Meet the Players

2. Meet the Players

3. Court Room Analogy Question: Did John Doe kill Sally Sue? Prosecution Defense • Witnesses • Weapon • Motive • Witnesses • Evidence • Alibi CX CX

4. Court Room Analogy Resolved: Mandatory drug testing of student athletes is justified. Affirmative Negative • Facts • Expert Testimony • Logical Reasoning • Facts • Expert Testimony • Logical Reasoning CX CX

5. Court Room Analogy Prosecution’s Case 1 Defense’s Case 3 CX 2 CX 4 Defense Closing Arguments 5 Prosecution Closing Arguments 6

6. Court Room Analogy Negative Constructive Case and Refutation 3 Affirmative Constructive Case 1 CX 2 CX 4 Affirmative Rebuttal 5 Negative Rebuttal 6 Affirmative Rebuttal 7 Decision

7. Lincoln Douglas Format 1st Affirmative Constructive 6 minutes Cross Examination by Negative 3 minutes (Prep Time by Negative)  1st Negative Constructive 7 minutes (includes refutation of affirmative) Cross Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes (Prep Time by Affirmative) 1st Affirmative Rebuttal 4 minutes (Prep Time by Negative) 1st Negative Rebuttal 6 minutes (Prep Time by Affirmative) 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal 3 minutes

8. What is a policy debate? A policy debate consists of two teams, the Affirmative and the Negative, debating the national debate topic, or resolution. Each team consists of two debaters. • The Affirmative team supports or advocates the policy direction prescribed by the resolution. • The Negative team opposes the resolution.

9. Some Key Debate Concepts • Burden of proof:The Affirmative team has the burden of proof. They must prove the need for change or the need for the resolution. • Status quo:The present system or the ways things are now. • Presumption: Absent proof of a need for change, presumption says that things should remain as they are, or status quo. The Negative team and the status quo have presumption. • Fiat: The basic assumption that the Affirmative plan will be adopted. • Prima Facie: The requirements that the Affirmative case must fulfill to prove a need for change and to support the resolution.

10. The Prima Facie or Stock Issues • Topicality: Is the Affirmative case germane to the resolution? • Harm: Is there a problem? What is wrong with the status quo? • Significance: Is the problem qualitatively or quantitatively significant? • Inherency: What is causing the problem? What barrier prevents change or prevents the SQ from solving the harm? • Solvency: Can the problem be solved? Will the solution create more serious problems than the ones it resolves? Is the solution advantageous?

11. Prima Facie: Topicality • The resolution limits the topics or issues that the Affirmative may argue; the Affirmative must stay within the bounds of the topic. • If the Affirmative plan does not fall within the bounds of the resolution, then it is Not Topical.

12. Prima Facie: Harm & Significance • To warrant adoption of the resolution, there must be a reason to change; there must be a problem with the present system. • Harms may be physical, economic, or philosophical. • The problem, or Harm, must also be significant. • Quantitative significance (statistics, numbers) • Qualitative significance (values, quality)

13. Prima Facie: Inherency • There must be a reason that the present system can not solve for the Harm; there must be a barrier to change. • Types of Inherency (3) • Structural inherency (law or policy) • Attitudinal inherency (attitudes) • Existential inherency (harm simply exists)

14. Prima Facie: Solvency • AFF must eliminate or reduce the Harms. • The AFF plan is the mechanism of solvency. • The plan should be more advantageous than the SQ.

15. The Prima Facie or Stock Issues An easy phrase for recalling the Prima Facie requirements: • T= Topicality • H= Harms (Brink-Link-Impact) • I= Inherency • S= Solvency (Advantages)

16. Harms: • _______________

17. The Structure of a Debate • High School policy debate uses the 8-3-5 format. • Each debater delivers a 8-minute constructive speech, which is followed by a 3-minute questioning period (Cross-X) by the opposing team. • Each debater delivers a 5-minute rebuttal or closing speech. • Each team also has 8-10 minutes of prep time to use between speeches. • This is a total of 8-10 minutes, not 8-10 minutes between each speech.

