Case (policy debate)

Last updated

In debate, which is a form of argument competition, a case, sometimes known as plan, is a textual advocacy presented, in form of speech, by the Pro team as a normative or "should" statement; it is generally presented in the First Pro Constructive (1AC). A case will often include either the resolution or a rephrasing of it.

Contents

The case is the advocacy established by the Pro in the First affirmative constructive speech, often constructed around the support of a policy recommendation known as the affirmative plan. While the 1AC defines the parameters for the bulk of an affirmative's argument, the term "case" can be used to cover the entirety of the affirmative argument more broadly, referring, for instance, to additional advantages, counter-arguments, or rebuttal evidence that might be introduced in later speeches (if at all).

The Structure of the Case

The case is a form of on-topic debate and can also be referred to as C if done in the standard way C is a very effective way to win a case. The case is generally organized into sections called "observations" or "contentions", with advantages attached to the link or link break.

Observation or Contention

A typical case includes between two and four observations/contentions, depending on the speed of the intended speaker and the length of the observations/contentions. Traditionally, observations/contentions address one of the stock issues and are labeled accordingly. For example:

Or:

These outlines are quite general, and different debaters may retain some or none of the above structural elements as their situations dictate. On an aesthetic level, for example, it is not uncommon for some cases to include creative titles for observations and advantages. A case increasing the number of pilots in the United States Air Force might call the first contention "Air Power."

On a more practical level, recent policy debate cases have made a habit of including one or more contentions that do not directly relate to the affirmative thesis but are designed to preempt common negative attacks. For instance, a team running a case often considered nontopical might devote 45 seconds of the first affirmative constructive to reading contextual definitions of disputed terms in order to frame the debate in a favorable light early on. (Because topicality is a "meta-issue" it is traditionally omitted from the opening presentation of the case, although historically an introductory contention where the affirmative defined the terms of the resolution was much more common.) Additionally, teams might decide to include "non-unique" contentions, where the information presented bears little on the overall affirmative argument other than to say that any negative disadvantage should have already occurred in the status quo.

Advantages

While some high school regions prefer affirmative cases to be organized around the "stock issues," others have stressed an emphasis on a "comparative advantage" style case construction. The primary difference between the two forms of cases is one of style and emphasis, though in many instances the information presented can be almost identical. A case built around "advantages" stresses the superiority of the plan (or broader affirmative advocacy) to the status quo, through a series of direct comparisons between the plan and the status quo. The impact calculus offered within advantages can vary widely across different cases. Some might argue that the plan affects a "policy" change for the better, or prevents something that is bad that the status quo all but guarantees. For instance, an advantage to a plan increasing the strength of United Nations peacekeeping operations in Kashmir could argue that such an operation would prevent nuclear war between India and Pakistan.

An advantage might also be more philosophical in nature. Loosely defined as "critical" or "critical" such advantages tend to eschew traditional cost-benefit analysis, claiming either that there are philosophical problems with the status quo such as prevalent racism, heteronormativity/homophobia, patriarchy, militarism, which the plan can address, or that certain forms of analysis (for instance, Consequentialism) are on face immoral and should be rejected as possible tools to evaluate the affirmative case.

Some more "critical" cases might also argue that the advocacy of the affirmative should not be reduced to a "plan" or policy advocacy, opting instead to defend it as a "speech act" or "discourse" more holistically or, even more, advantageous in policy debate, the moral thematic composition. An example of the last type of "case" is the Socratic Flow that poses and answers known Inherency problems at the level of debate theory by winning only on Justification, and all else follows. When presented by the Negative, the Negative uses hardly any evidence cards of their own and rely on their own comprehension and wit, proceeding to challenge and improve upon, rather than outright refute the Affirmative plan or diminish Affirmative advocacy, arguing that the resolution or resolution topic should be morally reasoned without incurring negativity. One type of Negative team's Socratic Flow is a cooperative tag team entreaty to win the whole thing, the win-win-win that includes the judge.

Case without Plan

In "pure" policy debate, which occurs infrequently in intercollegiate policy debate tournaments but quite often in professorial or academic debate occasions, the Affirmative does not have to run a plan but presents the resolution as sufficient for affirming, which is the argument of "resolution is policy", and that is what is to be debated rather than any particular plan that can be constructed. Partial plans are presented as examples of the policy rather than policy implementation that have to meet stock issue burdens.

