Policy debate is an American form of debate competition in which teams of two usually advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government. It is also referred to as cross-examination debate (sometimes shortened to Cross-X or CX ) because of the 3-minute questioning period following each constructive speech . Evidence presentation is a crucial part of policy debate. The main argument being debated during a round is to change or not change the status quo. When a team explains why their solvency is greater than the opposition's, they compare advantages. One team’s job is to argue that the resolution— the statement that we should make some specific change to a national or international problem —is a good idea. Affirmative teams generally present a plan as a proposal for implementation of the resolution. On the other hand, the Negative teams present arguments against the implementation of the resolution. In a single round of debate competition, each person gives two speeches. The first speech each person gives is called a “constructive” speech, because it is the speech when the first person of the team speaks positively, presenting the team's main idea without rebuttals that have not occurred, presents the basic arguments they will make throughout the debate. The second speech is called a “rebuttal”, because this is the speech where each person tries to rebut (or refute) the arguments made by the other team, while using their own arguments to try to persuade the judge to vote for their team. The Affirmative has to persuade the judge to vote for the resolution, while the Negative has to persuade the judge the Negative's position is a better idea.
152-650: This is a glossary of policy debate terms . In policy debate (also called cross-examination debate in some circuits, namely the University Interscholastic League of Texas), the Affirmative is the team that affirms the resolution and seeks to uphold it by developing, proposing, and advocating for a policy plan that satisfies the resolution. By affirming the resolution, the Affirmative (often abbreviated "AFF" or "Aff") incurs
304-466: A boost to the Significance stock issue. An example of this is to argue that solving dirty nukes made of plutonium is more advantageous than exploiting further mutually assured destruction deterrence theory. A Negative strategy that does not give direct clash to the Affirmative plan argues against the resolution's hidden harms without arguing against the plan, the unmasking harms strategy that helps
456-399: A card is often underlined or highlighted in order to eliminate unnecessary or redundant sentences when the card is read in a round. In a round, the tag is read first, followed by the citation and the body. Often, especially on the national circuit, a debater will share any cards they plan to read with their opponents and the judge immediately before their speech. If cards are not shared before
608-399: A card is often underlined or highlighted in order to eliminate unnecessary or redundant sentences when the card is read in a round. In a round, the tag is read first, followed by the citation and the body. Often, especially on the national circuit, a debater will share any cards they plan to read with their opponents and the judge immediately before their speech. If cards are not shared before
760-419: A critique of the state declaring that the purported increase in state power that the plan creates is bad because it unduly exercises power and forces citizens into doing things that they would not choose to do otherwise might be impact turned by first mitigating the harm the state does and then saying that other things the state does — such as safeguarding domestic tranquility — are good. Inherency
912-569: A debate between students from Boston College and Georgetown University occurred on May 1, 1895, in Boston. Whitman College debated Washington State University , Willamette University , and the University of Idaho in the late 1890s. Southwestern claims that the first debate held on its campus was between Southwestern and Fairmount College (which eventually became Wichita State University ) but that debate could not have occurred prior to 1895,
1064-733: A given speech. The first constructive speech is flowed from the top of the sheet down in the first column, and the next constructive speech is flowed in the right column next to the first one. Each speech is flowed in separate columns, alternating Affirmative and Negative. Rebuttals are flowed the same. Certain shorthands for commonly used words are used to keep up with the rapid rate of delivery. The abbreviations or stand-in symbols vary. There are many accepted standards in policy debate, and there are several dominant speech argument styles. Sometimes debaters will debate about how policy debate should work. Those arguments are known as "theory" arguments, and they are most often brought up when one team believes
1216-414: A majority of tournaments, debaters also receive "speaker awards", which are awarded to the debaters who received the greatest number of speaker points. Many tournaments also drop the highest and lowest score received by each debater, in order to ensure that the speaker award calculations are fair and consistent, despite the preferences of different judges. The number of speaker awards given out varies based on
1368-414: A majority of tournaments, debaters also receive "speaker awards", which are awarded to the debaters who received the greatest number of speaker points. Many tournaments also drop the highest and lowest score received by each debater, in order to ensure that the speaker award calculations are fair and consistent, despite the preferences of different judges. The number of speaker awards given out varies based on
1520-463: A national or international problem —is a good idea. Affirmative teams generally present a plan as a proposal for implementation of the resolution. On the other hand, the Negative teams present arguments against the implementation of the resolution. In a single round of debate competition, each person gives two speeches. The first speech each person gives is called a “constructive” speech, because it
1672-449: A negative team might read a disadvantage saying that the plan will collapse the economy, and that economic collapse causes nuclear war. An affirmative would double turn the disadvantage by saying that actually, the plan would prevent the economy from collapsing, and that economic collapse is crucial to prevent nuclear war. Therefore, the affirmative is now arguing that the plan will cause nuclear war. While either of these arguments alone turns
SECTION 10
#17327803963951824-431: A net benefit the plan does not have, giving the judge a reason to vote for the team reading it rather than the team with the original proposal. Like most mainstream argument forms in policy debate, they are presumed to be legitimate, though it is possible for the affirmative to defeat them on the grounds that they are illegitimate by arguing that they are unfair, uneducational, or illogical. Because they make it possible for
1976-407: A non issue. There are some judges who will not vote on it, and negative teams do not run it often because it may contradict uniqueness arguments on disadvantages. However, inherency arguments are more likely to be run with a "Stocks Issues" judge who could hold that the absence of an inherent barrier is enough to merit an affirmative loss. In doctrinal disputes, Inherency is only a nonissue when there
2128-409: A perfect score is considered incredibly rare and warranted only by an outstanding performance. Most tournaments accept half-point gradations, for example 28.5s, or even by tenths. Generally, speaker points are seen as secondary in importance to wins and losses, yet often correlate with a team's win/loss rate. In other words, the judge usually awards the winning team cumulatively higher speaker points than
2280-409: A perfect score is considered incredibly rare and warranted only by an outstanding performance. Most tournaments accept half-point gradations, for example 28.5s, or even by tenths. Generally, speaker points are seen as secondary in importance to wins and losses, yet often correlate with a team's win/loss rate. In other words, the judge usually awards the winning team cumulatively higher speaker points than
2432-439: A plan (Inherency). They must persuade that their plan is an example of the resolution (Topicality, Typicality), and they must prove that the plan is a good idea (Solvency). The Affirmative traditionally must uphold this burden as preferable to the status quo (Harms). Given that the affirmative must prove that they are preferable to the status quo (commonly referred to as the squo), the negative team always has presumption for winning
