1 / 9

Judging Policy Debate

This article provides an overview of important considerations and evaluation criteria for judges in policy debate, including stock issues, topicality, significance of harm, inherency, solvency, advantage over disadvantage, and more.

mcglothin
Télécharger la présentation

Judging 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. Judging Policy Debate Rich Edwards July 2009

  2. Times of Speeches • Both teams get a total of 8 min Prep Time divided throughout the debate Round. • 1st Affirmative Constructive 8 min • CX Cross Examination 3 min • 1st Negative Constructive 8 min • CX Cross Examination 3 min • 2nd Affirmative Constructive 8 min • CX Cross Examination 3 min • 2nd Negative Constructive 8 min • Cross Examination • 1st Negative Rebuttal 5 min • 1st Affirmative Rebuttal 5 min • 2nd Negative Rebuttal 5 min • 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal

  3. Judging paradigmsWhat is important to youas a Judge?? • Stock Issues: Legal Model • Topicality • Significance of Harm • Inherency • Solvency • Advantage Over Disadvantage • Policy Making: Legislative Model • Weigh advantages versus disadvantages • Hypothesis Testing: Social Science Model • Each negative position (some of which may be contradictory) tests the truth of the affirmative; it must stand good against all tests to be true. • Tabula Rasa: Democracy/Anarchy Model • Whatever basis for decision the debaters can agree on will be used as a judging standard. • Game Player: Gaming Model • Debate is a rule-governed game; you play by (and are judged by) the rules.

  4. Evaluating Topicality • Standards • Precision • Each word has meaning • Debatability • Notice/Fairness • Reasonability • Violation • What word(s) in the resolution have been violated? • How should these words properly be defined? • Applying the relevant standard, why does the definition offered demonstrate an aff violation? • Impact • Why is this a voting issue? • Extratopicality • Does the plan do the resolution and MORE?

  5. Evaluating Inherency • Structural Inherency • Law: Existing law restricts asset accumulation for persons living in poverty • Existing qualification standards for Medicaid, food stamps, and numerous other poverty programs limits assets to a total of $2,000. • Attitudinal Inherency • The Obama administration has zeroed out all federal funding for abstinence-based sex education programs (for cases proposing support of abstinence-based sex education as a solution to teen pregnancy)

  6. Evaluating Solvency • Types of solvency arguments • Impracticability: The plan will not work as planned (the plan calls for the use of abstinence-based sex education as a solution to teen pregnancy, but studies show that such sex education programs fail to reduce pregnancy rates) • Insufficiency: Other causes will remain and perpetuate the problem (Even if job training programs can teach important skills to unemployed persons, no benefit will be achieved given that the economic downturn has made jobs unavailable. The key limiting problem is not the lack of job skills, but rather the shortage of good jobs in the private marketplace). • Counterproductivity: This type of solvency argument holds that an attempt to solve the problem will actually make it worse (Any effort to increase assistance for persons in poverty will create dependency on the government, making it less likely that low income persons will escape poverty)

  7. Evaluating Disads • Link • Why will the plan cause this? • Uniqueness: • Would the disad happen anyway, even without the plan? • Brink/Linearity • Is there any reason to believe that we are at a critical point or is the negative simply saying that the plan would cause more of something which is already happening? • Impact • Why would this be bad? • Why would it outweigh the case advantages?

  8. Evaluating Counterplans • Nontopicality • Is it necessary to be nontopical? • What word(s) in the resolution does the counterplan fail to meet? • Competitiveness • Mutual Exclusivity • Net Benefits • Permutations • Types • Agent (state or international counterplans) • Exclusion (exclude persons such as Native Americans, illegal immigrants, etc.) • Plan inclusive (do the plan in such a way as to avoid the politics Disad)

  9. Evaluating Kritiks • Types • Language • Causation • Power Relationships • Feminism • Links • What has the team argued, advocated, or said which makes this kritik relevant? • Decision import • Why does the kritik give a reason to vote aff or neg in the debate?

More Related