Breaking the Code
Terminology
CX Debate
� Cross Examination Debate
� Also called Policy Debate
� Partner debate which focuses on advancing a specific policy within the resolution.
Resolution � The topic of a debate
� A stand in an issue that the affirmative supports
� The proposition up for debate
� Is debated all year – both fall and spring
Resolved:
� The United States federal government
should substantially increase its
transportation infrastructure investment in
the United States.
Affirmative � the side which supports (affirms) the resolution in
the debate
� called the “Aff”
� Begins and ends the debate round
� Develops a specific plan which addresses the problems of the status quo and offers a viable solution
Negative � The side which rejects (negates) the resolution
and/or the affirmative case
� Called the “Neg”
� Has a 13 minute block of time in the middle of each round (the negative block)
� Common Arguments Run: Topicality, Disadvantage, Counterplan, Kritik, and “On-Case”
Status Quo � The present system of government
� The present method or policy
� The Aff is advocating for a change to the Status Quo.
� Status Quo is defended by the Negative (Neg).
FIAT � The right of the affirmative to assert its plan will go into effect.
� Is Latin for “Let it be done”
� Is based off the word “should” within the resolution
� Allows the debate to be centered around the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of the aff plan rather than the likelihood it would actually be passed
Round Elements
Constructive � The first four speeches of the round
� Constitutes about 2/3 of the time allotted
� Portion of the debate in which initial positions and arguments are presented
� Only portion of round where CX is allowed
Rebuttal � 2nd portion of the round
� Constitutes approximately 1/3 of the time allotted
� Arguments made in the constructives are crystallized, extended and/or defended
� NO NEW ARGUMENTS can be presented!
CX � The only time during the round where the
Aff and the Neg speak “to” one another
� Purpose: � Clarify points within the opponent’s case
and/or arguments � Ask questions that set up Neg arguments or
Aff responses
Prep Time � The amount of time each team is given to prepare
their respective remarks/arguments
� 8 minutes per team per round
� Can be used in any configuration – but – time allocation is a crucial part of strategy
� Prep time is typically NOT TAKEN before CX
Time Alloca2on 1 st 1st Affirmative Constructive 8 Minutes Negative CX (2NC) 3 Minutes
1 st Negative Constructive 8 Minutes Affirmative CX (1AC) 3 Minutes
2 nd Affirmative Constructive 8 Minutes Negative CX (1 NC) 3 Minutes
2 nd Negative Constructive 8 Minutes Affirmative CX (2 AC) 3 Minutes
1 st Negative Rebuttal 5 Minutes
1 st Affirmative Rebuttal 5 Minutes
2 nd Negative Rebuttal 5 Minutes
2 nd AffirmativeRebuttal 5 Minutes Re
bu6als
Neg Block
Stock Issues � T – Topicality
� H – Harms
� I – Inherency
� S – Solvency
� S -‐ Significance
Topicality � The issue in debate of whether the affirmative
(aff) plan supports the resolution
� The affirmative MUST run a case that falls within the boundaries set by the resolution!
� The negative is NOT bound by the same restrictions. (Counterplans do not have to be topical.)
Harms � An undesirable result of a problem, policy, or value � The “bad things” that will happen if the Aff plan
is not adopted – according to the Aff � The Affirmative (Aff) must show that the
present system (status quo) can not solve for the harm(s)
Inherency � The issue of whether the present system (status
quo) will or can solve the problem
� The aff needs to make sure a major change must take place in the status quo in order to solve for the harms.
� Is sometimes referred to as the “Inherent Barrier”
Solvency � The issue of whether or not the affirmative plan
will/can “take care” of the problem (harms).
� The affirmative must show their plan covers for the harms listed in their plan text!
� Best if the solvency does not create a larger problem than the harms presented
Significance � The issue of whether or not there are important
problems and/or harms in the present system
� Shows if there is a true need for a plan or action
� Is the “So what?” of the round
� If the problem is too small, there is no real need for a change.
Advantage � A benefit gained or maintained by a policy
� a good or positive consequence of a plan
� Usually includes arguments for solvency, significance and inherency
� Is either what is achieved when the harms are solved, or creates an additional plan benefit
Common Neg
Arguments
Topicality Shell – Neg Arg. � Argument which outlines how the affirmative has failed to adhere to the terms within the resolution
� A topicality violation, usually presented in the 1NC, contains the follows: � Interpretation � Violation � Standards � Voting Issue
Interpreta2on � Negative interpretation of a word or words in the resolution – should be supported by evidence.
