Download Policy Debate - Littlemiamischools.org

Constructive Speeches
(1AC)- 6 MINUTES
CX 1A to 2N- 3 MINUTES
(1NC)- 6 MINUTES
CX- 1N to 1A- 3 MINUTES
(2AC)- 6 MINUTES
CX- 2A to 1N- 3 MINUTES
(2NC)- 6 MINUTES
CX- 2N to 2A- 3 MINUTES
Rebuttal Speeches
(1NR)- 4 MINUTES
(1AR)- 4 MINUTES
(2NR)- 4 MINUTES
(2AR)- 4 MINUTES

The affirmative must assume the burden of proof
to demonstrate the validity of the resolution.

There must be a change in policy suggested
 The status quo cannot solve the harm without change


A substantial portion of the proof must be logical
and non-artistic (evidence)
The negative has to uphold the burden of
rejoinder (clash)

Affirmative case is composed of two parts




Rationale
Plan
Rationale – reasons for adopting resolution
Plan – proposal for implementing policy and
solving the problem





Significance – the problem is of substance /
impact
Harms –the problem
Inherency – prove that the problem is caused by
system
Plan – the affirmative must provide a means to
fix the harm
Solvency – plan will eliminate harm


The problem impacts a large group of people
or is widespread (cannot be just monetary)
The problem is caused by the existing policy,
not an outside source


To say that the welfare system causes
overpopulation is non-topical
To say that persons on welfare do not receive
enough money to escape is topical



To prove that the problem is directly tied to the
existing system (status quo)
Test the Significance/Harm by running it
through a syllogism
If the negative can prove alternate causality
then the affirmative loses.

Plans are constructed of specific planks that
will illustrate the feasibility of the change




Plank 1 – Mandates – How will the policy be
changed
Plank 2 – Administration / Enforcement – Who will
make the new policy happen
Plank 3 – Funding – How will the policy change be
paid for
Plank 4 – Legislative intent – Sentence stating what
the affirmative hopes will happen as a result of the
new policy

Illustrate through logic that your new plan will
solve the problem you outlined in your
significance / harms section

Show any advantages that can be achieved by
enacting your plan

This is essentially a ‘bonus’ for the voters






Straight refutation – point by point analysis of
Aff case
Topicality Argument – Aff is not talking about
the MUC
DA – Disadvantage – if you accept the Aff
position bad things will happen
Turns – Turning the Aff case against itself
CP – Counterplan – Solve the problem of the
Aff case or the resolution without changing the
system (MUC) (be non-topical)
Justification – Like Topicality & Inherency

The responsibility of the affirmative to support
the subject of the proposition.
If the proposition says “apples” and the affirmative
talks about “oranges” they are not topical
 i.e. The USFG should significantly alter the system of
welfare in the US.

 If you try to fix welfare by improving education then
you are not topical.

Attack stock issues:
Prove that # of people impacted or that the level of
impact is not significant
 Prove that people are not being harmed
 Prove that the cause of the problem is not inherent to
the system
 Prove problem will not be solved with plan

=
same as, equal
No, not
Greater than
Less than
P
W/O
W/I
B/c
B/w
Fx effect
I
S
without
within
because
between
therefore
Change in
Yield or to
paradigm
Increase, etc.
Decrease, etc.
response
SH significance / harm
$
A2
P
money, cost, etc.
answers to--
Plan
T
topicality
*
drop (unanswered argument)
inherency
solvency