FORENSICS

1
FORENSICS

• POLICY DEBATE
• THE BASICS

2
Debate in parts

• THE FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE(1AC)
• The affirmative sides tells you what resolution
  they are trying to pass
• ADVANTAGES Good things that will result from the
  resolution
• SOLVENCY Tells how the plan will work
• UNIQUENESS Tells why it must be the affirmative
  cases resolution
• INHERENCY Why resolution has not passed yet
• IMPACT their case causes something
• The affirmative has 8 minutes to give their
  case.

3
FIRST CROSS EXAMINATION

• FIRST CROSS-EXAMINATION
• THE 2 NC ASKS CLARIFYING QUESTION OF THE 1 AC
• ONLY THE TWO STANDING ARE ALLOWED TO ASK AND
  ANSWER QUESTIONS. NOTE PASSING IS OKAY IF THE
  JUDGE ALLOWS IT.
• THEY HAVE ONLY 3 MINUTES

4
THE FIRST NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH 1NC

• THE FIRST NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE (1NC)
• This is where the negative side has their first
  chance to say that status quo is better than the
  resolution the affirmative side presented
• Disadvantages and impacts of plan if passes
• Topicality if they can prove the case is not
  topical they can win the debate
• This is also where the negative gets to address
  all the parts of the 1ACs resolution, meaning
  advantages, solvency, inherency etc..
• The negative side has eight minutes to speak

5
SECOND CROSS-EXAMINATION

• 1. THE 2 AC ASKS CLARIFYING QUESTION OF THE 1
  NC
• ONLY THE TWO STANDING ARE ALLOWED TO ASK AND
  ANSWER QUESTIONS.
• NOTE PASSING IS OKAY IF THE JUDGE ALLOWS IT.
• THEY HAVE ONLY 3 MINUTES

6
Second Affirmative CONSTRUCTIVE

• The Affirmative answers the Negatives position
• The Affirmative reaffirms their position and
  expands on their stance
• They have 8 minutes

7
Third Cross examination

• THE 1NC ASKS CLARIFYING QUESTIONS
• OF THE 2AC
• ONLY THE TWO STANDING ARE ALLOWED TO ASK AND
  ANSWER QUESTIONS.
• NOTE PASSING IS OKAY IF THE JUDGE ALLOWS IT.
• THEY HAVE ONLY 3 MINUTES

8
Second Negative Constructive

• They answer the affirmatives position
• They work to strengthen their position
• New evidence is still legitimate to bring up
• They have 8 minutes

9
Fourth Cross Examination

• This is the last cross
• THE 1AC ASKS CLARIFYING QUESTION OF THE 2 NC
• ONLY THE TWO STANDING ARE ALLOWED TO ASK AND
  ANSWER QUESTIONS.
• NOTE PASSING IS OKAY IF THE JUDGE ALLOWS IT.
• THEY HAVE ONLY 3 MINUTES

10
First Negative Rebuttal

• Clarification of their opponents views based on
  the negatives perspective.
• Clarification of their views and points
• Going back over points
• No new evidence, and or arguments are to come up
  in this part of the debate, some discretion on
  this point is given to the Judge
• 5 minutes is given

11
First Affirmative Rebuttal

• Clarification of their opponents views based on
  the Affirmatives perspective.
• Clarification of their views and points
• Going back over points
• No new evidence, and or arguments are to come up
  in this part of the debate, some discretion on
  this point is given to the Judge
• 5 minutes is given

12
Second Negative Rebuttal

• No new arguments or evidence should be given.
• This is where they try and out weigh their
  opponent the most. Impacts, Disadvantages,
  Topicality etc take on extreme importance
• If they drop an attack a case it is considered
  dropped
• This is 5 minutes

13
Second Affirmative Rebuttal

• No new arguments or evidence should be given.
• This is where they try and out weigh their
  opponent the most. Impacts, Advantages, Solvency
  etc take on extreme importance
• This is 5 minutes

14
What is your Paradigm?

• This is a question asked by debaters when they
  enter the room.
• Wait until everyone is in the room before you
  answer. This insures that extra information is
  not given to one team over the other.

15
Stock Issues Judge

• Stock issue judges want all stock issues answered
  and the burden is on the Affirmative to do this.
• Stock Issues
• Solvency Should solve perceived harms that are
  part of the Status Quo
• Harms Address problems that will and are caused
  by the Status Quo
• Inherency The Status quo should not be able to
  solve the harms set by the affirmative.
• Topicality The Affirmative case and resolution
  must be topical.