18. The Structure of a Debate • Constructive Speeches • First Affirmative Constructive (1AC): 8 Minutes • Cross-Examined by 2N: 3 Minutes • First Negative Constructive (1NC): 8 Minutes • Cross-Examined by 1A: 3 Minutes • Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): 8 Minutes • Cross-Examined by 1N: 3 Minutes • Second Negative Constructive (2NC): 8 Minutes • Cross-Examined by 2A: 3 Minutes • Rebuttal Speeches • First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): 5 Minutes • First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR): 5 Minutes • Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): 5 Minutes • Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): 5 Minutes

19. Constructive Speaker Burdens • 1AC: Presents a “Prima Facie” Case • Harm, Significance, Inherency, Solvency, Plan • Topicality is granted until challenged by the Negative team • 1NC: Presents the Negative Attack • Traditionally attacks the 1AC • May also present “off-case” arguments such as Topicality, Disadvantages, Counterplans, and/or Kritiks

20. Constructive Speaker Burdens • 2AC: Re-Defends Against 1NC • Rebuilds the Affirmative case presented in the 1AC • Follows 1NC point-by-point or applies the 1NC points to the 1AC structure • 2NC: Answers 2AC positions/continues Negative attack • Presents any additional Negative arguments not presented by the 1NC • Answers some, but not all, 2AC positions (divide positions with the 1NR)

21. Rebuttal Speaker Burdens • No new arguments in the rebuttals (new evidence to further a previous argument is OK) • 1NR: Answer remaining 2AC arguments not covered by the 2NC • 1AR: Answer all 2NC & 1NR arguments

22. Rebuttal Speaker Burdens • 2NR: Extend winning Negative arguments (pick and choose, do not “go for” everything); tell the judge why she should vote “Negative” • 2AR: Answer all remaining Negative arguments & claim all Affirmative positions that are no longer contested; tell the judge why he should vote “Affirmative”

23. The Debate Resolution • Resolved:.The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and or development of space beyond the earth’s mesosphere

24. What is a resolution? • The resolution is always a proposition of policy. • The resolution specifies what action should be taken and by whom. • Sample policy resolution: Resolved: that the United States federal government should substantially change its foreign policy toward Israel.

25. The 2011-2012 High School Resolution Resolved:.The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and or development of space beyond the earth’s mesosphere

26. Initial Questions about the Topic What is “The US federal Govt, What is the mesosphere, ”? What does should mean? What constitutes “Substantially, increase, ”? What are “areas that need to be explored and or developed”? Why is it important that we do it?

27. Space Exploration on the Affirmative • Space beyond the Mesosphere? • The Planet Earth is a terminal entity. BOOM!!! We’re gone • Resources on earth are limited (Electricity) Space • The benefits of exploration are infinite. (GPS, maintenance of satelites and space stations. Colonization. Inventions for earth, Medical breakthroughs and experimentation.

28. Space Exploration on the Affirmative • Solar Satelites: • Reliance on fossil fuels puts the US at a crossroads – Transition to SPS is key to ensure access to carbon neutral technologies • Oil shocks coming now because of supply disruptions – perception of instability in the mid east and supply disruptions causes oil prices to soar – that tanks the global economy • Additionally, the resulting oil competition causes US China war • China US war escalates and causes nuclear war • SPS solves the economy – creates multiple jobs and saves the space industry

29. Space Exploration/Developmenton the Affirmative • Balistic Missile Defense: • The US Federal Government should deploy a constellation of kinetic energy ballistic missile interceptors in space above the mesosphere. • Chinese expansion into space challenges US national security • US and China likely to go to war over hegemony and security competition

30. Space Exploration on the Affirmative • Other Topics: • Asteroid Mining • Aliens • Asteroid Detection • China Cooperation • Colonize Mars • Lunar Mining • Nuclear Waste Disposal • Space Tourism. http://www.debatecoaches.org/page/open-evidence-project

31. Space Exploration/Development on the Affirmative • You will be constructing an Affirmative Case and building evidence files on the Negative side. • Your job is not to come up with something from scratch.. But to locate and organize your files. • Team Approach so you are not on your own.

32. Writing the Affirmative Case

33. Selecting the Affirmative Case • The best cases are found only after you have done extensive preliminary research on the topic. • Begin by looking for Solvency evidence –try to find recommendations for topical action. • Once you have a “plan” gather the Harms and Inherency evidence. • Summer debate workshops and some tournaments will produce case lists.

34. Selecting the Affirmative Case Some thoughts about case selection: • Think Strategically Does the case position you to refute obvious Negative DAs and CPs? Big changes/impacts to outweigh or minimal change to avoid the links • What are your research abilities? Big cases central to the topic are easier to research. Cases inadequately researched will not win. • Pick a case that is interesting to YOU

35. Organizing the Case (the 1AC) • There are 3 types of cases: • The Needs Case • The Comparative Advantage Case • The Goals Criterion Case

36. The Traditional Needs Case • Remember: All cases must meet the prima facie requirements regardless of organizational structure. • Based on a problem-solution theme • The Affirmative explains the cause and the extent of the problem and then presents a plan and demonstrates that it solves the problem.

