1 / 14

Policy Debate

Policy Debate. Round Structure. Constructive Speeches (1AC)- 6 MINUTES CX 1A to 2N- 3 MINUTES (1NC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 1N to 1A- 3 MINUTES (2AC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 2A to 1N- 3 MINUTES (2NC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 2N to 2A- 3 MINUTES Rebuttal Speeches (1NR)- 4 MINUTES (1AR)- 4 MINUTES

kumiko
Télécharger la présentation

Policy Debate

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Policy Debate

  2. Round Structure Constructive Speeches (1AC)- 6 MINUTES CX 1A to 2N- 3 MINUTES (1NC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 1N to 1A- 3 MINUTES (2AC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 2A to 1N- 3 MINUTES (2NC)- 6 MINUTES CX- 2N to 2A- 3 MINUTES Rebuttal Speeches (1NR)- 4 MINUTES (1AR)- 4 MINUTES (2NR)- 4 MINUTES (2AR)- 4 MINUTES

  3. Policy Debate Basics • The affirmative must assume the burden of proof to demonstrate the validity of the resolution. • There must be a change in policy suggested • The status quo cannot solve the harm without change • A substantial portion of the proof must be logical and non-artistic (evidence) • The negative has to uphold the burden of rejoinder (clash)

  4. Policy Debate basics • Affirmative case is composed of two parts • Rationale • Plan • Rationale – reasons for adopting resolution • Plan – proposal for implementing policy and solving the problem

  5. Stock issues • Significance – the problem is of substance / impact • Harms –the problem • Inherency – prove that the problem is caused by system • Plan – the affirmative must provide a means to fix the harm • Solvency – plan will eliminate harm

  6. Significance / Harms • The problem impacts a large group of people or is widespread (cannot be just monetary) • The problem is caused by the existing policy, not an outside source • To say that the welfare system causes overpopulation is non-topical • To say that persons on welfare do not receive enough money to escape is topical

  7. Inherency • To prove that the problem is directly tied to the existing system (status quo) • Test the Significance/Harm by running it through a syllogism • If the negative can prove alternate causality then the affirmative loses.

  8. Plan • Plans are constructed of specific planks that will illustrate the feasibility of the change • Plank 1 – Mandates – How will the policy be changed • Plank 2 – Administration / Enforcement – Who will make the new policy happen • Plank 3 – Funding – How will the policy change be paid for • Plank 4 – Legislative intent – Sentence stating what the affirmative hopes will happen as a result of the new policy

  9. Solvency • Illustrate through logic that your new plan will solve the problem you outlined in your significance / harms section

  10. Advantages • Show any advantages that can be achieved by enacting your plan • This is essentially a ‘bonus’ for the voters

  11. Negative tactics • Straight refutation – point by point analysis of Aff case • Topicality Argument – Aff is not talking about the MUC • DA – Disadvantage – if you accept the Aff position bad things will happen • Turns – Turning the Aff case against itself • CP – Counterplan – Solve the problem of the Aff case or the resolution without changing the system (MUC) (be non-topical) • Justification – Like Topicality & Inherency

  12. Topicality • The responsibility of the affirmative to support the subject of the proposition. • If the proposition says “apples” and the affirmative talks about “oranges” they are not topical • i.e. The USFG should significantly alter the system of welfare in the US. • If you try to fix welfare by improving education then you are not topical.

  13. Negative approaches • Attack stock issues: • Prove that # of people impacted or that the level of impact is not significant • Prove that people are not being harmed • Prove that the cause of the problem is not inherent to the system • Prove problem will not be solved with plan

  14. Flowsheet Symbols = same as, equal P paradigm Increase, etc. W/O without No, not Decrease, etc. W/I within Greater than B/c because response Less than B/w between SH significance / harms therefore Change in P Plan $ money, cost, etc. Yield or to A2 answers to-- Fx effect T topicality I inherency * drop (unanswered argument) S solvency

More Related