16
Tabula Rasa Judge

• Also referred to as a Tab Judge is a Clean Slate
  Judge
• This judge should have no assumptions on what
  should be voted on.
• Tab judges should, to be fair, state if they are
  comfortable with kritiks and with fast debate
  speeches.
• Tab judges in novice debate do not need to worry
  about Kritiks or Counter plans

17
Policymaker Judge

• Votes for the side that presents the best policy
  option
• Votes heavily on Disadvantages
• Policymaker Judges weigh heavily on the
  Affirmative Advantages verses the Negatives
  Disadvantages

18
Games player Judges

• Believes everything
• Doesnt mean the person who says do this and you
  will win!!!!!!!
• Games player judges are a legitimate Judge. Be
  specific in the beginning that you are
  legitimate. If you do not they may disqualify
  you from judging before you begin.

19
Communication Judge

• These are also called appearance judges
• This signals the debater that the importance is
  on clarity of speech, presentation of evidence,
  and professional appearance.
• Be specific when reciting what is important to
  you, i.e. professional acting, courtesy toward
  other side, slower delivery etc.

20
Parts of Judging

• Youth should not enter a room without the Judge
  present
• When asked What is your Paradigm make sure both
  teams are in the room before you answer.
• Have them write their names on the board behind
  where they are standing
• Affirmative on your left, Negative on your right

21
Set up and beginning

• Clarify how you give time signals. For the
  novice it is usually visual starting at when they
  have 5 minutes of their time left.
• Set your Paradigm, and remember if you are not
  comfortable with speed say so.
• Ask for a road map (meaning they outline their
  debate for you).
• Ask them to be very clear with tag lines, this
  will help you and them when you flow the debate.

22
Can I Flow?
23
Flowing

• Write as little as possible w/o diminishing your
  understanding
• Try and write down the year the article was
  written in. Debaters often use old information
  and while it is okay, the other team may call
  them on it.
• Make sure and catch all the tag lines.
• They will give you a road map if you ask and I
  always do.
• Feel free to use a lot of paper.

24
Spreading?Fast reading/speech

• If you cant understand you can use a couple of
  techniques that have worked for other judges
• Before they begin explain to the debaters that if
  you put your pen down and stop writing it means
  you cant understand them
• Say clear which means that you cant understand
  and they need to be clearer. In fact, you can
  use a combination of these. Try Clear first
  and if that doesnt work put the pen down.
• It is important for them to work on clarity for
  later debates, so dont worry, just help them.

25
Definitions

• Abuse- a team can call abuse because one team
  believes that the other team has placed them at
  an unfair disadvantage. This could happen if one
  team brings up new evidence at the end of the
  second negative constructive speech. While this
  is allowed it could be considered abusive.
• Advantages-a voting issue. This is what the
  affirmative team says will happen if their plan
  is adopted. The affirmative team tries to show
  that their advantages outweigh the negatives
  disadvantages.
• Card-evidence that the team uses to support their
  position
• Clash-vigorous argumentation that directly
  answers the arguments of the other team. Clash
  is good. Losing ones composure is not.
• Counter plan- an alternative plan proposed by the
  negative team
• Disadvantage-a block argument in which the
  negative maintains that a significant problem
  will occur if the affirmative plan is adopted.
  Disadvantages are usually divided into three
  parts uniqueness, link, and impact.

26
continued

• Documentation- the author, name of a source,
  date, etc., for a piece of evidence (card).
• Fiat- The affirmative has the power of fiat when
  proposing a plan. They can assume that the plan
  would be adopted by the status quo. Therefore,
  the negative cannot simply argue that the plan
  would be unpopular and would be unlikely to be
  adopted.
• Flow- mapping the arguments in a debate
• Impact-a serious problem that will occur if the
  affirmative plan is enacted, It is the last
  argument of a disadvantage.
• Inherency an affirmative argument showing that
  the harm is deeply rooted in the present system
  (that the harm will continue absent the adoption
  of the affirmative plan). The negative team will
  try to show that the status quo can and will
  solve the problem even without adopting the
  affirmative plan.
• Link- the specific connection between the plan
  and a disadvantage argument. An internal link is
  the specific connection between two ideas within
  the disadvantage argument.

27
Continued

• Need-(harm)- the problems in the status quo which
  demonstrate the need for the affirmative plan.
  Need is a voting issue.
• Non-unique- an affirmative answer to a
  disadvantage claiming that the disadvantage will
  happen regardless of whether the plan is adopted.
  Consider, for example, a budget disadvantage
  claiming that any new federal spending will
  destroy the budget consensus in Congress. The
  affirmative team could read evidence that
  congress has just adopted some new spending
  program, Given this action, the disadvantage
  should happen with or without the adoption of the
  plan. Since the disadvantage will happen in any
  event, it gives no reason to reject the
  affirmative plan.
• Off Case Argument- negative arguments which are
  not direct attacks on the affirmative case.
  Disadvantages, counter plans, topicality and the
  kritik are all examples of off case arguments.
• Permutation-a test of counterplan competition,
  Negative counterplans are relevant ONLY if they
  offer some reason to reject the affirmative plan.
  The negative team must show that the counterplan
  is competitive plan that the adoption of the
  counterplan ALONE is more desirable than the plan
  plus the counterplan. The affirmative team will
  often describe a particular way that the plan and
  counterplan could be beneficially adopted at the
  same time such descriptions are caller
  permutations.

