We will bury you in sound argument theory

1
We will bury you (in sound argument theory)! A
Policy Debate Primer By Bryan Weber

2
Structure of a round

• Constructive speeches (build the cases)
• 1st Affirmative (1AC), 8 minutes
• Cross-examination by 2nd negative, 3 minutes
• 1st Negative (1NC), 8 minutes (off-case)
• Cross-examination by 1st affirmative, 3 minutes
• 2nd Affirmative (2AC), 8 minutes
• Cross-examination by 1st negative, 3 minutes
• 2nd Negative (2NC), 8 minutes (on-case)
• Cross-examination by 2nd affirmative, 3 minutes
• Rebuttal speeches (resolve the arguments)
• 1st Negative (1NR), 5 minutes (off-case)
• 1st Affirmative (1AC), 5 minutes (hardest speech
  of round)
• 2nd Negative (2NR), 5 minutes (crystallize, tell
  the judge why you win)
• 2nd Affirmative (2AR), 5 minutes (crystallize,
  tell the judge why you win)

3
The Resolution

• Resolved The United States federal government
  should substantially increase social services for
  persons living in poverty in the United States.

• The resolution serves as a
• framework for the debate
• division of ground

4
Affirmative and Negative Obligations

• Burden of proof (affirmative)
• Burden of rejoinder/clash (negative)
• Presumption
• Under a status quo policy
• Under absence of status quo policy

5
On predictable ground the topicality (T) debate

• Ensures a fair fight by holding teams
  accountable to the resolution
• Structure of T
• Definitions
• Violations/Answers
• Standards
• Voters
• Judging preferences

6
Inherency (I) What the do-nothings are doing now

• Status quo policy, or lack of (the inherent
  barrier)
• Types of inherency
• Structural
• Attitudinal
• Existential
• Word of warning about inherency and disadvantages

7
Harms (H), or how butterflies cause nuclear war

• Establishing causation
• Scope and magnitude
• Qualitative vs. Quantitative
• Mitigation vs. Negation

8
Plan Putting the policy in policy debate

• Traditionally, plan text is interpreted as
  fulfilling the word resolved in the resolution.
• Establishes the link between the harms under
  status quo policies and affirmative solvency

9
Solvency (S) Fixing the problem

• Shows how the affirmative plan solves for harms
  in the status quo
• Should reference plan text
• Often uses same article or author from harm
  evidence to ensure consistency (plan advocate)

10
Advantages And furthermore!

• Provides additional positive effects of
  affirmative plan implementation
• Does not directly link to harms caused by status
  quo, but rather, are unrelated benefits of plan
  implementation
• Must provide a good link story or scenario

?
Nuclear Détente
11
Disadvantages (DAs) The other side of the coin

• Shows unintended, and often severe, consequences
  of plan implementation
• Four parts to the disadvantage
• uniqueness (why the status quo is not causing the
  impact)
• link (what in the aff plan causes the problem)
• brink (the threshold that the aff crosses to
  cause the problem)
• and the impact (the problem)
• As with advantages, the link story, or scenario,
  is centrally important

?
12
Counterplans (CPs) Two can play at that game

• Counterplans allow the negative to defend either
  the status quo or a separate plan or advocacy.
• Since the negative can now defend two areas of
  ground, the affirmative can as well the
  affirmative plan and the perm, or permutation
  (both the aff and neg plans at the same time)
• This is why the counterplan must be competitive
  (cannot be run at same time as affirmative plan,
  i.e. mutually exclusive) this can be attained by
  having disadvantages unique to the affirmative
  plan
• Status of the CP conditional, unconditional,
  dispositional (teams agree on this early in the
  round)
• The CP is often referred to as negative offense
  since it gives the judge a reason to vote for the
  negative rather than just voting against the
  changes in the affirmative plan

13
The Kritik (K), or, why continental European
philosophers die young

• Questions a basic, usually philosophical, premise
  of the resolution, status quo or plans
• Can be used by either the aff or neg to question
  the others assumptions
• Contains a link, implication (or impact), and
  alternative
• No need to be unique
• Good K arguments for this topic racism,
  feminism, anthropocentrism, biopower, utilitarian
  ethics
• Some judges do not like critical (kritikal)
  arguments, so you may want to check with your
  judge before running one