37. The Traditional Needs Case Contention 1: SQ will not solve the problem(Inherency) Contention 2: The inherent problem results in a significant problem(Harms & Significance) Plan Contention 3: Implementation of the plan will solve the problem(Solvency)

38. The Traditional Needs Case Cont 1: SQ Fishing Policy Fails Cont 2: Overfishing is Destroying Our Oceans Plan: establish marine reserves system Cont 3: Reserves restore our oceans

39. The Comparative Advantage Case • Focuses on comparing the SQ and the Affirmative alternative • Begins by describing the nature of the SQ (inherency) • Presents the plan and compares it to the SQ by illustrating the plan’s Advantages

40. The Comparative Advantage Case Observation: SQ will not implement the plan Plan Advantage 1 A. Harm B. Solvency Advantage 2 A. Harm B. Solvency

41. The Comparative Advantage Case Observation: SQ Fishing Policy Fails Plan: establish marine reserve system Advantage 1: Ocean Environment A. Overfishing is Destroying Our Oceans B. Reserves Protect Ocean Ecosystems Advantage 2: Economy A. Overfishing will collapse fisheries B. Reserves economically benefit fisheries

42. The Goals Criterion Case • Argues that we have a goal and that the AFF plan better meets the goal than does the SQ • Must win two arguments • The goal(s) exists and is a worthy goal • The Plan better meets the goal • Prima facie requirements are addressed by the second argument.

43. The Goals Criterion Case Obs: Reducing juvenile crime is a national priority (the goal) Plan: increase funding for runaway shelters; non-disclosure statutes for shelters; repeal 15-day limit for staying in shelters

44. The Goals Criterion Case Contention 1: SQ policies promote juvenile crime by runaway youths • A. SQ lacks a comprehensive policy to deal with runaway youths • B. Runaway youths increase juvenile crime • C. Runaway youths increase prostitution leading to the spread of AIDS Contention 2: Aff plan better reduces teen runaways • A. Increased funding for expanding training and expanding youth shelters solves • B. Non-disclosure statutes ensuring confidentiality solves • C. Repealing 15-day-stay limit solves

45. Writing the Affirmative Case • Do not over-structure the case. Every piece of evidence does not need to be labeled as a subpoint. Some substructure (A, B, C) may be necessary or desirable. • Use transition sentences/tag lines: Each card should be introduced by a sentence that succinctly summarizes the argument it supports. • Cite the complete source for the evidence.

46. Writing the Affirmative Case • Use your best evidence in the 1AC. • Use evidence that allows you to refute (or preempt) commonly run Negative arguments. • Avoid evidence that sets up or makes you vulnerable to specific Negative attacks. • Make adjustments to your 1AC throughout the debate season.

47. Writing the Affirmative Plan • Specify the agent of adoption • Give specific policy mandates Specific plan mandates should be consistent with the solvency evidence • Include funding & enforcement mechanisms F & E may be by normal means, or you may specify the means. However, you can not claim an advantage from the specified F & E. • Reserve the right to clarify plan intent • Use “Planks” or write as a paragraph

48. Sample Affirmative Plan Plank 1: Mandates The United States federal government will adopt the May 2003 recommendations of the Pew Oceans Commission regarding overfishing, including the shift to an ecosystems-based approach to fishery management and the establishment of a National Oceans Agency empowered to oversee and implement a nationally-coordinated system of marine reserves and marine protected areas within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone. Plank 2: Funding and enforcement are guaranteed. Plank 3: Affirmative speeches shall serve as policy intent.

49. Sample Affirmative Plan The United States federal government will adopt the May 2003 recommendations of the Pew Oceans Commission regarding overfishing, including the shift to an ecosystems-based approach to fishery management and the establishment of a National Oceans Agency empowered to oversee and implement a nationally-coordinated system of marine reserves and marine protected areas within the United States Exclusive Economic Zone. Funding and enforcement are guaranteed. Affirmative speeches shall serve as policy intent.

50. Answering Negative Attacks Generally, you should anticipate the Negative attacks and prepare briefs with evidenced and analytical responses. Answering Topicality attacks: • Provide counter definitions and interpretations • Provide counter standards for evaluating your definitions/interpretations vs. the Negative’s