2584-439: A plan (Inherency). They must persuade that their plan is an example of the resolution (Topicality, Typicality), and they must prove that the plan is a good idea (Solvency). The Affirmative traditionally must uphold this burden as preferable to the status quo (Harms). Given that the affirmative must prove that they are preferable to the status quo (commonly referred to as the squo), the negative team always has presumption for winning
2736-408: A reference to real life to understand the sophisticated arguments in a policy debate round. Fiat ( Latin for 'let it be done') is a theoretical, "throwaway assumption" and convention that "represents a willing suspension of disbelief which allows us to pretend that the plan advocated by the affirmative team is already in action." Derived from the word should in the resolution , it means that
2888-517: A total of eight speeches each debate round. Each speaker was cross-examined by their opponent for a period following his or her constructive speech. Traditionally rebuttals were half the length of constructives, but when a style of faster delivery speed became more standard in the late 1980s, that time management stricture was dropped. Wake Forest University introduced reformed speech times in both its college (9‑6 instead of 10‑5) and high school (8‑5 instead of 8‑4) tournaments, which spread rapidly to become
3040-507: A virtual format at no cost. RuDI is organized by a five-member board, including Executive Grant Zhang, President Kelly Mu, Assistant Jared Shirts, Outreach Ambassador Ann Schulte, and Coach Joseph Smith. The RuDI also provides supplemental programs such as leadership development initiatives and career development workshops to champion and leverage the assets unique to rural communities and rural individuals, such as their pride of place, close-knittedness, and diverse set of practical skills. There
3192-507: A virtual format at no cost. RuDI is organized by a five-member board, including Executive Grant Zhang, President Kelly Mu, Assistant Jared Shirts, Outreach Ambassador Ann Schulte, and Coach Joseph Smith. The RuDI also provides supplemental programs such as leadership development initiatives and career development workshops to champion and leverage the assets unique to rural communities and rural individuals, such as their pride of place, close-knittedness, and diverse set of practical skills. There
SECTION 20
#17327803963953344-424: A vote and a role is not about pretending how to save lives in third world countries, which academic debate purports to do, but not as if one is in a hero role, but arguing why to save lives in third world countries because that is normatively feasible and desirable, straightforwardly. The ballot is also where judges can comment that certain speakers excelled at rhetoric or oratory or argumentation or teamwork or knows
3496-403: Is a stock issue in policy debate that refers to a barrier that keeps a harm from being solved in the status quo . There are four main types of inherency: Despite the classification of these four as the "main types" of inherency, the existence of other types are subject to theory (much like a substantial part of the lexicon for the event). In higher level policy debate inherency has become
3648-443: Is a process argument, are rarely distinguishable from counter-resolutions and nontopicality and are therefore frowned upon by judges: Harms are a stock issue in policy debate which refer to problems inherent in the status quo . These problems are cited as actual (occurring presently outside the activity of the debate round in the status quo). Harms are different from threats, which are potential harms (not currently occurring in
3800-440: Is blue, vote affirmative" is an argument that most judges would believe does not need to be answered. Debaters sometimes use the "dropped egg" argument to refer to arguments dropped by the opposing team, stating that "A dropped argument is like a dropped egg. Once an egg is dropped, it cannot be fixed (or whole) again. Therefore, you should disregard their argument..." etc. This argument is optimal for lay, or parent, judges who need
3952-409: Is consent" or "Silence is consensus".) Debaters tend to use this as a general rule while evaluating a debate round. If a team says nothing against an argument, then because 'silence is compliance', they must agree to whatever the argument was. An argument is normally considered dropped if it is not answered in the speech in which the opposing team has the first opportunity to answer it. Generally, in
4104-700: Is considered feasible. In many policy debates, debaters argue about the reversibility "fiated" actions. For example, in a debate about whether the United States Federal Government should implement new regulations to reduce climate change, a Negative team might argue that regulations would be repealed if the Republican Party gained control of the Presidency or Congress. Various interpretations of fiats have been constructed in order to promote more realistic political punditry that
4256-446: Is debated by affiliated students nationally for the entire season (standard academic school year). At the high-school level, "topic papers" are also prepared but the voting procedure is different. Those papers are then presented to a topic selection committee which rewords each topic and eventually narrows down the number of topics to five topics. Then the five resolutions are put to a two-tiered voting system. State forensic associations,
4408-446: Is debated by affiliated students nationally for the entire season (standard academic school year). At the high-school level, "topic papers" are also prepared but the voting procedure is different. Those papers are then presented to a topic selection committee which rewords each topic and eventually narrows down the number of topics to five topics. Then the five resolutions are put to a two-tiered voting system. State forensic associations,
4560-417: Is different from policy debate. "Intrinsic means" – are the same means as the status quo without having to justify discovery or extraordinary support of those means. For example, if the plan's agency is C.I.A. , there is no need to go into a lengthy discussion about classification methods and clearances. Significance can be argued that capturing the status quo's intrinsic means gives a Solvency boost without
4712-465: Is encouraged by those who believe that increased quantity and diversity of arguments makes debates more educational. Proponents of the delivery style emphasize that spreading can help increase the quality of debates by enabling more nuanced viewpoints, rather than more general positions. Most debaters will vary their rate of delivery depending upon the judge's preferences. Debaters have a specialized form of note taking, called flowing , to keep track of
Glossary of policy debate terms - Misplaced Pages Continue
4864-413: Is in power and their party affiliation, it matters that whosoever is in power already can benefit from the plan, if that is the argument. Usually, Affirmative plans are not about re-electing officials but are honed toward nonelected groups and other countries who are beneficiaries of the plan. In policy debate, fiating the plan is almost always granted without argument, to help debaters and judges evaluate
5016-475: Is organizational consensus. Policy debate ensues, of the academic and nonacademic varieties, in re-evaluating or "rescuing" Inherency. For example, the Status Quo Inherency is used in academic debate to scope resolutions, affirmative plans, and the types of evidence in a formal academic debate. In Lincoln-Douglas debate, as opposed to policy debate, there is no need to "rescue Inherency", because
5168-440: Is organized into units called cards (because such evidence was originally printed on note cards, though the practice has long been replaced by digital storage). Cards are designed to condense an author's argument so that debaters have an easy way to access the information. A card is composed of three parts: the argument or evidence summary, the evidence that supports the argument, and the citation. The argument part, sometimes called
