Basics
Policy debate is a two on two format of debate where the affirmative team argues for the passing of a plan and the negative argues for the status quo.
Times
Sample Ballot
Stock Issues
In policy debate there are stock issues that the affirmative side must defend these are as follows.
Topicality: That the affirmative plan follows the year's resolution.
Inherency: Inherency is the fact that your topic is a problem and isn't being solved right now.
Significance/Harms: Is the fact that the topic is causing a lot of harm in the status quo and is significant enough to warrant change.
Solvency: Is how the affirmative plan actually solves for the problem.
Topicality: That the affirmative plan follows the year's resolution.
Inherency: Inherency is the fact that your topic is a problem and isn't being solved right now.
Significance/Harms: Is the fact that the topic is causing a lot of harm in the status quo and is significant enough to warrant change.
Solvency: Is how the affirmative plan actually solves for the problem.
Types of Negative Arguments
Inherency Arguments: Inherency arguments argue that the affirmative topic is not inherent, or that the status quo will already solve.
Significance/Harms Arguments: These arguments argue that the affirmative topic/problem isn't big enough to warrant the plan or that there aren't any harms.
Solvency Arguments: These arguments argue that the plan doesn't do what it claims to and won't solve the issue.
Topicality: This is a stock issue along with inherency, significance/harms, and solvency. Topicality arguments argue that the affirmative plan does not follow the year's resolution, this could be because of a word in the resolution like "significant".
Disadvantage: These are disadvantages to the plan. An example of a disadvantage would be that in the status quo the economy is recovering, however the affirmative plan will collapse the economy.
Counterplan: A counterplan is just like what it sounds it is a plan the negative proposes against the affirmative plan. In order for a counterplan to be voted on it must have a net benefit, this is often a disadvantage where the counterplan doesn't link to the disadvantage. Some judges say that the counterplan has to be topical, however this is mostly traditional judges and if argued debaters often have a rebuttal to that argument.
Kritik: A kritik is a theoretical arguement where the negative asks the judge to reject the affirmative because the affirmative is using some sort of mindset. Some common examples are the Capitalism Kritik, Settler Colonialism Kritik, and the anti-blackness kritik/ racism kritik.
Framing: Framing arguments help frame the debate in a certain light. Some examples of these arguments are framing arguments that ask to weigh probability over magnitude, to value human lives, or that it is your ethical imperative to vote for their side.
Significance/Harms Arguments: These arguments argue that the affirmative topic/problem isn't big enough to warrant the plan or that there aren't any harms.
Solvency Arguments: These arguments argue that the plan doesn't do what it claims to and won't solve the issue.
Topicality: This is a stock issue along with inherency, significance/harms, and solvency. Topicality arguments argue that the affirmative plan does not follow the year's resolution, this could be because of a word in the resolution like "significant".
Disadvantage: These are disadvantages to the plan. An example of a disadvantage would be that in the status quo the economy is recovering, however the affirmative plan will collapse the economy.
Counterplan: A counterplan is just like what it sounds it is a plan the negative proposes against the affirmative plan. In order for a counterplan to be voted on it must have a net benefit, this is often a disadvantage where the counterplan doesn't link to the disadvantage. Some judges say that the counterplan has to be topical, however this is mostly traditional judges and if argued debaters often have a rebuttal to that argument.
Kritik: A kritik is a theoretical arguement where the negative asks the judge to reject the affirmative because the affirmative is using some sort of mindset. Some common examples are the Capitalism Kritik, Settler Colonialism Kritik, and the anti-blackness kritik/ racism kritik.
Framing: Framing arguments help frame the debate in a certain light. Some examples of these arguments are framing arguments that ask to weigh probability over magnitude, to value human lives, or that it is your ethical imperative to vote for their side.
Style
Every debater has their own kind of flare. However one style or way of debating is spreading. Spreading is commonly found in college debate where almost all of the debaters spread, however high schoolers may also spread. Spreading is when debaters speak extremely fast in order to get a large amount of content into their speech. It is based on the idea that the opponent may miss something that was said and therefore allow the spreader to capitalize and perhaps win the round based on the mistake. However, for new judges I would recommend letting the debaters know that you can't follow spreading as it can be extremely hard to judge if you aren't used to it.
Training Videos
Training video from NSDA
|
Example Policy Debate Round
|