Disadvantage

A DA usually has four key elements. These four elements are not always necessary, and some are often combined into a single piece of evidence. A Uniqueness/Link card, for example, will include both a description of the status quo and the plan's effect on it. A traditional DA, however, has a structure as follows: Disadvantage - Uniqueness. The negative team typically defends the status quo. If they are doing so, they must show that their disadvantage is not already existing in the status quo. If a disadvant ...

See also:

Disadvantage, Disadvantage - Structure, Disadvantage - Uniqueness, Disadvantage - Link, Disadvantage - Internal Link, Disadvantage - Impact, Disadvantage - Types of Disadvantages, Disadvantage - Traditional, Disadvantage - Linear, Disadvantage - Brink, Disadvantage - The Politics Disadvantage, Disadvantage - The Controversy, Disadvantage - Responding To Disadvantages, Disadvantage - Straight Turn, Disadvantage - Impact Turn

Read more here: » Disadvantage: Encyclopedia II - Disadvantage - Structure

Counterplan - Topicality. Most debates, and specifically policy debate, begin from some resolution or statement of advocacy. As the affirmative plan affirms the resolution in theory or at least within the sphere of its distinct existence, it is reasonable to assume that the negative team must advocate the negation of the resolution, usually either through the defense of the status quo or a counterplan distinct from the resolutional advocacy. However, in many circles, the affirmative ability to select their specif ...

See also:

Counterplan, Counterplan - Burdens of a Counterplan, Counterplan - Topicality, Counterplan - Competition, Counterplan - Counterplan Status, Counterplan - Conditional, Counterplan - Unconditional, Counterplan - Dispositional, Counterplan - Plan Inclusive, Counterplan - Consult, Counterplan - Agent, Counterplan - Actor, Counterplan - Exclusion, Counterplan - Plan Exclusive

Read more here: » Counterplan: Encyclopedia II - Counterplan - Burdens of a Counterplan

Inter-Collegiate policy debate Constructive · Rebuttal · Prep Time Evidence · Flow Affirmative · Negative · Judge Stock Issues · Disadvantage Counterplan · Kritik Impact calculus · Topicality Offense · Defense · Turn · Drop A counterplan, or counter-proposal, (abbreviated CP) is a component of argumentation theory commonly exploited in the activity of policy debate. While some conceptions of argumentation theory require the negative position ...

Including:

• Counterplan - Burdens of a Counterplan
• Counterplan - Topicality
• Counterplan - Competition
• Counterplan - Counterplan Status
• Counterplan - Conditional
• Counterplan - Unconditional
• Counterplan - Dispositional
• Counterplan - Plan Inclusive
• Counterplan - Consult
• Counterplan - Agent
• Counterplan - Actor
• Counterplan - Exclusion
• Counterplan - Plan Exclusive

Read more here: » Counterplan: Encyclopedia - Counterplan

The first affirmative constructive (1AC) is the first speech given in a round, presented by the affirmative team. Almost universally, the 1AC will contain a "plan" a textual advocacy which the affirmative team will advocate throughout the entire round. A plan is thus generally carefully worded to prevent the negative team from capitalizing on ill-considered words, most notably through the plan inclusive counterplan (PIC). The 1AC is pre-scripted because the affirmative has infinite preparation time to prepare their case. ...

See also:

Structure of policy debate, Structure of policy debate - History, Structure of policy debate - 1AC, Structure of policy debate - 1NC, Structure of policy debate - 2AC, Structure of policy debate - 2NC, Structure of policy debate - 1NR, Structure of policy debate - 1AR, Structure of policy debate - 2NR, Structure of policy debate - 2AR, Structure of policy debate - Cross-Examination, Structure of policy debate - Prep Time, Structure of policy debate - Alternate use time

Read more here: » Structure of policy debate: Encyclopedia II - Structure of policy debate - 1AC

Counterplan - Topicality. Debates,specifically policy debate, begin from some resolution or statement of advocacy. As the affirmative plan affirms the resolution in theory or at least within the sphere of its distinct existence, it is reasonable to assume that the negative team must advocate the negation of the resolution, usually either through the defense of the status quo or a counterplan distinct from the resolutional advocacy. However, in many circles, the affirmative ability to select their specific plan gi ...

