Policy debate is a structured format where teams argue for or against a resolution. The Affirmative team presents a plan to enact the resolution, while the Negative team challenges it. Each side delivers constructive and rebuttal speeches, following specific time limits and order.

The debate centers around stock issues: harms, inherency, solvency, topicality, and significance. Teams use various strategies to build their cases and refute opponents. Effective flowing, cross-examination, and impact weighing are crucial skills for success in policy debate.

Policy debate structure

• Policy debate follows a structured format with set speech times and order
• Each round consists of two teams, the Affirmative and the Negative, who present their arguments in alternating speeches
• The debate is centered around a resolution or topic, with the Affirmative advocating for the resolution and the Negative challenging it

Affirmative vs negative sides

• The Affirmative team argues in favor of the resolution, presenting a plan to enact it
• The Negative team argues against the resolution, offering reasons why the Affirmative plan should not be adopted
• The Affirmative has the burden of proof to demonstrate that their plan is beneficial and should be implemented

Four constructive speeches

• 1st Affirmative Constructive (1AC): Presents the Affirmative case and plan (8 minutes)
• 1st Negative Constructive (1NC): Introduces Negative arguments against the Affirmative case (8 minutes)
• 2nd Affirmative Constructive (2AC): Responds to Negative arguments and rebuilds the Affirmative case (8 minutes)
• 2nd Negative Constructive (2NC): Extends and develops Negative arguments (8 minutes)

Four rebuttal speeches

• 1st Negative Rebuttal (1NR): Summarizes the Negative position and refutes Affirmative arguments (5 minutes)
• 1st Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR): Responds to Negative arguments and defends the Affirmative case (5 minutes)
• 2nd Negative Rebuttal (2NR): Crystallizes the Negative strategy and offers voting issues (5 minutes)
• 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): Final speech to summarize the Affirmative case and refute Negative arguments (5 minutes)

Prep time rules

• Each team is allotted a set amount of preparation time (usually 5-8 minutes) to use between speeches
• Prep time can be used to organize arguments, prepare responses, or strategize with partners
• Once a team's prep time expires, they cannot take additional prep during the round

Stock issues in policy debate

• Stock issues are the essential elements that the Affirmative must prove to win the debate
• The Negative can challenge any of these stock issues to negate the Affirmative case
• Failing to sufficiently address any of the stock issues can be grounds for losing the debate

Harms

• The Affirmative must demonstrate that there is a significant problem or harm in the status quo
• Harms can be quantitative (statistics, data) or qualitative (anecdotes, examples)
• The Negative can argue that the harms are not significant enough to warrant action or that they are mitigated by other factors

Inherency

• Inherency refers to the idea that the harms identified by the Affirmative are inherent to the status quo and will persist without the Affirmative plan
• The Affirmative must show that current policies or actions are insufficient to solve the problem
• The Negative can argue that the harms are not inherent or that alternative solutions exist

Solvency

• Solvency is the ability of the Affirmative plan to solve the identified harms
• The Affirmative must demonstrate that their plan will effectively address the problem and achieve its intended outcomes
• The Negative can argue that the plan is insufficient, counterproductive, or has unintended consequences

Topicality

• Topicality refers to whether the Affirmative plan falls within the scope of the resolution
• The Affirmative must show that their plan is a reasonable interpretation of the resolution and meets its parameters
• The Negative can argue that the Affirmative plan is untopical and should not be considered

Significance

• Significance is the overall impact or importance of the Affirmative case
• The Affirmative must demonstrate that their harms, inherency, and solvency combine to create a significant reason to vote for their plan
• The Negative can argue that the Affirmative case lacks significance in comparison to other issues or priorities

Affirmative case construction

• The Affirmative case is the collection of arguments presented by the Affirmative team to support the resolution
• A well-constructed Affirmative case addresses the stock issues and presents a compelling reason to vote for the plan
• The case should be strategically organized and clearly communicated to the judge and Negative team

Plan text

• The plan text is a concise statement of the Affirmative's proposed action or policy change
• It should be written in clear, specific language that outlines the scope and implementation of the plan
• The plan text is typically presented in the 1AC and is the focus of the debate

Advantages

• Advantages are the benefits or positive outcomes that result from adopting the Affirmative plan
• They should be linked to the harms and inherency discussed in the case and demonstrate the plan's significance
• Advantages can be categorized by theme (economic, social, political) or by scenario (short-term, long-term)

Solvency mechanism

• The solvency mechanism explains how the Affirmative plan solves the identified harms
• It should provide a clear, logical link between the plan's actions and the desired outcomes
• The solvency mechanism can include expert testimony, empirical evidence, or real-world examples to support the plan's effectiveness

Negative strategies

• The Negative team has several strategies to challenge the Affirmative case and argue against the resolution
• These strategies can be divided into on-case arguments, which directly refute the Affirmative's case, and off-case arguments, which introduce new issues or perspectives
• The Negative should choose strategies that best fit the strengths of their team and the weaknesses of the Affirmative case

On-case arguments

• On-case arguments directly clash with the Affirmative's harms, inherency, solvency, and advantages
• They can include arguments such as: harms are not significant, plan is not inherent, plan does not solve, or advantages are overstated
• On-case arguments aim to minimize the importance of the Affirmative case and reduce the judge's reason to vote for the resolution

Off-case arguments

• Off-case arguments introduce new issues or perspectives that are not directly addressed in the Affirmative case
• They can shift the focus of the debate to areas where the Negative has a strategic advantage
• Off-case arguments include kritiks, counterplans, and topicality violations