5320-440: Is organized into units called cards (because such evidence was originally printed on note cards, though the practice has long been replaced by digital storage). Cards are designed to condense an author's argument so that debaters have an easy way to access the information. A card is composed of three parts: the argument or evidence summary, the evidence that supports the argument, and the citation. The argument part, sometimes called
5472-608: Is some dispute over what constitutes the "national championship" in the United States per se, but two tournaments generally compete for the title: The Tournament of Champions held at the University of Kentucky , and the National Speech and Debate tournament sponsored by the National Forensic League (now known as the National Speech & Debate Association). For the highest level of competition,
5624-404: Is some dispute over what constitutes the "national championship" in the United States per se, but two tournaments generally compete for the title: The Tournament of Champions held at the University of Kentucky , and the National Speech and Debate tournament sponsored by the National Forensic League (now known as the National Speech & Debate Association). For the highest level of competition,
5776-459: Is the problem in the status quo to justify adopting the plan? Is the plan important enough to even warrant consideration or make a difference? Will the plan solve any problems in the status quo? How much of an impact (positive effect, or Significance) will the plan have? Most affirmative teams today generally frame their case around advantages, which are good effects of their plan. The negative team will often present disadvantages which contend that
5928-459: Is the problem in the status quo to justify adopting the plan? Is the plan important enough to even warrant consideration or make a difference? Will the plan solve any problems in the status quo? How much of an impact (positive effect, or Significance) will the plan have? Most affirmative teams today generally frame their case around advantages, which are good effects of their plan. The negative team will often present disadvantages which contend that
6080-410: Is the speech when the first person of the team speaks positively, presenting the team's main idea without rebuttals that have not occurred, presents the basic arguments they will make throughout the debate. The second speech is called a “rebuttal”, because this is the speech where each person tries to rebut (or refute) the arguments made by the other team, while using their own arguments to try to persuade
6232-422: Is using preparation time has priority to read evidence read previously during a round by both teams. As a result, large amounts of evidence may change hands after the use of preparation time but before a speech. Most judges will not deduct from a team's preparation time for time spent finding evidence which the other team has misplaced. After a round, judges sometimes "call for cards" to examine evidence whose merit
Glossary of policy debate terms - Misplaced Pages Continue
6384-422: Is using preparation time has priority to read evidence read previously during a round by both teams. As a result, large amounts of evidence may change hands after the use of preparation time but before a speech. Most judges will not deduct from a team's preparation time for time spent finding evidence which the other team has misplaced. After a round, judges sometimes "call for cards" to examine evidence whose merit
6536-682: The American Debate Association (ADA) all host national tournaments. The NDT committee issues a ranking report of the top 16 teams in the country ("first round bids") for automatic advancement to the NDT in early February. The report roughly determines a regular season champion called the 'Copeland Award' for the team rated the highest over the course of the year through early February. While once attended by only highly competitive policy debaters, many high school students now attend debate institutes, which are typically held at colleges in
6688-553: The American Debate Association (ADA) all host national tournaments. The NDT committee issues a ranking report of the top 16 teams in the country ("first round bids") for automatic advancement to the NDT in early February. The report roughly determines a regular season champion called the 'Copeland Award' for the team rated the highest over the course of the year through early February. While once attended by only highly competitive policy debaters, many high school students now attend debate institutes, which are typically held at colleges in
6840-674: The National Christian Forensics and Communications Association , as well as many other regional speech organizations. Collegiate policy debates are generally governed by the guidelines of National Debate Tournament (NDT) and the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA), which have been joined at the collegiate level. A one-person policy format is sanctioned by the National Forensic Association (NFA)) on
6992-507: The National Speech and Debate Association , National Association of Urban Debate Leagues , Catholic Forensic League , Stoa USA , and the National Christian Forensics and Communications Association , as well as many other regional speech organizations. Collegiate policy debates are generally governed by the guidelines of National Debate Tournament (NDT) and the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA), which have been joined at
7144-603: The Supreme Court , the President (usually through the use of an Executive Order ), and Congress . Sometimes, the policy groups get smaller in numbers and devolve into Executive agencies . For example, on a previous high school debate topic – the use of renewable energy – the plan could use the Department of Energy . Policy debate High school policy debate is sponsored by various organizations including
7296-516: The United States federal government in their plan text . On international topics, international agent counterplans cannot be similarly avoided, although many consider them object fiat or otherwise theoretically suspect. Some debate theorists (e.g., Lichtman and Rohrer; Korcok; Strait and Wallace) have argued the kind of fiat involved with these counterplans is inconsistent with the logic of decision making. In debate, judges consider or score
7448-433: The burden of proof , which must be met if the Affirmative's policy plan is to be successful. The Negative side , in contrast, is the team that negates the affirmation. More specifically, the Negative (abbreviated "NEG" or "Neg") refutes the policy plan that is presented by the Affirmative. The Affirmative team has the advantage of speaking both first and last, but it lacks the benefit of back-to-back speeches afforded to
7600-672: The first affirmative rebuttal , the speaker is required to answer all arguments made so far by the negative team. This is because if the affirmative chooses to respond to the arguments in the second affirmative rebuttal , it reaffirms affirmative ground and strength because the affirmative gets the last speech, leaving the negative with no way to refute any argument made. Many debaters refer to dropped arguments as "conceded," "unanswered," or "unrefuted" or "stands in good stead". Some judges will not evaluate some arguments, even when they are dropped, such as arguments labeled "voting issues" but which are unsupported by warrants. For example, "the sky
7752-405: The resolution . The acceptance of all-inclusive negation, as opposed piecemeal, allows Negative teams to run full argumentation outlines such as topical counterplans with better Solvency that affirms the resolution but still negates the Affirmative's plan. After the affirmative presents its case, the negative can down-vote the case with many different arguments, which include: Evidence in debates
SECTION 50
#17327803963957904-405: The resolution . The acceptance of all-inclusive negation, as opposed piecemeal, allows Negative teams to run full argumentation outlines such as topical counterplans with better Solvency that affirms the resolution but still negates the Affirmative's plan. After the affirmative presents its case, the negative can down-vote the case with many different arguments, which include: Evidence in debates
8056-427: The tag(line) , is the debater's summary of the argument presented in the body. A tag is usually only one or two sentences. The citation contains all relevant reference citation information (that is, the author, date of publication, journal, title, etc.). Although every card should contain a complete citation, only the author's name and date of publication are typically spoken aloud in a speech. Some teams will also read
