150 likes | 329 Views
Policy Debate. Round Structure. Constructive Speeches (1AC)- 6 MINUTES CX 1A to 2N- 3 MINUTES (1NC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 1N to 1A- 3 MINUTES (2AC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 2A to 1N- 3 MINUTES (2NC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 2N to 2A- 3 MINUTES Rebuttal Speeches (1NR)- 4 MINUTES (1AR)- 4 MINUTES
E N D
Round Structure Constructive Speeches (1AC)- 6 MINUTES CX 1A to 2N- 3 MINUTES (1NC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 1N to 1A- 3 MINUTES (2AC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 2A to 1N- 3 MINUTES (2NC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 2N to 2A- 3 MINUTES Rebuttal Speeches (1NR)- 4 MINUTES (1AR)- 4 MINUTES (2NR)- 4 MINUTES (2AR)- 4 MINUTES
Policy Debate Basics • The affirmative must assume the burden of proof to demonstrate the validity of the resolution. • There must be a change in policy suggested • The status quo cannot solve the harm without change • A substantial portion of the proof must be logical and non-artistic (evidence) • The negative has to uphold the burden of rejoinder (clash)
Policy Debate basics • Affirmative case is composed of two parts • Rationale • Plan • Rationale – reasons for adopting resolution • Plan – proposal for implementing policy and solving the problem
Stock issues • Significance – the problem is of substance / impact • Harms –the problem • Inherency – prove that the problem is caused by system • Plan – the affirmative must provide a means to fix the harm • Solvency – plan will eliminate harm
Significance / Harms • The problem impacts a large group of people or is widespread (cannot be just monetary) • The problem is caused by the existing policy, not an outside source • To say that the welfare system causes overpopulation is non-topical • To say that persons on welfare do not receive enough money to escape is topical
Inherency • To prove that the problem is directly tied to the existing system (status quo) • Test the Significance/Harm by running it through a syllogism • If the negative can prove alternate causality then the affirmative loses.
Plan • Plans are constructed of specific planks that will illustrate the feasibility of the change • Plank 1 – Mandates – How will the policy be changed • Plank 2 – Administration / Enforcement – Who will make the new policy happen • Plank 3 – Funding – How will the policy change be paid for • Plank 4 – Legislative intent – Sentence stating what the affirmative hopes will happen as a result of the new policy
Solvency • Illustrate through logic that your new plan will solve the problem you outlined in your significance / harms section
Advantages • Show any advantages that can be achieved by enacting your plan • This is essentially a ‘bonus’ for the voters
Negative tactics • Straight refutation – point by point analysis of Aff case • Topicality Argument – Aff is not talking about the MUC • DA – Disadvantage – if you accept the Aff position bad things will happen • Turns – Turning the Aff case against itself • CP – Counterplan – Solve the problem of the Aff case or the resolution without changing the system (MUC) (be non-topical) • Justification – Like Topicality & Inherency
Topicality • The responsibility of the affirmative to support the subject of the proposition. • If the proposition says “apples” and the affirmative talks about “oranges” they are not topical • i.e. The USFG should significantly alter the system of welfare in the US. • If you try to fix welfare by improving education then you are not topical.
Negative approaches • Attack stock issues: • Prove that # of people impacted or that the level of impact is not significant • Prove that people are not being harmed • Prove that the cause of the problem is not inherent to the system • Prove problem will not be solved with plan
Flowsheet Symbols = same as, equal P paradigm Increase, etc. W/O without No, not Decrease, etc. W/I within Greater than B/c because response Less than B/w between SH significance / harms therefore Change in P Plan $ money, cost, etc. Yield or to A2 answers to-- Fx effect T topicality I inherency * drop (unanswered argument) S solvency