warner, am studs
Post on 19-Jan-2022
7 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 1
Basic Debate
What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas
to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.
What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices
that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for
one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.
What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of
writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing
those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.
Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,
we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the
ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting
and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.
What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of
meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of
achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.
THE DEBATE PROCESS
The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the
resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than
they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or
both.
The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people
suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that
will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through
public health services.
The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real
problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.
They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe
problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental
health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the
problem(s).
Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)
from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the
lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their
arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.
A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative
team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and
defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,
and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually
be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the
rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.
MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE
Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to
understand three fundamental truths:
# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good
game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 2
(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to
be successful.
# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,
debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and
prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.
Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are
likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.
Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their
opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has
practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things
can and should be done before the debate begins.
# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes
slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the
end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate
“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate
depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.
You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the
debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either
team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never
back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.
THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT
Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is
not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,
and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds
for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have
their time to speak.
The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually
a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field
again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.
SPEECH TIME LIMIT
First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes
Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes
Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to
prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.
CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?
In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and
rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 3
Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember
that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to
be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.
These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time
for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied
(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.
Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate
that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want
considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending
arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-
evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.
(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)
SPEECH ORDER
The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these
two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the
Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the
Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a
major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only
by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is
the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.
SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES
Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,
teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team
has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the
best of their ability.
First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific
issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be
prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is
prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content
during cross-examination.
First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,
the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may
choose to:
1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);
2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;
3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;
4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.
Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,
huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative
team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not
acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case
arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).
Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the
arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The
fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may
choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally
falling into disfavor with debate judges.
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and
defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 4
ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block
mentioned earlier.
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of
the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13
minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is
essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC
positions.
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments
that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while
minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as
the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This
speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the
Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR
that might help the Affirmative side.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the
debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished
speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an
opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to
minimize the positions taken by your opponents.
It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is
committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information
gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows
the questioning.
The functions of cross-examination are:
Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is
a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has
argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”
arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.
Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in
cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping
that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.
Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments
and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid
becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing
command over the cross-exam period.
CONCLUSION
This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your
first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.
Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking
to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national
champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems
to keep changing all of the time.
Good luck and good debating!
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 5
1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.
2. Be able to explain each of the following:
argumentation
persuasion
critical thinking
communication
switch-side debate
Affirmative
Negative
case
plan
research
policy-making
prep time
constructive speech
rebuttal speech
extending arguments
negative block
dropped arguments
cross-examination
Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2
DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY
One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual
family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the
family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or
even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not
to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health
insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.
All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:
1. The topic to be discussed
2. The significance of the problem
3. The cause of the problem
4. Solutions to the problem
While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.
The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution
All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the
discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were
discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.
As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of
paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related
issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of
the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is
expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution
and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.
The importance of the problem---Significance
The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few
families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than
help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.
Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our
society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that
is being proposed.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 6
Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,
being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:
(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will
there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences
(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?
Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number
of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage
caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,
measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for
example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their
illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.
It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available
evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a
good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.
The cause of the problem--Inherency
Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a
problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,
without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never
discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,
Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as
inherency.
According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”
The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that
causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.
Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask
why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,
while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not
impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.
If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking
up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying
enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!
Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric
hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.
Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and
attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.
The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the
cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition
that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is
creating a problem.
One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as
psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals
from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,
the problem is likely to continue.
The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to
situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem
exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the
problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 7
old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan
must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.
In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no
law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional
medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger
profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,
hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.
The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument
takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of
the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be
overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.
Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many
people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still
far from universal.
On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely
prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the
doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that
practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin
is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem
with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion
than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did
not change people’s behavior overnight.
The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these
inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a
different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt
to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze
the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.
The solution to the problem--Solvency
Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The
analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or
treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.
Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to
which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for
designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly
how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be
somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem
(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a
measurable, definite progress toward a solution.
Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very
little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it
solves is also to be rejected.
Common Term Debate Term
Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution
The Problem……………………………………..Significance
The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency
The Solution……………………………………..Solvency
CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 8
According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is
“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the
Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima
facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.