8208-427: The tag(line) , is the debater's summary of the argument presented in the body. A tag is usually only one or two sentences. The citation contains all relevant reference citation information (that is, the author, date of publication, journal, title, etc.). Although every card should contain a complete citation, only the author's name and date of publication are typically spoken aloud in a speech. Some teams will also read
8360-425: The 118th Congress, Senate Bill 361, "Pistol Brace Protection Act" will be passed instead due to the fact that the mandate doesn't specify which Congress the Affirmative team is referring to. This causes the Affirmative team to more than likely become untopical and have a plan nowhere remotely related to the intention. It is a classic debate mistake for an affirmative to read both link and impact turns. For example,
8512-437: The 1890s. History records there were debates between teams from Wake Forest University and Trinity College (later Duke University ) beginning in 1897. Additionally, a debate between students from Boston College and Georgetown University occurred on May 1, 1895, in Boston. Whitman College debated Washington State University , Willamette University , and the University of Idaho in the late 1890s. Southwestern claims that
8664-495: The 2006–2007 college policy debate topic, which limited the affirmative agent to the United States Supreme Court . At the college level, a number of topics are proposed and interested parties write "topic papers" discussing the pros and cons of that individual topic. Each school then gets one vote on the topic. The single topic area voted on then has a number of proposed topic wordings, one is chosen, and it
8816-415: The 2006–2007 college policy debate topic, which limited the affirmative agent to the United States Supreme Court . At the college level, a number of topics are proposed and interested parties write "topic papers" discussing the pros and cons of that individual topic. Each school then gets one vote on the topic. The single topic area voted on then has a number of proposed topic wordings, one is chosen, and it
8968-423: The 3-minute questioning period following each constructive speech . Evidence presentation is a crucial part of policy debate. The main argument being debated during a round is to change or not change the status quo. When a team explains why their solvency is greater than the opposition's, they compare advantages. One team’s job is to argue that the resolution— the statement that we should make some specific change to
9120-422: The Affirmative team's plan text includes the wrong bill or a bill from a previous legislature. For example, a team may want to pass Senate Bill 361, "A bill to establish a 90-day limit to file a petition for judicial review of a permit, license, or approval for a highway or public transportation project, and for other purposes." from the 117th Congress. However, if the date the round is taking place happens during
9272-416: The Affirmative with merit, for example, for merely attempting to run a plan on the resolution, which prima facie fulfills the resolution in a particular case, the plan. There are Affirmative positions that support the resolution without running a plan, and they tend to do so on Inherency only, a powerful strategy. Negative Inherency tends to strategize how one ought to vote about the resolution, accepting that
SECTION 60
#17327803963959424-537: The Earth's oceans. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People's Republic of China. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of primary and/or secondary education in
9576-432: The Earth's oceans. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People's Republic of China. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of primary and/or secondary education in
9728-487: The Mesosphere. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of
9880-428: The Mesosphere. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of
10032-695: The National Forensic League, and the National Catholic Forensic League all vote on the five topics, narrowing it down to two. Then the two topics are again put to a vote, and one topic is selected. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond
10184-529: The National Forensic League, and the National Catholic Forensic League all vote on the five topics, narrowing it down to two. Then the two topics are again put to a vote, and one topic is selected. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond
10336-417: The Negative team in the 13-minute block of time known as the "Negative block". In policy debate , an agent counterplan is a counterplan that proposes to do affirmative's plan (or part of it) with another agent. For example, if the affirmative plan were: "The USFG should send troops to Liberia" an agent counterplan would be "France should send troops to Liberia." This would solve the original proposal with
10488-737: The Tournament of Champions is generally considered to be the more prestigious title to hold. In Texas, most debate occurs in Texas Forensic Association (TFA) tournaments. The other major debate organization is the University Interscholastic League (UIL). There is no single unified national championship in college debate; though the National Debate Tournament (NDT), the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) and
10640-431: The Tournament of Champions is generally considered to be the more prestigious title to hold. In Texas, most debate occurs in Texas Forensic Association (TFA) tournaments. The other major debate organization is the University Interscholastic League (UIL). There is no single unified national championship in college debate; though the National Debate Tournament (NDT), the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) and
10792-558: The US. A small subset of high school debaters, mostly from elite public and private schools, travel around the country to tournaments in what is called the 'national circuit.' The championship of the national circuit is usually considered to be the Tournament of Champions , also called the TOC, at the University of Kentucky , which requires formal qualification in the form of two or more bids to
10944-403: The US. A small subset of high school debaters, mostly from elite public and private schools, travel around the country to tournaments in what is called the 'national circuit.' The championship of the national circuit is usually considered to be the Tournament of Champions , also called the TOC, at the University of Kentucky , which requires formal qualification in the form of two or more bids to
11096-495: The United States. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its restrictions on legal immigration to the United States. Policy debate Policy debate is an American form of debate competition in which teams of two usually advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government. It is also referred to as cross-examination debate (sometimes shortened to Cross-X or CX ) because of
11248-548: The activity and the principles of rhetoric, argumentation, policymaking, and so on that the debaters are engaged in the substantive matter of the topic. When the Affirmative team presents a plan, they take upon the Burden of the Policy to advocate (Justification) a significant change (Significance or Impact) to the status quo and that their plan should be adopted and hence, by default, the resolution that in general will allow for such
11400-442: The activity and the principles of rhetoric, argumentation, policymaking, and so on that the debaters are engaged in the substantive matter of the topic. When the Affirmative team presents a plan, they take upon the Burden of the Policy to advocate (Justification) a significant change (Significance or Impact) to the status quo and that their plan should be adopted and hence, by default, the resolution that in general will allow for such
11552-403: The affirmative plan causes undesirable consequences. In an attempt to make sure that their advantages/disadvantages outweigh those of the other team, debaters often present extreme scenarios such as the extinction of the human race or a global nuclear war . Negation Tactic, also known as Negation Theory, contends that the negative need only negate the affirmative instead of having to negate
11704-403: The affirmative plan causes undesirable consequences. In an attempt to make sure that their advantages/disadvantages outweigh those of the other team, debaters often present extreme scenarios such as the extinction of the human race or a global nuclear war . Negation Tactic, also known as Negation Theory, contends that the negative need only negate the affirmative instead of having to negate
