A Look at Policy Debate

The National Forensics League has been around for nearly one-hundred years and has tens of thousands of competitors participating in debate events each weekend, many who are not "in the know" believe that debate is very little more than organized arguments, but there is much more to it. Policy Debate is the oldest and most popular form of debate still practiced in the National Forensics League to date. It has a number of complex rules, types of arguments and strategies to win.

Each year an overall topic is chosen which in the debate world is called a resolution. For example in the 2004-2005 debate season, the resolution was "Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should establish an ocean policy substantially increasing protection of marine natural resources."

Students do not simply debate the topic alone, the affirmative side of the debate which wishes to uphold the resolution offers what they call an "affirmative case," which is a plan of action the government can take to uphold the resolution. For example, in the oceans topic, a team might suggest creating new regulations on ballast water preventing invasive species or by creating a network of marine protected areas.

The affirmative case must have a number of parts for it considered to be "prima facia", which simply means the affirmative side did their homework and have everything they need for it to be a good case. First the affirmative case must offer what is called "inherency", which is evidence showing why the affirmatives plan cannot happen in the status quo. The affirmative side will then state what they call "harms", which is a list of problems that come about in the world because of the lack of the affirmative plan. At this point the affirmative will state what their plan will do and what the logistics are to implement the plan. Finally, the affirmative must offer what is called "solvency", which proves that their plan will be able to solve the problem they list in their "harms"

After the affirmative presents their affirmative case, the person presenting the affirmative case will be cross-examined by the second negative speaker for three minutes. The negative can use this time to clarify questions about the affirmative cases or try to trick them into saying something that will be advantageous for the affirmative team.

After cross-examination, the negative generally uses some of their five minutes of allotted preparation time to prepare their strategy to beat the affirmative case. The negative will present a series of different types of arguments against the affirmative case in their first eight minute speech.

There are a number of different arguments that can be used to attack the affirmative's case. The most prevalent is the disadvantage, which shows that the affirmative's plan is going to cause more problems than it hopes to fix. The negative can also run what is called a topicality argument, which contends that the affirmative's case is outside the bounds of the resolution meaning that it should no be debated. If the negative wins the topicality argument, they have won the round because the judge of the round only has the jurisdiction to vote for cases under the umbrella of the resolution.

In the last several years, new types of arguments have been added to the arsenal of the negative side. One such argument is called a "critique", also known as a "kritik", which contends that the other team has said or done something that is socially unacceptable and should be punished for doing so. For example, if a competitor made a racist remark, the opponent could say that doing such is unacceptable and you need to punish them by voting against them to show them that is not acceptable behavior.

Another argument that has come up in the last two decades is called a counter-plan. A counter-plan is essentially the negative team stating that they have a plan that falls outside the bounds of the resolution which will solve the problem much better than the affirmative's plan is. The negative will also try to present disadvantages that applies to the affirmative's case, but not the negative's counter-plan.

After the first negative constructive, the first negative speaker will be cross-examined by the first affirmative speaker, who will ask for clarification about the negative's argument, or try to trick the negative into admitting flaws exist within the negative's arguments.

Following such, the second affirmative speaker will present arguments against the negative's strategy. They will try to pick apart each argument presented and show why it's wrong and why the arguments the affirmative side have presented are superior. After that speech, the second affirmative speaker will be cross-examined by the first negative speaker in hopes to further pick apart the affirmative's arguments.

After the second affirmative speech, there are two negative speeches in a row, called "the block". The reason for this is because the affirmative side is inherently at a disadvantage because they need to win every single argument to win, whereas the negative only needs to win one to win, so the affirmative side is given the first and last speech. The second negative speaker will give an eight minute constructive speech presenting new arguments or backing up arguments from the first affirmative constructive. The second affirmative speaker will cross-examine the second negative speaker following that speech. The first negative speaker will present a five minute rebuttal speech to further bolster their arguments.

After the negative block, the first affirmative speaker gives what is considered to be the most important speech in the round, the first affirmative rebuttal. In this speech the first affirmative speaker has the job of responding to responding to the thirteen minutes of arguments presented by the negative team in a mere five minutes. The affirmative generally accomplishes this by only making the most important points on the opponents arguments. If the affirmative can accomplish this arduous task, they are in a good position to win the debate round.

Following the first affirmative rebuttal, the last speech of the negative team is given, which is the second negative rebuttal. In this speech the second negative speaker will focus on one or two arguments they feel they are winning and why they should win the round because of it. The negative will also compare the impacts of passing plan or not passing plan and try to argue that not passing the plan is indeed the better option.

The last speech in the debate is the second affirmative rebuttal, in this speech the second affirmative rebuttal. In this speech the second affirmative speaker must respond to the final points the negative brings forth in the second negative constructive and prove finally why passing the affirmative's plan will be a better option than leaving things the way they are.

After the debate is over, the students will pack up, shake hands, and leave the room. The judge will then look at his or her notes and make a decision as to which side won the round. The judge will explain why he or she voted the way they did on a sheet of paper called "the ballot." The ballot will be given to the students after the tournament is over.

Policy debate is certainly a very complex activity and is not for everyone, but some people enjoy the activity and chose to spend anywhere from ten to forty hours a week working on the activity and preparing for tournaments and gain a vast amount of knowledge from heavily participating in the activity