28
continued

• Plan- the affirmative teams proposal for changing
  the status quo. The plan will be presented in
  the first affirmative speech. The plan is a
  voting issue.
• Policy-Matters of political and/or governmental
  policy related to the resolution.
• Significance-a voting issue the affirmative team
  must prove that a serious problem exists in the
  present system.
• Sign Posting-(road map)- Listing of arguments in
  outline form. Some debaters use sign posting
  some do not. Sign posting can be helpful, but is
  not a requirement. I ask for sign posting at the
  beginning of each constructive speech and I do
  not time that part.
• Solvency-the plan must solve some of all of the
  problems which the affirmative case says are
  inherent in the present system. The affirmative
  does not need to prove 100 solvency in order to
  win. Solvency is a voting issue.

29
Continued

• Status Quo- the current situation regarding the
  topic
• Topicality- an argument used by the negative in
  which they claim that the plan proposed by the
  affirmative team is outside the bounds of the
  topic of the resolution. The negative team
  should win if the judge agrees that the plan in
  non-topical.
• Turn-an argument usually made by an affirmative
  team against a disadvantage. The turn or turn
  around can take on of two forms 1 link turns
  claim that the plan, far from causing the
  disadvantage, would actually preventing the
  disadvantage from happening 2 impact turns
  claim that is the plan did cause the
  disadvantage, it would actually be a good thing
  rather than a bad thing
• Uniqueness- the first argument in most
  disadvantage arguments.
• Voting Issue- the key issues of the debate. The
  primary issues which the judge must consider in
  rendering his/her decision.

30
THE BALLOT

• Fill in the information the round, room and code
  will be on a tag at the top of the page
• Write in the names of the students before you
  begin.

31
Ballot

• Analysis of Proposition- in other words did the
  debater bring issues relevant to the proposition?
  Did the debater do a better job of clearly
  explaining their arguments and of exposing the
  weakness of the opponents arguments.
• Evidence-Question that help answer this
• Did the team present strong evidence. 
• Did the debater effectively attacked the
  opponent's evidence or defended their own
  evidence. 
• Did the debater support arguments with facts
  and expert opinions?
• Organization is good if you can easily follow
  the flow of arguments in the speech.  It is also
  good if the speech has effective numbering and
  labeling arguments.  It is also concerned with
  the allocation of time within the speech and the
  division of labor between the speakers.

32

• Refutation- Direct responses to issues raised by
  the opponents. Did they display the ability to
  critically analyze opponents arguments and
  develop appropriate, clear, understandable
  responses with logical argument and effective use
  of evidence.
• Were the questions relevant and brief? Were
  answers on point? Was the crossfire conducted in
  a civil manner?

33

• Rebuttal- Did the debater effectively counter the
  arguments of the opponents?
• Courtesy and Ethics-Did the debater act in a
  professional manner? Did they have evidence they
  said they had? Were they considerate of opponents
  and own team members when speeches were going on?
  This can cover a lot of ground.
• Delivery-Did the debater speak in an organized,
  communicative style that was pleasant and easily
  understandable

34

• Total the number going down

35

• Total the number going down
• 38 is top speaker
• 34 is second speaker
• 33 is third speaker
• 32 is fourth speaker
• I will total each team and place the total
• In the space marked team total
• In this case the affirmative team has
• 66 points and the Negative team has
• 71 points.

36

• Comments to write on ballot

37
Judging

• Remember no matter how nervous you are the
  debaters are more nervous.
• No one expects perfection, we all do the best we
  can and that is all anyone expects.
• Your child appreciates you for doing this,
  because without you there would be no debate.
• Only advance as fast as you are comfortable with
  advancing.
• Start judging right away while the students are
  just getting used to debate, you will grow with
  them.
• Have your student read their Affirmative Case and
  then their Negative Case to you so you can
  practice flowing. They can help you get used to
  it and also help you decide what your paradigm
  should be.
• We are not the Judges of how our own students
  debate, we are the judges on how other peoples
  students debate and really we should leave it
  that way, because our own students are the ones
  teaching us.
• See you in the Judges Lounge!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!