The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to
determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.
Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up
to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is
presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be
sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such
strength would probably not ever make it to trial.
In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven
that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no
serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is
working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make
any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.
CONCLUSION
The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this
chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.
Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of
significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the
stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the
three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool
makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win
the debate.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Explain each of the following terms:
resolution
topicality
quantitative significance
qualitative significance
inherency
structural barrier
structural gap
attitudinal inherency
solvency
disadvantage
prima facie
presumption
Basic Debate Text, Chapter 3
Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The
Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the
round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of
the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.
What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,
and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and
disadvantages.
The "stock issues:
Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Topicality
Disadvantages
The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,
different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 9
1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);
2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by
the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);
3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a
major policy change (quantitative significance);
4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in
number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change
(qualitative significance);
5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place
which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);
6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased
funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);
7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by
the Affirmative (solvency);
8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue
unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);
9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);
10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement
mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);
11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the
problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);
12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem
the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);
13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in
the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);
14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan
(method of solvency counterplan);
15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more
efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);
16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be
overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).
17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and
should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)
This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate
situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look
for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.
It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the
Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict
each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status
quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from
solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well
as against the Affirmative plan!
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 10
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular
spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it
would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the
ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,
the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!
Figure 3.1
Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and
plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always
be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.
Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments
against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be
vigorously advanced by the Negative.
Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a
circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to
different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and
taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any
policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and
the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.
Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"
inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and
ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great
care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by
those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions
and meanings of words can be debated.
We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of
something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they
prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would
classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?
What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.
In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which
exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote
definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will
promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.
If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have
two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.
(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a
good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it
would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the
Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the
Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the
amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less
ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.
Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from
one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the
debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the
circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 11
In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue
(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the
Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.
SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:
SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS
The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo
that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.
The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the
seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the
Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The
Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.
Attacks on Significance
The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may
initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.
For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the
media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are
functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;
other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not
trustworthy.
Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or
life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid
some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify
a full-blown federal program to deal with it.
Attacks on Inherency
In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is
mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful
attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.
The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on
buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car
than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive
procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old
one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.
The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be
well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be
fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old
problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give
the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.
Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument
above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has
the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what
we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).
The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases
that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present
system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is
currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these
things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 12
and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and
policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work
as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a
later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.
A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative
argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively
"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that
current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the
problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change
in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status
quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it
is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.
Attacks on Solvency
The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it
will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were
developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move
us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but
does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.
This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,
don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency
arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal
barriers/enforcement.
Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.
Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan
is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the
Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality
arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of
them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of
homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to
substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the
streets.
Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For
example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in
children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained
counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not
be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices
(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of
solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from
a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents
many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not
believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these
arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.
Counterplans
As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the
Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that
"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo
(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.
The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative
plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community
mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would
(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 13
If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no
valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish
this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.
DISADVANTAGES
What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings
of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC
anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."
Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid
of the rats?"
The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or
collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on
balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.
Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the
Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,
and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the
world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from
WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.
CRITIQUE OR KRITIK
A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the
Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often
use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is
presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of
the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal
issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric
profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also
fraudulent.
NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of
the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted
to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different
tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.
A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative
case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to
be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is
faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who
must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each
other, not against each other.
For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;
it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the
same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the
acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;
the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the
contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of
the strategy.
Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already
implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues
that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate
would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is
WARNER, AM STUDS
Page 14
implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be
more effective.
Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of
your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a
specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing
contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.
The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate
from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation
of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.
Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the
Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and
participate in the strategy for it to work for you.
CONCLUSION
The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to
debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning
periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action
(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful
competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use
them.
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW
Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:
stock issues
topicality
extra-topicality
minor repair
simple solvency
alternate causality
workability
attitudinal barrier/enforcement
disadvantage linked to plan mechanics
disadvantage linked to solvency
kritik
counterplan
agent of action counterplan
method of solvency counterplan
policy lock counterplan
systematic or utopian counterplan
voting issue
Negative strategy
top related