See also:

Counterplan, Counterplan - Burdens of a Counterplan, Counterplan - Topicality, Counterplan - Competition, Counterplan - Counterplan Status, Counterplan - Conditional, Counterplan - Unconditional, Counterplan - Dispositional, Counterplan - Plan Inclusive, Counterplan - Consult, Counterplan - Agent, Counterplan - Actor, Counterplan - Exclusion, Counterplan - Plan Exclusive

Read more here: » Counterplan: Encyclopedia II - Counterplan - Burdens of a Counterplan

Some other more sophisticated arguments are also considered impact calculus: Impact inclusivity (one impact is inclusive of the other) e.g. Global war is inclusive of a Taiwan war, therefore global war outweighs Taiwan war. X turns Y (one impact causes the other impact to happen) e.g. War causes genocide, therefore war outweighs genocide Internal link shortcircuiting (one impact prevents a (positive) impact from happening) e.g. Nuclear war halts space colon ...

See also:

Impact calculus, Impact calculus - Basic impact calculus, Impact calculus - Other types of impact calculus, Impact calculus - Impact calculus and new arguments

Read more here: » Impact calculus: Encyclopedia II - Impact calculus - Other types of impact calculus

Topicality - Predictable limits. Limits are a measure of how many cases would be topical under a given interpretation of the topic and whether that cleavage of cases is predictable. Teams will often debate the desirability of having a small or large number of topical cases. Topicality - Ground. Ground is a measure of the quantity and quality of arguements and literature available to both teams under a certain interpretation of the topic. Teams will often debate the desirability of incorporating or excluding certain arguments.< ...

See also:

Topicality, Topicality - Structure of a violation, Topicality - Commonly used Standards, Topicality - Predictable limits, Topicality - Ground, Topicality - Bright line, Topicality - Grammar, Topicality - Source of the definition, Topicality - Commonly asserted voting issues, Topicality - Fairness and education, Topicality - Jurisdiction, Topicality - Abuse, Topicality - Potential abuse, Topicality - Rule of the game, Topicality - Affirmative answers to Topicality

Read more here: » Topicality: Encyclopedia II - Topicality - Commonly used Standards

Policy debate - Burdens of the affirmative. Traditional policy debate theory states that the affirmative plan must fulfill certain issues, called the stock issues. The first four issues must be presented in the affirmative case. The last issue, topicality, need not be included in the affirmative case, but must be defended if the negative team raises arguments. They are: Solvency: The plan should solve for a harm in the status quo or created an advantage over the status ...

See also:

Policy debate, Policy debate - History of policy debate, Policy debate - Style and delivery, Policy debate - Speed, Policy debate - Flowing, Policy debate - Theory, Policy debate - Burdens of the affirmative, Policy debate - Negative strategy, Policy debate - Evidence, Policy debate - Sample card, Policy debate - Judging, Policy debate - Judge qualifications, Policy debate - Paradigms, Policy debate - Competition and debate life, Policy debate - Tournaments, Policy debate - Championships, Policy debate - Institutes, Policy debate - Resolutions, Policy debate - Event structure

Read more here: » Policy debate: Encyclopedia II - Policy debate - Theory

The typical format of policy debate involves four 9-minute speeches (two speeches per each side, advocating and opposing) called "constructives" in which each team presents and introduces the arguments they will make throughout the round. Each speech is followed by a brief 3-minute cross examination period in which one member of the opposing team questions the last speaker. Also, each team receives 10 minutes of "prep time" to use throughout the debate to get prepared for their upcomming speech. The affirmative team speaks first, and their " ...

See also:

Inter-Collegiate policy debate, Inter-Collegiate policy debate - Format of a debate, Inter-Collegiate policy debate - What it looks like, Inter-Collegiate policy debate - Evidence, Inter-Collegiate policy debate - The judge

Read more here: » Inter-Collegiate policy debate: Encyclopedia II - Inter-Collegiate policy debate - Format of a debate

Example: If the negative argued the plan would cause a nuclear war, the affirmative would link turn this argument by arguing that the plan would prevent a nuclear war. A link turn requires that the affirmative control the uniqueness, that is whether the disadvantage will occur in the status quo. For example, the negative would read uniqueness evidence indicating that nuclear war won't happen now. To effectively link turn, the affirmative would have to read a non-unique ...

See also:

Turn policy debate, Turn policy debate - Link Turns, Turn policy debate - Internal Link Turns, Turn policy debate - Impact Turns, Turn policy debate - Turn!

Read more here: » Turn policy debate: Encyclopedia II - Turn policy debate - Link Turns

Policy debate - Burdens of the affirmative. Main article: Stock issues Traditional policy debate theory states that the affirmative plan must fulfill certain issues, called the stock issues. The first four issues must be presented in the affirmative case. The last issue, topicality, need not be included in the affirmative case, but must be defended if the negative team raises arguments. They are: Solvency: The plan should succeed in solving f ...