11856-462: The agency, such as Congress, are sincere and diligent civil servants who do not quibble over the plan as any part of their regular duties, the presumption of "perfect obedience for the plan's enactment". However, in "pure" policy debate without an Affirmative plan, fiat is also ignored yet does not assume but has to account for the moral agency of the resolution. There are different theories regarding presumption of fiat: "Normal means" – going through
12008-408: The arguments presented during a debate. Conventionally, a debater's flow is divided into separate flows for each different macro-argument in the debate round ( kritiks , disads , topicalities , case, etc.). There are multiple methods of flowing, but the most common style incorporates columns of arguments made in a given speech. The first constructive speech is flowed from the top of the sheet down in
12160-415: The author's qualifications if they wish to emphasize this information. Qualifications are only included in trying to increase the weight of your cards against your opponents'. The body is a fragment of the author's original text. The length of a body can vary greatly—cards can be as short as a few sentences and as long as two or more pages. Most cards are between one and five paragraphs in length. The body of
12312-415: The author's qualifications if they wish to emphasize this information. Qualifications are only included in trying to increase the weight of your cards against your opponents'. The body is a fragment of the author's original text. The length of a body can vary greatly—cards can be as short as a few sentences and as long as two or more pages. Most cards are between one and five paragraphs in length. The body of
12464-464: The beginning of the year. A resolution or topic is a statement which the affirmative team affirms and the negative team negates. Resolutions are selected annually by affiliated schools. Most resolutions from the 1920s to 2005 have begun "Resolved: that The United States federal government should" although some variations from that template have been used both before the NDT-CEDA merger and with
12616-408: The beginning of the year. A resolution or topic is a statement which the affirmative team affirms and the negative team negates. Resolutions are selected annually by affiliated schools. Most resolutions from the 1920s to 2005 have begun "Resolved: that The United States federal government should" although some variations from that template have been used both before the NDT-CEDA merger and with
12768-431: The collegiate level as well. Academic debate had its origins in intra-collegiate debating societies, in which students would engage in invitational debates against their classmates. Wake Forest University 's debate program claims to have its origins in student literary societies founded on campus in the mid-1830s, which first presented joint "orations" in 1854. Many debating societies that were founded at least as early as
12920-416: The collegiate level. A one-person policy format is sanctioned by the National Forensic Association (NFA)) on the collegiate level as well. Academic debate had its origins in intra-collegiate debating societies, in which students would engage in invitational debates against their classmates. Wake Forest University 's debate program claims to have its origins in student literary societies founded on campus in
13072-426: The community as an important part of the activity of a debate club. Debaters in these circuits should be able to adapt their presentations to individuals with no debate experience at all, as well as maintaining high standards of debate for judges who have themselves been debaters. A common saying is that debate is a game of judges/judge adaptation. This use of lay judges significantly alters delivery and argumentation, as
13224-426: The community as an important part of the activity of a debate club. Debaters in these circuits should be able to adapt their presentations to individuals with no debate experience at all, as well as maintaining high standards of debate for judges who have themselves been debaters. A common saying is that debate is a game of judges/judge adaptation. This use of lay judges significantly alters delivery and argumentation, as
13376-410: The crux of the resolution is debated, rather than the political feasibility of enactment of a given plan , thus allowing an affirmative team to proceed with proposing a plan. An example: a student at a high school debate argues that increases in United States support of United Nations peacekeeping may help to render the United States more multilateral . Such an increase is very unlikely to occur from
13528-401: The debate judge voting for the Affirmative, but fiat allows the student to side-step this practicality, and argue on the substance of the idea at the level of an ideal, as if it could be immediately enacted. Because of the presumption of fiat, enactment is considered the same as enforcement, which is quite different from merely ratification or adoption of the resolution. Presumption grants that
13680-478: The debate round. If something has already been done, the outcome is known, regardless whether the phenomenon of the results still exist in the status quo or has somehow returned. Likewise, arguments by the Negative that ignore historical precedence that tend to be the same as or worse than the status quo's current harms, does not give any automatic advantage to the Affirmative either. For example, in-round, if in Year A
13832-429: The debate, and ultimately vote for the winner of the debate round on a ballot. The purpose of the ballot is what the judge 's vote stands for or is intended to affirm. For example, a team might say "the role of the ballot is to vote for whoever saves more lives in third world countries". The opposing team might say "role is irrelevant and the debate rewards the best arguments, not the simulations". The difference between
13984-416: The destabilization that would result in other harms or the same status quo harms. Intrinsic means grants justification of status quo capabilities but none of its inherency vis-a-vis the resolution. Fiat is not taken for granted but is granted to end political discourse, palace intrigue, vote-getting in election politicking, identity politicking, and promote academic debate on policy matters while disregarding
14136-432: The disadvantage, the two arguments together double-turn. The negative can grant these two arguments, and the affirmative is stuck arguing that the plan would cause nuclear war. In policy debate , a drop refers to an argument which was not answered by the opposing team. Normally, a "dropped" or conceded argument is considered unrefuted for the purposes of evaluating a debate. "Silence is compliance." (Sometimes, "Silence
14288-673: The elimination rounds or come close to winning a bid several other times. Urban debate leagues give students in urban school districts an opportunity to participate in policy debate. There are currently urban debate leagues in 24 of the largest cities in the United States. In total, more than 500 high schools participate in the league and more than 40,000 students have competed in urban debate. The Rural Debate Initiative ("RuDI") expands access to debate to secondary school students residing in rural America. RuDI partners with top college programs to provide weekly coaching sessions, internal debate tournaments and summer debate camps to rural students in
14440-673: The elimination rounds or come close to winning a bid several other times. Urban debate leagues give students in urban school districts an opportunity to participate in policy debate. There are currently urban debate leagues in 24 of the largest cities in the United States. In total, more than 500 high schools participate in the league and more than 40,000 students have competed in urban debate. The Rural Debate Initiative ("RuDI") expands access to debate to secondary school students residing in rural America. RuDI partners with top college programs to provide weekly coaching sessions, internal debate tournaments and summer debate camps to rural students in
14592-399: The exact partisan composition needed to implement a plan. For example, both Affirmative and Negative teams can cite political double-whammies or backlash as disadvantages : if United States troops are sent to a foreign country, the majority political party that was pro-deployment will not be re-elected and cannot sustain their military objectives, the quagmire argument. It does not matter who