Kritiks

• Kritiks are philosophical or ideological challenges to the assumptions, language, or implications of the resolution or the Affirmative case
• They argue that the Affirmative's approach is flawed or harmful in some way, often based on critical theory or alternative frameworks
• Examples: capitalism kritik, biopower kritik, anthropocentrism kritik

Counterplans

• Counterplans are alternative policy proposals offered by the Negative as a superior option to the Affirmative plan
• They aim to solve the same harms as the Affirmative while avoiding the disadvantages or problems of the Affirmative approach
• Counterplans are often more specific, efficient, or philosophically consistent than the Affirmative plan

Topicality violations

• Topicality violations argue that the Affirmative plan does not fall within the scope of the resolution and should not be considered
• They establish a clear interpretation of the resolution and demonstrate how the Affirmative plan fails to meet that interpretation
• Topicality violations are a strategic way to exclude the Affirmative case from the judge's decision calculus

Flowing a policy debate

• Flowing is the process of taking notes during a debate to track the arguments made by each side
• Effective flowing is essential for debaters to remember, respond to, and analyze the complex arguments in a round
• Flowing also helps judges to evaluate the debate and determine which side has presented the most compelling case

Numbering arguments

• Each argument should be numbered or lettered to create a clear reference system
• Numbering allows debaters to quickly refer back to specific arguments and ensures that no points are dropped or forgotten
• A typical numbering system might use numbers for main arguments and letters for sub-points (1, 1A, 1B, 2, 2A, etc.)

Signposting responses

• Signposting is the practice of clearly indicating which argument is being responded to before making the response
• Debaters should use the numbering system to signpost their responses (e.g., "On the Negative's 2A subpoint...")
• Signposting helps the judge and the other team follow the flow of the debate and understand the clash between arguments

Organizing flows

• Flows should be organized by argument type (harms, solvency, advantages, etc.) or by speech (1AC, 1NC, 2AC, etc.)
• Debaters should leave space between arguments to add responses and record the development of each argument throughout the round
• Clear handwriting, abbreviations, and symbols can help debaters keep up with the rapid pace of the speeches

Cross-examination in policy debate

• Cross-examination is the question-and-answer period after each constructive speech where the opposing team asks questions of the speaker
• Cross-ex is an opportunity to clarify arguments, expose weaknesses, and set up strategies for future speeches
• Effective cross-ex requires active listening, strategic questioning, and adaptability to the speaker's responses

Clarifying questions

• Clarifying questions aim to understand the details or implications of an argument that was not fully explained in the speech
• They can expose vagueness or inconsistencies in the other team's arguments and create a clearer record for the judge
• Examples: "What specific actions does your plan take?" or "How do you quantify the impact of that harm?"

Setting traps

• Trap questions are designed to force the speaker into a strategic dilemma or contradiction
• They often involve leading questions that corner the speaker into an unfavorable position or concession
• Examples: "If your plan solves the harms, why do we need the counterplan?" or "Isn't your advantage non-unique since it would happen in the status quo?"

Generating clash

• Clash questions highlight the key points of disagreement between the two sides and force the speaker to defend their position
• They can preview the Negative's strategy and generate productive debate for later speeches
• Examples: "What evidence do you have that your plan is politically viable?" or "How do you weigh your advantages against our disadvantages?"

Weighing impacts in rebuttals

• Impact weighing is the process of comparing and prioritizing the various impacts (harms, advantages, disadvantages) in the round
• Rebuttals are the key speeches for impact weighing, as debaters must filter the many arguments made throughout the round into a clear decision calculus for the judge
• Effective impact weighing requires a strategic framing of the round and a compelling narrative for why one side's impacts outweigh the other

Probability vs magnitude

• Probability refers to the likelihood that an impact will occur, while magnitude refers to the severity or significance of the impact
• Debaters must weigh the relative importance of probability and magnitude in the context of the round
• Example: a high-probability, low-magnitude impact may outweigh a low-probability, high-magnitude impact if the risk of the latter is very low

Timeframe

• Timeframe refers to when an impact is likely to occur and how long it will last
• Short-term impacts may be more predictable and immediate, while long-term impacts may be more speculative but have a greater cumulative effect
• Example: a short-term economic downturn may be outweighed by the long-term benefits of a policy change

Scope

• Scope refers to the breadth or scale of an impact, such as the number of people affected or the geographic area impacted
• Impacts with a larger scope may be seen as more significant than those with a smaller scope, all else being equal
• Example: a global environmental impact may outweigh a localized economic impact

Judge adaptation in policy debate

• Judge adaptation is the practice of tailoring one's arguments and style to the preferences and background of the judge
• Debaters should research the judge's paradigm, or judging philosophy, before the round to understand their expectations and decision-making process
• Effective judge adaptation requires flexibility, strategic thinking, and clear communication

Preferences for speed

• Some judges prefer faster, more technical debates, while others prefer slower, more accessible speeches
• Debaters should adjust their speaking rate and level of jargon to match the judge's preferences
• Example: a lay judge may prefer slower, more explanatory speeches, while a experienced flow judge may appreciate faster, more complex arguments

Technical vs big picture debates

• Technical debates focus on the minutiae of arguments and often involve intricate flows and line-by-line refutation
• Big picture debates focus on the overall narrative and themes of the round and may eschew some of the more technical aspects
• Debaters should adapt their style to the judge's preferences, while still maintaining strategic depth and clash

Paradigms and experience levels

• Judges have different paradigms, or frameworks, for evaluating debates, such as policymaker, tabula rasa, or games playing
• Experienced judges may have more developed paradigms and be more comfortable with complex arguments, while novice judges may require more explanation and context
• Debaters should aim to understand the judge's paradigm and craft their arguments accordingly, while still being true to their own style and strategy