See also:

Policy debate, Policy debate - History, Policy debate - Style and delivery, Policy debate - Speed, Policy debate - Flowing, Policy debate - Theory, Policy debate - Burdens of the affirmative, Policy debate - Negative strategy, Policy debate - Evidence, Policy debate - Sample card, Policy debate - Judging, Policy debate - Speaker points, Policy debate - Judge qualifications, Policy debate - Paradigms, Policy debate - Competition and debate life, Policy debate - Tournaments, Policy debate - Championships, Policy debate - Institutes, Policy debate - Resolutions, Policy debate - Event structure, Policy debate - Famous policy debaters

Read more here: » Policy debate: Encyclopedia II - Policy debate - Theory

Policy debate - Speed. Policy Debaters' speed of delivery will vary from league to league and tournament to tournament. In many tournaments, debaters will "spread" (a portmanteau of "speed" and "read), or speak very quickly (and, in theory, clearly) in order to read as much evidence and make as many arguments as possible within the time-constrained speech. The fastest speaking debaters ...

See also:

Policy debate, Policy debate - History, Policy debate - Style and delivery, Policy debate - Speed, Policy debate - Flowing, Policy debate - Theory, Policy debate - Burdens of the affirmative, Policy debate - Negative strategy, Policy debate - Evidence, Policy debate - Sample card, Policy debate - Judging, Policy debate - Speaker points, Policy debate - Judge qualifications, Policy debate - Paradigms, Policy debate - Competition and debate life, Policy debate - Tournaments, Policy debate - Championships, Policy debate - Institutes, Policy debate - Resolutions, Policy debate - Event structure, Policy debate - Famous policy debaters

Read more here: » Policy debate: Encyclopedia II - Policy debate - Style and delivery

The second negative rebuttal (2NR) is the fourth speech given by the negative team, the seventh speech in the debate, given by the second negative speaker. The 2NR will often take the remainder of the negative's preparation time. The 2NR will usually only go for some of the arguments presented in the 1NC although community norms prevent it for going for 1NC arguments which were not extended in the negative block. Especially in rounds with experienced debaters, the 2NR will usually try to win the round with as few argumen ...

See also:

Structure of policy debate, Structure of policy debate - History, Structure of policy debate - 1AC, Structure of policy debate - 1NC, Structure of policy debate - 2AC, Structure of policy debate - 2NC, Structure of policy debate - 1NR, Structure of policy debate - 1AR, Structure of policy debate - 2NR, Structure of policy debate - 2AR, Structure of policy debate - Cross-Examination, Structure of policy debate - Prep Time, Structure of policy debate - Alternate use time

Read more here: » Structure of policy debate: Encyclopedia II - Structure of policy debate - 2NR

Please remove this notice after the article has been expanded. Details are on this talk page or at Wikipedia:Requests for expansion. The first college debate was held on November 24, 1898, between Wake Forest College and Trinity College. They debated the issue of territorial expansion. "Resolved that the United States should not adopt a policy of territorial expansion." Traditionally rebuttals were half the length of constructives, but when delivery speed peaked in the late 1980s it created a harmful make ...

See also:

Policy debate, Policy debate - History, Policy debate - Style and delivery, Policy debate - Speed, Policy debate - Flowing, Policy debate - Theory, Policy debate - Burdens of the affirmative, Policy debate - Negative strategy, Policy debate - Evidence, Policy debate - Sample card, Policy debate - Judging, Policy debate - Speaker points, Policy debate - Judge qualifications, Policy debate - Paradigms, Policy debate - Competition and debate life, Policy debate - Tournaments, Policy debate - Championships, Policy debate - Institutes, Policy debate - Resolutions, Policy debate - Event structure, Policy debate - Famous policy debaters

Read more here: » Policy debate: Encyclopedia II - Policy debate - History

The second affirmative rebuttal is the second rebuttal speech given by the affirmative, the eigth and final speech in the round. The 2AR generally only answers the arguments made by the 2NR, going to other flows only when the affirmative believes the negative has made a strategic blunder on that piece of paper. In general, the 2AR may not make new arguments that were not in the 1AR. However, because the negative does not go for arguments that the 1AR had to answer, the 2AR is almost always bigger than the portion of the 1AR it ...