14744-643: The first column, and the next constructive speech is flowed in the right column next to the first one. Each speech is flowed in separate columns, alternating Affirmative and Negative. Rebuttals are flowed the same. Certain shorthands for commonly used words are used to keep up with the rapid rate of delivery. The abbreviations or stand-in symbols vary. There are many accepted standards in policy debate, and there are several dominant speech argument styles. Sometimes debaters will debate about how policy debate should work. Those arguments are known as "theory" arguments, and they are most often brought up when one team believes
14896-432: The first debate held on its campus was between Southwestern and Fairmount College (which eventually became Wichita State University ) but that debate could not have occurred prior to 1895, the year Fairmount College began classes. By the mid-1970s, regular rules for lengths of speeches developed. Each side (Affirmative and Negative) was afforded two opening "constructive" speeches, and two closing "rebuttal" speeches , for
15048-479: The future). Does Oppenheimer's nuke face deserve a bullet to it or should debate end and his friend turn down the Manhattan Project? An impact turn requires impact calculus , that is: the reasons nuclear war is good must outweigh the reasons why nuclear war is bad. Very often, kritiks are subject to impact turns on account of their Grounds missed opportunities, sometimes also their nebulous impacts;
15200-411: The high school level. However, the method accepted by most national organizations such as the National Forensic League, Tournament of Champions, National Catholic Forensic League, Cross-Examination Debate Association, and National Debate Tournament, use values ranging from 1 to 30. In practice, within these organizations the standard variation is 26‑29, where 26's are given to extremely poor speakers, where
15352-411: The high school level. However, the method accepted by most national organizations such as the National Forensic League, Tournament of Champions, National Catholic Forensic League, Cross-Examination Debate Association, and National Debate Tournament, use values ranging from 1 to 30. In practice, within these organizations the standard variation is 26‑29, where 26's are given to extremely poor speakers, where
15504-406: The high-point losing team provided a better debate round". In some smaller jurisdictions, the judge ranks the speakers 1‑4 instead of awarding them speaker points. Either speaker-point calculation may be used to break ties among teams with like records. Some areas also use speaker rankings in addition to speaker points in order to differentiate between speakers awarded the same number of points. At
15656-406: The high-point losing team provided a better debate round". In some smaller jurisdictions, the judge ranks the speakers 1‑4 instead of awarding them speaker points. Either speaker-point calculation may be used to break ties among teams with like records. Some areas also use speaker rankings in addition to speaker points in order to differentiate between speakers awarded the same number of points. At
15808-405: The judge to vote for their team. The Affirmative has to persuade the judge to vote for the resolution, while the Negative has to persuade the judge the Negative's position is a better idea. High school policy debate is sponsored by various organizations including the National Speech and Debate Association , National Association of Urban Debate Leagues , Catholic Forensic League , Stoa USA , and
15960-402: The judge uses, the debate can be drastically different. Because there is no one view of debate agreed upon by everyone, many debaters question a judge about their paradigm and/or their feelings on specific arguments before the round. Not every judge fits perfectly into one paradigm or another. A judge may say that they are "tabula rasa" or tab for short, or willing to listen to anything, but draw
16112-402: The judge uses, the debate can be drastically different. Because there is no one view of debate agreed upon by everyone, many debaters question a judge about their paradigm and/or their feelings on specific arguments before the round. Not every judge fits perfectly into one paradigm or another. A judge may say that they are "tabula rasa" or tab for short, or willing to listen to anything, but draw
16264-430: The judge's preferences. Debaters have a specialized form of note taking, called flowing , to keep track of the arguments presented during a debate. Conventionally, a debater's flow is divided into separate flows for each different macro-argument in the debate round ( kritiks , disads , topicalities , case, etc.). There are multiple methods of flowing, but the most common style incorporates columns of arguments made in
16416-645: The length of constructives, but when a style of faster delivery speed became more standard in the late 1980s, that time management stricture was dropped. Wake Forest University introduced reformed speech times in both its college (9‑6 instead of 10‑5) and high school (8‑5 instead of 8‑4) tournaments, which spread rapidly to become the new de facto standards. Policy debaters' speed of delivery will vary from league to league and tournament to tournament. In more progressive and larger tournaments, debaters will speak very quickly - often called spreading - in order to read as much evidence and make as many arguments as possible within
16568-438: The line at arguments they consider to be offensive (such as arguments in favor of racism). Or, a judge might be a "policymaker", but still look at the debate in an offense/defense framework like a games-playing judge. Examples of paradigms include: Most high school debaters debate in local tournaments in their city, state or nearby states. Thousands of tournaments are held each year at high schools and certain colleges throughout
16720-438: The line at arguments they consider to be offensive (such as arguments in favor of racism). Or, a judge might be a "policymaker", but still look at the debate in an offense/defense framework like a games-playing judge. Examples of paradigms include: Most high school debaters debate in local tournaments in their city, state or nearby states. Thousands of tournaments are held each year at high schools and certain colleges throughout
16872-432: The losing team. If the judge does not, the decision is considered a "low-point win". Low-point wins simply mean that the team with better argumentation did not speak as well as their competitors, which is rare, because judges will vote for teams that speak better overall and award higher speaker points to teams who deliver a better debate. The difference can be stated as so, "the low-point winning team are better debaters, and
17024-432: The losing team. If the judge does not, the decision is considered a "low-point win". Low-point wins simply mean that the team with better argumentation did not speak as well as their competitors, which is rare, because judges will vote for teams that speak better overall and award higher speaker points to teams who deliver a better debate. The difference can be stated as so, "the low-point winning team are better debaters, and
17176-472: The material with great depth and breadth. Those debaters in formal, organized debate, get speaker awards based on judges' opinions of the speakers' performances. In policy debate , constructive speeches are the first four speeches of a debate round. Constructive speeches are each followed by a 3-minute cross-examination period. In high school, constructive speeches are 8 minutes long; in college, they are 9 minutes. In general, constructive arguments are
17328-509: The merits of a plan as though the plan happens. From there, debate ensues, and it is valid to argue that the Affirmative plan is more expensive in dollars than the Negative counterplan, for example, where fiat is granted to both sides. Fiat almost always does not have to be debated in policy debate but should be taught by coaches and understood by debaters for what they are doing in the activity of academic policy debate. Note that these types of arguments about fiat, that incorrectly assumes fiat
