and perhapsthe negative’s counterplan) if he/she choose.vb. to implement a plan over any objection — apower granted to advocates of change.floating PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan): n.This is a counterplan that is not formally readby the negative, but is merely implied by thenegative critique. Many critical arguments seemto imply that an alternative action to the planwould be taken either immediately or at somepoint in the future. It is called "floating" becausethe implicit nature of the counterplan makes iteasy for the negative to alter the implied action,making it a moving target.flow: vb. to take notes of the debate, argumentby argument in a linear fashion. n. referringto a flow sheet.flow sheet: n. paper used to keep track of thearguments in a debate.Foucault critique: n. This critique, which isbased on the writings of Michael Foucault (pronounced"foo-ko"), usually advocates individualresistance to regulation and criticizes the ideaof government reform. Foucault was concernedthat when society regulates what is and is notacceptable behavior people are locked into particularways of thinking and acting. For example,laws define deviance and thus create groups ofpeople who are considered "abnormal." Heargued against the idea that power is held onlyby those at the top. Instead, he claimed that allpeople have power.generic arguments: n. arguments, usuallynegative, that are general and apply to a widerange of affirmative cases or plans.generic disadvantage: n. A disadvantage designedto link to most affirmative plans on thetopic.grammatical context: n. a topicality standardthat argues that when searching for the bestdefinition we should find one which is derivedfrom the relationship of words in a consistentgrammatical form with other terms in the resolution.impact: n. the good or bad results of an affirmativecase, counterplan or disadvantages (seesignificance). n. the consequences of an argument,including theoretical arguments, whichmake the argument important in evaluatingthe debate.independent advantage: n. an advantage thatcan justify adoption of a plan even if the otheradvantages may not be true.inherency: n. the cause of a problem’s existence,the proof that the problem will continue,and the barrier preventing current programsfrom solving a problem.intrinsicness: adj. used to describe a type ofargument in which the affirmative illegitimatelyadds an action onto their plan that was not originallyadvocated by the aff.jurisdiction: n. This is an argument often usedin topicality discussions that assumes the resolutionprovides limits on the judge’s power. Thisargument states that if the plan is not topical, thejudge has no power to fiat the plan and as such,a nontopical plan could not be voted for becausethe plan is outside the judge’s authority.kritiks: see critiques. Also known as "the K."link: n. That component of a disadvantagewhich shows how it is caused by the Affirmativeplan.masking: n. an argument that says the affirmativeplan leads everyone to believe the problemis being solved, when in fact the plan will fail tosolve and prevent other solutions from beingenacted. Frequently used as part of critiquearguments such as CLS, CRT, and Foucault.(see CLS and critiques).mutual exclusivity: n. one competitivenessstandard that the counterplan and the affirmativeplan cannot co-exist.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 53

negative block: n. the 2nd negative constructiveand the 1st negative rebuttal; the two negativespeeches in the middle of the debate.net benefits: n. A competitiveness standardstating that the counterplan alone is a superiorpolicy to adoption of both the counterplan andthe affirmative plan together.Objectivism: n. based on the philosophy of authorAyn Rand, the argument says individualfreedom is the most important value. All governmentregulations innately infringe on individualsand are therefore evil. Only completefreedom from government controls can allowthe human race to achieve its full potential.performance: n. a type of debate that abandonsthe concept of debate as policy-making and focuseson the activity's ability to cause changein our society. Performance debates usually donot include plans, and may incorporate music,videos, and other forms of expression intospeeches.permutation: n. a type of argument used byaffirmatives to illustrate non-competitivenessof counterplans, a legitimate permutation includeesall of the plan and all or part of thecounterplan. Affirmatives argue that, despitethe texts of the plan and the counterplan, if itis possible to imagine the coexistence of thetwo plans, then the negative has not illustratedwhy the resolution should not be adopted. (seecompetitiveness)philosophical competition: n. a standard ofcompetition for counterplans which argues thatsince the two plans under consideration havedifferent philosophical approaches they areexclusive of one another.PIC: see "plan-inclusive counterplan"plan-inclusive counterplan (PIC): n. A counterplanthat substantially replicates the plan mandates,with only minor changes. In this sense,the counterplan "includes," or contains, most ofthe actions taken by the plan.plan mandates: n. the resolutional action specifiedin the affirmative plan.plan-meet-need (PMN): n. an argument claimingthat a plan does not solve the need. Usually asubdivided and structured argument presentedin second negative constructive.plan-spike: n. a part of a plan designed to aidthe workability of the plan or diminish its disadvantages.policy-making: n. a philosophy that debaterounds should be evaluated from the perspectiveof pseudo-legislators weighing the advantagesand disadvantages of two conflicting policysystems.political disads: n. (see disadvantages) theseare arguments which indicate that the politicalconsequences of passing the plan will lead toimpacts which will outweigh the case.political capital: n. the amount of good will apolitician can muster to get policies enacted. Indebate this argument says passing the plan willconsume so much political capital that thoseenacting the plan will have to sacrifice otherimportant issues on their political agenda. Thecapital expended passing the plan sacrifices thecapital necessary to get other policies passed.political focus: n. the ability of political leadersto concentrate on the particular issues. Indebate, the argument says that passing the affirmativeplan will require so much energy andtime, that policymakers will be unable to getother more important issues passed.political popularity: n. the approval rating ofa politician. In debate, the argument considersthe public approval of the plan. If the plan isunpopular, policymakers will lose credibilitymaking it nearly impossible to pass other moreimportant plans. If the plan is popular, it mayboost the credibility of policymakers, making iteasier to get other less desirable plans passed.National Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 54

