AKA Cross Examination or Policy Debate(What I used to believe was the greatest debating event on earth…I’ve since had my doubts.)

Basics 2 on 2 debate Policy resolution…duh! Spreading

Debaters use rapid delivery style to bombard the opponent with too much information to be answered

AKA rapid fire I HATE IT!!! “Frowned upon by UIL”…but you still see it

Prep time 8 minutes per team, shared between the partners (only 5 in NFL!) Most will be used before the 2AC Don’t be afraid to use all of your prep time (just save some for

rebuttals!)

The Structure of a DebateConstructive Speeches

1Affirmative Constructive: 8 Minutes Cross-Examined by 2NC: 3 Minutes

1Negative Constructive: 8 Minutes Cross-Examined by 1AC: 3 Minutes

2AC: 8 Minutes Cross-Examined by 1NC: 3 Minutes

2NC: 8 Minutes Cross-Examined by 2AC: 3 Minutes

Rebuttal Speeches1NR: 5 Minutes1AR: 5 Minutes2NR: 5 Minutes2AR: 5 Minutes

Constructive Speaker Burdens1AC: Present a “Prima Facie” Case

Harm, Inherency, Solvency, Plan1NC: Present the Negative Attack

Traditionally attacked the 1ACMore recently: Topicality, Disads, Case

2AC: Re-Defends Against 1NCFollows 1NC point-by-point

2NC: Answer 2AC positions (Neg Block)Divide positions with the 1NR (division of

labor)

Rebuttal Speaker BurdensNo new arguments in rebuttal (new evidence

OK)1NR: Answer remaining 2AC arguments1AR: Answer all 2NC & 1NR arguments2NR: Extend winning negative arguments

(voters)2AR: Answer all remaining negative

arguments & claim all affirmative positions that are no longer contested (voters)

The Stock Issues (SHITS) Significance: Is the problem important?

Harms: How many dead bodies?

Inherency: What is causing the problem or keeping the plan from happening now? (inherent barrier)

Topicality: Is the aff plan within the resolution?

Solvency: Does the aff plan solve for the harms?

C-X AFFIRMATIVE THEORYA. THE BASIC JOB OF THE AFFIRMATIVE IS

TO PROVE THAT THE RESOLUTION IS TRUE.1. The affirmative will do this through building a policy

that solves a problem that falls within the resolution.2. In order to make a policy, the affirmative must identify a

problem, isolate the cause, and develop the solution. When the Aff does this, they have met their burden to present a “prima facie” case.

3. A prima facie case is one that meets all the affirmative burdens and would convince a normal judge on first look at the case.

B. THE PROBLEM: SIGNIFICANCE AND HARM1. Significance is the quantitative measure of the problem that

Aff identifies. a) Significance is often the numerical measurement of the problem,

i.e. how many people, nations, forests, etc. are affected.b) Think of significance in terms of “how big” the problem is…or

the “size of the problem”

2. Harm is the qualitative measure of the problem that the Affirmative identifies.

a) Harm identifies the “scope” of the problem. b) Think of harm in terms of “how bad” the problem is.

3. Other Notes:a) In a very traditional sense, these two concepts make up “the

Harm.”b) Remember that these 2 issues play off each other….for example,

you may have a small number of people affected, but have that small number be horribly harmed. Either way, you may have established the harm.

C. THE CAUSE: INHERENCY1. Inherency is the barrier to the affirmative plan. It is what

keeps the aff plan from happening in the current system.2. The barrier aff presents is called the inherent barrier.3. There are 3 kinds of inherent barriers: structural, attitudinal,

and existential.a) Structural barriers are laws, supreme court decisions, and

executive branch policies that would keep a new policy from existing.

b) Attitudinal barriers are mindsets that would block certain policies or laws. The president (and cabinet), congressional leaders, court justices, interest groups, and the public all have the power to keep policies from existing.

c) Existential inherency is the reality that the aff policy is simply not occurring…it is not happening.

4. The affirmative plan will come from removing the barrier.

D. THE SOLUTION: TOPICALITY AND SOLVENCY

1. Topicality means the affirmative solution must be within the bounds of the topic.

a) Topicality is determined at plan level by interpreting the definitions of the words in the resolution.

b) The traditional theory is that the aff plan must be topical within the text of the mandates of plan….not by the effects of the plan.

2. Solvency means that the affirmative must prove that its plan can solve (or reduce) the problem they have presented.

a) Solving the problem is to prove that you have reduced the problem in size or scope.

Judging DebatesThe affirmative team has the “burden of

proof” – they must prove each of the stock issues.

BUT – A judge may not vote negative on an issue not raised by the negative team (i.e. – judges do not vote negative on topicality when the negative team has never made a topicality argument)

Types of C-X Judges1. Stock Issue judging requires that the affirmative win all

the stock issues to win the round. If Neg wins one of the stock issues, then they win the round. *Stock Issues judging is a more traditional method of judging, and it tends to reside in the western part of the state.

2. Policy Making judges put the affirmative advantages and disadvantages on a scale and vote for the best policy at the end of the round.*Policy Making is a relatively newer method of judging and tends to reside more in the eastern part of the state.

3. Tabula rosa – “blank slate”.4. Lay judge – this is a person with no debate experience.

Be sure to EXPLAIN your arguments in English.