17480-405: The mid-1830s, which first presented joint "orations" in 1854. Many debating societies that were founded at least as early as the mid-nineteenth century are still active today, though they have generally shifted their focus to intercollegiate competitive debate. In addition to Wake Forest, the debate society at Northwestern University dates to 1855. Boston College 's Fulton Debating Society, which
17632-554: The mid-nineteenth century are still active today, though they have generally shifted their focus to intercollegiate competitive debate. In addition to Wake Forest, the debate society at Northwestern University dates to 1855. Boston College 's Fulton Debating Society, which was founded in 1868, continues to organize an annual "Fulton Prize Debate" between teams of its own students after the intercollegiate debate season has ended. Other universities continue similar traditions. Intercollegiate debates have been held since at least as early as
17784-409: The negative to win without refuting most of the claims of the affirmative case (mooting much of the 1AC offense ), they are a key component in many negative strategies. Most affirmatives try to avoid domestic USFG agent counterplans (e.g., if the plan involves Congressional legislation, the negative might counterplan to have the president issue an executive order) by not specifying their agent beyond
17936-458: The new de facto standards. Policy debaters' speed of delivery will vary from league to league and tournament to tournament. In more progressive and larger tournaments, debaters will speak very quickly - often called spreading - in order to read as much evidence and make as many arguments as possible within the time-constrained speech. Speed reading or spreading is normal at the majority of national circuit policy debate tournaments. Some feel that
18088-473: The number of debaters competing at any given tournament. For instance, a small local tournament might only award trophies or plaques to the top three debaters, whereas a widely attended "national circuit" tournament might give out awards to the top ten or fifteen speakers. Most debate judges (who were usually debaters in high school and/or college) generally carry a mindset that favors certain arguments and styles over others. Depending on what mindset, or paradigm,
18240-473: The number of debaters competing at any given tournament. For instance, a small local tournament might only award trophies or plaques to the top three debaters, whereas a widely attended "national circuit" tournament might give out awards to the top ten or fifteen speakers. Most debate judges (who were usually debaters in high school and/or college) generally carry a mindset that favors certain arguments and styles over others. Depending on what mindset, or paradigm,
18392-426: The only time that a team can make new arguments. The last four speeches of the debate are reserved for refutations of arguments already made. In current policy debate, the " first affirmative constructive " (1AC) is used to present the " plan ". Whether all new " off-case arguments " must be presented in the " first negative constructive " is a point of contention. In policy debate, a critical flaw refers to when
18544-407: The other team is unfair and therefore warrant a loss or other intervention by the judge. They are also brought up to change how an argument is weighted by the judge to either assist themselves or detract from the opponents. Theory debates in-round are not rare, but whole rounds are almost never about theory itself. Theory is argued as part of the decision of the round with the hope of advancing debate
18696-407: The other team is unfair and therefore warrant a loss or other intervention by the judge. They are also brought up to change how an argument is weighted by the judge to either assist themselves or detract from the opponents. Theory debates in-round are not rare, but whole rounds are almost never about theory itself. Theory is argued as part of the decision of the round with the hope of advancing debate
18848-452: The pedagogical purpose of the activity is to train rhetorical skills. In contrast, rapid delivery is encouraged by those who believe that increased quantity and diversity of arguments makes debates more educational. Proponents of the delivery style emphasize that spreading can help increase the quality of debates by enabling more nuanced viewpoints, rather than more general positions. Most debaters will vary their rate of delivery depending upon
19000-413: The purpose of obtaining its citation information so that they can produce the evidence for their own school. Opponents and spectators are also generally allowed to collect citations in this manner, and some tournaments send scouts to rounds to facilitate the collection of cites for every team at the tournament, information which is sometimes published later. A judge is an individual responsible for deciding
19152-413: The purpose of obtaining its citation information so that they can produce the evidence for their own school. Opponents and spectators are also generally allowed to collect citations in this manner, and some tournaments send scouts to rounds to facilitate the collection of cites for every team at the tournament, information which is sometimes published later. A judge is an individual responsible for deciding
19304-426: The rapid-fire delivery makes debate harder to understand for the lay person. Many further claim that the increased speed encourages debaters to make several poor arguments, as opposed to a few high-quality ones. A slower style is preferred by those who want debates to be understandable to lay people and those who claim that the pedagogical purpose of the activity is to train rhetorical skills. In contrast, rapid delivery
19456-496: The rapid-fire style and complex debate-theory arguments are frequently new to lay judges. For this reason, other circuits restrict policy debate judging to qualified judges, generally ex-debaters. The judge is charged not only with selecting a winner, but also must allot points to each debater. "Speaker points" are numeric merit scores that the judge awards the debaters on their speaking skills. Speaker point schemes vary throughout local state and regional organizations particularly at
19608-496: The rapid-fire style and complex debate-theory arguments are frequently new to lay judges. For this reason, other circuits restrict policy debate judging to qualified judges, generally ex-debaters. The judge is charged not only with selecting a winner, but also must allot points to each debater. "Speaker points" are numeric merit scores that the judge awards the debaters on their speaking skills. Speaker point schemes vary throughout local state and regional organizations particularly at
19760-444: The reasons why supporting revolutions is a winning advantage is still difficult to thwart in one's advocacy that does not include revolution. An interlocutor is, generically, to whom one speaks. In debate an interlocutor is one of the teams on the debate circuit, as well the judges and coaches. The subjects of the debate topic, typically a government agency, is not the interlocutor; the debate rounds are not addressed to them. Within
19912-471: The resolution says "substantially change" and many teams have already debated that, and in Year B the resolution says "substantially increase", on the same topic, the winning debates in Year A already have many winning arguments that can be presented in Year B. Another example, on-topic, if in Year A many winning teams have supported revolution (revolutions are less bloody than nuclear war), but in Year B there are teams running counterarguments against revolution,
20064-526: The round. The negative is automatically the winner unless the affirmative can prove they are better than the status quo. One traditional way to judge policy debate is to judge the Affirmative on four issues or burdens to meet, called the stock issues . The four stock issues are modeled after U.S. court procedural aspects of administrative law in deciding cases (as opposed to Constitutional controversies): ill (Harm), blame (Inherency), cure (Solvency), cost (Significance). They are generally known as follows: What
20216-526: The round. The negative is automatically the winner unless the affirmative can prove they are better than the status quo. One traditional way to judge policy debate is to judge the Affirmative on four issues or burdens to meet, called the stock issues . The four stock issues are modeled after U.S. court procedural aspects of administrative law in deciding cases (as opposed to Constitutional controversies): ill (Harm), blame (Inherency), cure (Solvency), cost (Significance). They are generally known as follows: What