postmodernism: n. Although the variouspeople who write "postmodern" theory don’treally agree on what it means to be "postmodern,"there are a couple of common elementsof postmodernism. Postmodern authors oftenclaim that we cannot know what is and is not truebecause truth is a product of culture. They oftenindict scientific reasoning, especially the argumentthat only science can tell us how to viewthe world. Many postmodern authors claim thatpolicymakers focus too much on solutions, whenthey ought to be investigating the philosophicaland linguistic nature of the problem instead.Critiques based on postmodern philosophy usuallypoint out the ways in which the affirmativerelies on faulty assumptions about truth.posthumanism: n. see "postmodernism"preemption or preempt: n. an argument designedto respond to another argument that hasnot been made, but is anticipated.presumption: n. the assumption that a systemshould be adhered to unless there is a clear reasonto change it.prep time: n. the time allotted to each team forgetting ready for their speeches once the debatehas begun.proliferation (or "prolif"): n. the acquisition ofnuclear weapons by an increasing number ofcountries in the world. When either team talksabout "proliferation," they are generally referringto the possibility of one or more countriesgetting access to nuclear weapons who do notcurrently have nukes. Sometimes, "prolif" is ageneric disadvantage which claims that the expansionof nuclear weapons capability to morecountries is increased or decreased by policiessupported by the affirmative. The consequencesunder either condition are increased instabilityand terrorism thereby increasing the risks ofnuclear war. slang; prolif good or prolif bad. Itcan also be argued that proliferation of nuclearweapons is good because nukes deter aggressionand increase caution.reasonability: n. a topicality standard whichindicates that the affirmative only need offera definition which is not excessively broad andwould appear legitimate at first glance.rebuttal: n. Any of the last four speeches in adebate. During rebuttals, new arguments areusually not allowed.resolution: n. A proposition of fact, value, orpolicy which the affirmative is obligated to support;topic, a statement which focuses debate bydividing argument ground on any given issue.reify: v. using language that makes "false" or"illusory" things seem real and/or legitimate.Some critics might say that advocating aid forminorities actually makes racism more legitimatebecause it "reifies" the idea of race. Thesecritics argue that, because there is no biologicalbasis for race, targeting people of specific racesfor help supports (or "reifies") the false notionof race, thus legitimizing racism.retrench: v. to reinforce the present system.Usually occurring in discussions of critiques,the argument says that the effect of a policy isto reinforce the prevailing attitudes in the statusquo. Thus, the problems which exist won’t besolved and may worsen.risk analysis: n. the theory and procedure ofclaiming that one hundred percent certainty isnot needed to act and that the level of certaintythat does exist is sufficient basis for policy decisions.sandbag: vb. to delay in presenting the impactof an argument until a later speech.scenario: n. a term used to describe the type ofsituation which might exist when the impact toan advantage or disadvantage would occur.shift: vb. to alter in a later speech one’s positionon an issue.significance: n. the measure, qualitative or quantitative,of the need claimed by the affirmative.Significance has diminished in importance as aNational Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 55

WARNING:Learning too manydebate terms canoverload your fragilebrain, causing itto melt like cheesestock issue in recentyears because mosttopics now includesubstantial or significantin the resolutions.solvency: n. theability of the affirmativeplan, ora counterplan, tosolve the problemsbeing discussed inthe roundspending tradeoff: n. a generic disadvantagethat argues that the cost of the plan will betaken from programs that could better use themoney.spread: vb. to introduce a large number of argumentsin to the debate, usually by speaking at avery rapid rate. n. a description of the processof delivering many arguments.standards: n. a set of criteria which allows thejudge to evaluate the superiority of competingarguments. cf., topicality standards or competitionstandards.status quo: n. the present system, the way thingsare now, the world as we know it exists now.stock issues: n. those issues that the affirmativemust prove, i.e., significance, inherency, solvencyand topicality, in order to win a debate. n. aparadigm or perspective for evaluating roundsbased on the notion that the affirmative has tomeet the burdens of significance, inherency,solving and topicality.resolution.topicality standards: n. a set of criteria designedto aid the judge in evaluating the topicalityargument.turn: n. an argument that says the exact oppositeof what the opposing team said is true inorder to prove why you win. For example if theaffirmative read a hegemony is good advantage,the negative can turn the advantage by arguinghegemony is bad.uniqueness: n. that component of a disadvantagewhich illustrates that the disadvantage impactwhich the negative claims results only fromthe adoption of the affirmative plan. That is, thedisadvantage impact would not occur absent theaffirmative plan.voting issue: n. an argument which justifies votingfor the team that initiated the argument. Forexample, topicality, critiques, and counterplancompetitiveness are frequently considered votingissues.world government (or WOMP): a generic counterplanderived from the World Order ModelsProject (W.O.M.P.) commissioned to study thefeasibility of a world government. The argument’sunderlying premise is that each actiontaken by a sovereign state (as called for by manydebate resolutions) increases the impedimentsto achieving a new world order. The negativetherefore argues a World Government should beestablished to accomplish the objectives of theaffirmative and prevent wars between nations.structure: n. the outline of the arguments.subpoints: n. a specific supporting part of anargumentative structure.topicality: n. 1) the quality or condition offalling under the range of the resolution’spossibilities. 2) an argument suggesting thatthe affirmative plan is not an example of theNational Debate Project Policy Debate Manual Page 56