See also:

Structure of policy debate, Structure of policy debate - History, Structure of policy debate - 1AC, Structure of policy debate - 1NC, Structure of policy debate - 2AC, Structure of policy debate - 2NC, Structure of policy debate - 1NR, Structure of policy debate - 1AR, Structure of policy debate - 2NR, Structure of policy debate - 2AR, Structure of policy debate - Cross-Examination, Structure of policy debate - Prep Time, Structure of policy debate - Alternate use time

Read more here: » Structure of policy debate: Encyclopedia II - Structure of policy debate - 2AR

Judging policy debate can be challenging. The total time available is short, the issues are complex and the judge may have personal beliefs that cloud impartiality. Policy debate - Speaker points. The judge has the responsibility of not only voting for the side that he thinks won the round, but also giving each speaker "speaker points." This is a numerical evaluation of the debater's speaking skills ranging from 1–30. The standard variation, however, is 24–29, with 30s reserved for "the best spea ...

See also:

Policy debate, Policy debate - History, Policy debate - Style and delivery, Policy debate - Speed, Policy debate - Flowing, Policy debate - Theory, Policy debate - Burdens of the affirmative, Policy debate - Negative strategy, Policy debate - Evidence, Policy debate - Sample card, Policy debate - Judging, Policy debate - Speaker points, Policy debate - Judge qualifications, Policy debate - Paradigms, Policy debate - Competition and debate life, Policy debate - Tournaments, Policy debate - Championships, Policy debate - Institutes, Policy debate - Resolutions, Policy debate - Event structure, Policy debate - Famous policy debaters

Read more here: » Policy debate: Encyclopedia II - Policy debate - Judging

Topicality - Fairness and education. Some teams argue that it is unfair and uneducational for the negative to have to debate a non-topical case and thus the judge should vote against one. Topicality - Jurisdiction. Some teams argue that the judge only has the jurisdiction to vote for cases which affirm the resolution. Topicality - Abuse. Abuse generally means that the negative lost some ground (i.e. the ability to make an argument) because the affirmative wasn't topic ...

See also:

Topicality, Topicality - Structure of a violation, Topicality - Commonly used Standards, Topicality - Predictable limits, Topicality - Ground, Topicality - Bright line, Topicality - Grammar, Topicality - Source of the definition, Topicality - Commonly asserted voting issues, Topicality - Fairness and education, Topicality - Jurisdiction, Topicality - Abuse, Topicality - Potential abuse, Topicality - Rule of the game, Topicality - Affirmative answers to Topicality

Read more here: » Topicality: Encyclopedia II - Topicality - Commonly asserted voting issues

Example: If the negative argued the plan would cause A which would cause a nuclear war, the affirmative would internal link turn this argument by arguing that A would prevent a nuclear war. An internal link turn requires that the warrant of the internal link turn outweigh the warrant of the internal link. ...

See also:

Turn policy debate, Turn policy debate - Link Turns, Turn policy debate - Internal Link Turns, Turn policy debate - Impact Turns, Turn policy debate - Turn!

Read more here: » Turn policy debate: Encyclopedia II - Turn policy debate - Internal Link Turns

Example: If the negative argued the plan would cause a nuclear war, the affirmative would impact turn this argument by arguing that nuclear war is good. An impact turn requires impact calculus, that is: the reasons nuclear war is good must outweigh the reasons nuclear war is bad. ...

See also:

Turn policy debate, Turn policy debate - Link Turns, Turn policy debate - Internal Link Turns, Turn policy debate - Impact Turns, Turn policy debate - Turn!

Read more here: » Turn policy debate: Encyclopedia II - Turn policy debate - Impact Turns

In all forms of policy debate the order of speeches is as follows: In addition to speeches, policy debates may allow for a certain amount of preparation time, or "prep time," during a debate round. NFL rules call for 5 minutes of total prep time that can be used, although in practice high school debate tournaments usually give 8 minutes of prep time. College debates typically have 10 minutes of preparation time. The preparation time is used at each team's preference; they can use different amounts of preparation time before any of the ...

See also:

Policy debate, Policy debate - History, Policy debate - Style and delivery, Policy debate - Speed, Policy debate - Flowing, Policy debate - Theory, Policy debate - Burdens of the affirmative, Policy debate - Negative strategy, Policy debate - Evidence, Policy debate - Sample card, Policy debate - Judging, Policy debate - Speaker points, Policy debate - Judge qualifications, Policy debate - Paradigms, Policy debate - Competition and debate life, Policy debate - Tournaments, Policy debate - Championships, Policy debate - Institutes, Policy debate - Resolutions, Policy debate - Event structure, Policy debate - Famous policy debaters

Read more here: » Policy debate: Encyclopedia II - Policy debate - Event structure