� Evidence to support an interpretation can come from virtually any source (dictionary, legal dictionary, academic paper, laws, court rulings, etc.)
� Emphasis is placed on both the desirability of the interpretation and the quality of the evidence which supports the interpretation.
Viola2on � Reason(s) why the plan does not meet the negative interpretation
� Neg must show how the aff fails to meet the boundaries set by the superior definition (that of the neg); thus, the aff case is nontopical.
� Stock Issues judges look at topicality more than other judge styles.
Standards � A. “We meet” invalid � B. Limits � C. Bright Line � D. Framer’s Intent � E. Education � F. Ground � G. Common Man � H. Breadth v. Depth
Vo2ng Issue � A. Jurisdiction
� B. Education
� C. Predictability
� D. Tradition
Disadvantage – Neg Arg. � Harmful consequence of a plan –is worse than
the harms for which the affirmative is solving
� Must include each of the following: � Uniqueness � Link � Brink � Impact
� Also called a “DA” or a “Disad”
Disadvantage – con’t. � Uniqueness and Link
� Separate but connected � Link = how the disad connects (links) to the Aff � Uniqueness = how the aff case uniquely links to the
disad � Brink
� Neg claim that the impact of the disad is not happening now but can happen under certain circumstances
� The Aff plan creates those circumstances � Impact
� The negative results that will occur
Counterplan – Neg Argument � An alternate plan which achieves the goals of the
affirmative plan but DOES NOT link to the disadvantage
� Must solve for the Harms established by the affirmative plan
� Does not have to be topical
� Is considered an off-case argument
Paradigms � Refers to the philosophy to which the judge adheres when writing a ballot.
� Knowing a judge’s paradigm allows for judge adaptation.
� Most common: � Lay Judge � Games Player Judge � Policymaker Judge � Stock Issues Judge � Tabula Rasa Judge (Tab Judge)
Lay Judge � Are not experienced judges and/or have little if any knowledge of debate
� Often will judge a round based on appearance and eloquence of speech; though, they do not always realize this is what they are doing. L
� Speeding, Kritiks, jargon, and counterplans are strongly discouraged
� Disadvantages should be run slowly and with detailed explanation.
Games Player Judge � As the name suggests, these judges believe that debate is a game, and any argument that forms a coherent syllogism is "fair play" in round.
� Syllogism – form of deductive reasoning containing a major premise, minor premise and a conclusion
� Ex: All humans are mortal. – I am human. – thus – I am mortal.
Games Player Judge cont’
� Games judges will have no qualms about voting for a ridiculous policy
� If one team can prove their plan or action holds the largest advantage in the round – they can win the ballot
Policymaker Judge � Policymaker judges tend to vote for the side that presents the best policy option.
� Tend to like disadvantages and counterplans
� Are, however, beginning to accept kritikal arguments.
� Simply put: They tend to decide by weighing the affirmative's advantages against the negative's disadvantages.
Stock Issues Judge � Believes the affirmative plan must fulfill all their stock issue burdens
� If the negative proves that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected.
� Stock issue judges generally prefer a clear, eloquent presentation of issues in round, and dislike arguments that seem to not relate to the topic on the surface.
� …are often referred to as “Old School Judges”.
Tabula Rasa Judge � From a Latin phrase that translates to clean slate. � Tabula rasa judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions or expectations.
� Expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm.
� Most tab judges are okay with speed and will also consider counterplans, disadvantages, and kritiks.
� To be safe -‐ ask a tab judge on his or her preference in regard to specific types of arguments.
Final Words � Watch out for the “Debate Lingo”. � Beware the “Mind Games”. � There are no freshman or JV debate teams. � Debate is a subjective contest!
� You will sometimes lose the round but win the ballot. � You will sometimes win the round but lose the ballot.
� Debate is a professional competition! � Two Great Resources:
<uil.utexas.edu> <debatecoaches.org>
� HAVE FUN!!! J � Otherwise…what’s the point?!?
The End!
J