Policy debate
Policy debate is an American form of debate competition in which teams of two usually advocate for or against a resolution that advocates a certain policy action by the United States federal government. It is also referred to as cross-examination debate because of the three-minute questions-and-answers 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 a specific change to a national or international problem should be made—is a good idea. The affirmative team generally presents a plan as a hypothetical policy proposal which falls under the resolution, while the negative team presents arguments against the implementation of the affirmative team's plan.
A policy debate round will typically take approximately one hour and 30 minutes and comprises a total of eight speeches and four cross-examination periods. Each individual in the debate round gives one “constructive” speech and one “rebuttal” speech. Additionally, each individual will cross-examine their opponent and be cross-examined by their opponent once. The first four speeches in a round are constructive speeches, while the final four speeches are rebuttal speeches. Cross-examination occurs directly following each constructive speech. During constructive speeches, debaters articulate and develop their main points or arguments for or against the hypothetical government action that the affirmative presents in the first speech of the round. During rebuttal speeches, debaters try to rebut the arguments made by the other team, while using their own arguments to try to persuade the judge to vote for their team. Usually, the Affirmative has to persuade the judge to vote for their plan, while the Negative has to persuade the judge that the affirmative plan is undesirable.
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 the National Christian Forensics and Communications Association, as well as many other regional debate and speech organizations. Collegiate policy debates are generally governed by the guidelines of National Debate Tournament and the Cross Examination Debate Association, which have been joined at the collegiate level. A one-person policy format is sanctioned by the National Forensic Association ) on the collegiate level as well.
History
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 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 the 1890s. History records there were debates between teams from Wake Forest University and Trinity College 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 the first debate held on its campus was between Southwestern and Fairmount College 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 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 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 and high school tournaments, which spread rapidly to become the new de facto standards.
Style and delivery
Speed
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 - a practice dubbed "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, most commonly debaters and coaches not participating on the national debate circuit, feel that the rapid-fire delivery makes debate harder to understand for the layperson. 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 is encouraged by those who believe that increased quantity and diversity of arguments makes debates more educational. Proponents of the delivery style, commonly associated or participating in the national circuit, 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.
Flowing
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. 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 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.
Theory
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 the other team is using unfair or noneducational tactics 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 the activity and the principles of rhetoric, argumentation, policymaking, and so on that the debaters are engaged in the substantive matter of the topic. Unlike Moot Court, due process is not a theory argument.Burdens of the affirmative
When the Affirmative team presents a plan, they take upon the Burden of the Policy to advocate a significant change to the status quo and that their plan should be adopted and hence, by default, the resolution that in general will allow for such a plan. They must persuade that their plan is an example of the resolution, and they must prove that the plan is a good idea. The Affirmative traditionally must uphold this burden as preferable to the status quo. Given that the affirmative must prove that they are preferable to the status quo, the negative team always has presumption for winning the round. The negative is automatically the winner unless the affirmative can prove they are better than the status quo.Stock issues
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 : ill, blame, cure, cost. They are generally known as follows:- Harm Does the plan acknowledge a problem, a want, a need, of some policy interest implied or alluded to or of interest from the resolution?
- Inherency of the status quo: Is the plan an Intrinsic change? Also, is the plan necessary? What is the Status Quo? Is the affirmative's plan happening already, and if not, why? Inherency promotes strength of originality in advocacy.
- Significance, or Impact upon the status quo: Does the plan warrant change? Does the plan warrant the resolution ?
- Solvency advantages: Does the plan deal with the issues presented adequately?