20368-403: The same political process comparable with normal legislative processes. There is no overarching, accepted definition of the legislative pathways which constitute "normal means," but clarification about what an affirmative team regards as "normal means" can be obtained as part of cross-examination by the negative team. "Infinite" or "durable fiat" – the degree to which an ideal, or "fiated", action
20520-414: The speech, it is common for an opponent to collect and examine evidence even while a speech is still going on. This practice originated in part because cards are read at a rate faster than conversational speed. Taking the cards during the speech allows the opponent to question the author's qualifications, the original context of the evidence, etc. in cross-examination . It is generally accepted whichever team
20672-414: The speech, it is common for an opponent to collect and examine evidence even while a speech is still going on. This practice originated in part because cards are read at a rate faster than conversational speed. Taking the cards during the speech allows the opponent to question the author's qualifications, the original context of the evidence, etc. in cross-examination . It is generally accepted whichever team
20824-488: The status quo is not required for the debate. The classical form of Inherency belongs to the Negative as Status Quo Inherency, which succinctly states that "there is unknown danger in change". Argumentation Inherency, a stock issue, does not refer so much to plans and counterplans in policy debate or the resolution but to fairness in competitive debate. Affirmative Inherency does not have to explicitly overcome apathy or even be mentioned, because Argumentation Inherency endows
20976-493: The status quo, but with the possibility of occurring in the future). In the case of potential harms, the policy offered by the affirmative functions as a preventive measure or "sure deterrence". As is so often the case in academic debate, the bigger the harms, the bigger the impacts. For example, many teams enjoy running the nuclear outfall Harms plank, drawing mushroom clouds on their debate round flowsheets. It has also been argued that "small things can have big impacts", giving
21128-416: The summer. Most institutes range from about two to seven weeks, with four weeks being the most common. Many institutes divide students into work groups, or "labs", based on skill level and experience. Many even offer specialized "advanced" or "scholars" workshops, to which acceptance is highly limited. These camps often set the tone for the upcoming season and produce much of the evidence used by debaters at
21280-416: The summer. Most institutes range from about two to seven weeks, with four weeks being the most common. Many institutes divide students into work groups, or "labs", based on skill level and experience. Many even offer specialized "advanced" or "scholars" workshops, to which acceptance is highly limited. These camps often set the tone for the upcoming season and produce much of the evidence used by debaters at
21432-420: The terms of the debate is fair but that the resolution ought to be defeated. Just as stock issue debate does not require the Affirmative to run a plan, stock issue debate does not require the Negative to completely defeat the Affirmative but merely negate the resolution on lack of justifiability, or Negative Justification. In policy debate, failing Historical Inherency is a sure way for the Affirmative to not win
21584-474: The time-constrained speech. Speed reading or spreading is normal at the majority of national circuit policy debate tournaments. Some feel that the rapid-fire delivery makes debate harder to understand for the lay person. Many further claim that the increased speed encourages debaters to make several poor arguments, as opposed to a few high-quality ones. A slower style is preferred by those who want debates to be understandable to lay people and those who claim that
21736-469: The topic of the debate, a group that enacts a certain policy action is the policy group; if by an individual, the individual is the policy leader, such as a head of state. If a plan were to have the U.S. send humanitarian aid to Sudan, then the policy group, the folks who are expected to implement the plan, would be the United States federal government. Many times, institutional groups are subdivided into more specific "agents". The most common agents include
21888-490: The tournament. Bids are achieved by reaching a certain level of elimination rounds (for example, quarter-finals) at select, highly competitive, and carefully chosen tournaments across the country based upon the quality of debaters they attract and the diversity of locations from across the United States they represent. Debater partnerships with 2 bids are guaranteed a spot at the TOC, whereas debater teams with 1 bid (At-large teams) may be admitted if they consistently advance far in
22040-490: The tournament. Bids are achieved by reaching a certain level of elimination rounds (for example, quarter-finals) at select, highly competitive, and carefully chosen tournaments across the country based upon the quality of debaters they attract and the diversity of locations from across the United States they represent. Debater partnerships with 2 bids are guaranteed a spot at the TOC, whereas debater teams with 1 bid (At-large teams) may be admitted if they consistently advance far in
22192-420: The underprepared Negative team who do not have much experience with the Affirmative plan's details. This strategy is useful in the early rounds of a debate tournament. Example : If the negative argued the plan would cause nuclear war, which is bad so the affirmative could impact turn by arguing that nuclear war is an on-face positive event (perhaps in preventing the development of even more deadly weapons in
22344-421: The winner and loser of a policy round as well as assessing the merits of the speakers. Judges merit a good debate round and, ideally, avoid inserting their own personal beliefs that might cloud impartiality, however, total impartiality is impossible which has led to judges adopting a paradigm. Judges are sometimes coaches who help debate teams improve. Some circuits see lay or inexperienced judges recruited from
22496-421: The winner and loser of a policy round as well as assessing the merits of the speakers. Judges merit a good debate round and, ideally, avoid inserting their own personal beliefs that might cloud impartiality, however, total impartiality is impossible which has led to judges adopting a paradigm. Judges are sometimes coaches who help debate teams improve. Some circuits see lay or inexperienced judges recruited from
22648-425: The year Fairmount College began classes. By the mid-1970s, regular rules for lengths of speeches developed. Each side (Affirmative and Negative) was afforded two opening "constructive" speeches, and two closing "rebuttal" speeches , for a total of eight speeches each debate round. Each speaker was cross-examined by their opponent for a period following his or her constructive speech. Traditionally rebuttals were half
22800-458: Was contested during the round or whose weight was emphasized during rebuttals so that they can read the evidence for themselves. Although widespread, this practice is explicitly banned at some tournaments, most notably National Catholic Forensic League nationals, and some judges refuse to call for cards because they believe the practice constitutes "doing work for debaters that should have been done during round". Judges may also call for evidence for
22952-458: Was contested during the round or whose weight was emphasized during rebuttals so that they can read the evidence for themselves. Although widespread, this practice is explicitly banned at some tournaments, most notably National Catholic Forensic League nationals, and some judges refuse to call for cards because they believe the practice constitutes "doing work for debaters that should have been done during round". Judges may also call for evidence for
23104-445: Was founded in 1868, continues to organize an annual "Fulton Prize Debate" between teams of its own students after the intercollegiate debate season has ended. Other universities continue similar traditions. Intercollegiate debates have been held since at least as early as the 1890s. History records there were debates between teams from Wake Forest University and Trinity College (later Duke University ) beginning in 1897. Additionally,
#394605