The difference between this type of policy debate, "pure" debate similar to Congressional policymaking, is that speech-acts and discourse and discursiveness and critics are all rejected, and it is mostly experiential rather than experimental or exhausting. This school of thought, focused on at that level of debate by debate coaches and educators and resolution drafters, has had some presence at ADA and NDT and practically none at CEDA, culminating in a) Monolithic Justification for the resolution and indemnifying some misunderstandings in Solvency and Topicality, the consolidated and quirkily named b) Kritik Blasé compendium of arguments, has expanded policy debate to include c) differentiation with nonpolicy important governance topics, has allowed for d) virtue debate for oratory and e) weighs resources more judiciously rather than expecting a select group of agencies to merely go ahead with a plan, answering the moral obligation question.

Pure policy debate harkens way back to minstrel songs and soliloquies found, for example, in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh, the saga of the trial and redemption of Socrates in virtue ethics, and incorporates ADA's emphasis on stasis theory from classical rhetoric to overcome stagnancy in the status quo.

In the case of c) above, it is argued that policy is different from many other instruments of government: protocol, treaties, the economy itself, "law enforcement", punditry and politicking, a certain class of "U.S. interests", societal norms, and so on. And in the case of d) above, the recent favoring of blurby speaking among student debaters is disfavored in pure policy debate. Instead, policy debaters favor oratory and syllogistic argumentation that still emphasizes the power of persuasiveness. The idea of "attack" and "offense" are rearranged to mitigate offensiveness towards one's interlocutor.

Policy debate, different from debating policy plans, is a "pure" values debate about which resolutions are best or better than the given resolution's stated policy goals. The bright-line debate between some of the adversarial groups' modern classical issues is narrow and difficult to debate for the uninitiated debate club. For example, some perennial arguments are act-agency, power-versus-trust, authority-versus-viability, feasibility-versus-completeness. Some debates have ended and have been removed as unfavored arguments: arguments about regime legitimacy, arguments from positive legalism, constructivism, distinctions between legal implementation and lawful enforcement, savagery-versus-brutalism, the constitutionality of administrative law, and many more.

Not a lot of counter-resolutions are run, but they are considered within topicality debate and the usual stock issues. One new stock issue has been added for all topics: biomass disparity implicit burden. The "I would drop to the floor", "I would be dropping off the furniture" argument is valid, the argument about brutalism. For example, the given resolution states that the Federal government should substantially reduce the number of criminal statutes. A debater on the Negative could call for an outright overhaul of codified law that eschews the idea of and malediction about "criminal" statutes.

Related Research Articles

Lincoln–Douglas debate is a type of one-on-one competitive debate practiced mainly in the United States at the high school level. It is sometimes also called values debate because the format traditionally places a heavy emphasis on logic, ethical values, and philosophy. The Lincoln–Douglas debate format is named for the 1858 Lincoln–Douglas debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas, because their debates focused on slavery and the morals, values, and logic behind it. LD debates are used by the National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA) competitions, and also widely used in related debate leagues such as the National Christian Forensics and Communication Association, the National Catholic Forensic League, the National Educational Debate Association, the Texas University Interscholastic League, Texas Forensic Association, Stoa USA and their affiliated regional organizations.

Policy debate is an American form of debate competition in which teams of two usually advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government. It is also referred to as cross-examination debate because of the 3-minute questioning 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 we should make some specific change to a national or international problem —is a good idea. Affirmative teams generally present a plan as a proposal for implementation of the resolution. On the other hand, the Negative teams present arguments against the implementation of the resolution. In a single round of debate competition, each person gives two speeches. The first speech each person gives is called a “constructive” speech, because it is the speech when the first person of the team speaks positively, presenting the team's main idea without rebuttals that have not occurred, presents the basic arguments they will make throughout the debate. The second speech is called a “rebuttal”, because this is the speech where each person tries 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. The Affirmative has to persuade the judge to vote for the resolution, while the Negative has to persuade the judge the Negative's position is a better idea.

The American Parliamentary Debate Association (APDA) is the oldest intercollegiate parliamentary debating association in the United States. APDA sponsors over 50 tournaments a year, all in a parliamentary format, as well as a national championship in late April. It also administers the North American Debating Championship with the Canadian University Society for Intercollegiate Debate (CUSID) every year in January. Although it is mainly funded by its member universities, APDA is an entirely student-run organization.

Public forum debate is a form of competitive debate which centers on current events and relies on both logic and evidence to construct arguments. It is primarily competed by middle and high school students, but college teams exist as well. Invented in the US, Public Forum is one of the most prominent American debate events, alongside policy debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate; it is also practiced in China and India, and has been recently introduced to Romania. Individuals give short speeches that are interspersed with 3 minute "Crossfire" sections, questions and answers between opposed debaters. The winner is determined by a judge who also serves as a referee. The debate centers on advocating or rejecting a position, "resolve", or "resolution", which is usually a proposal of a potential solution to a current events issue. Public Forum is designed to be accessible to the average citizen.

Parliamentary style debate, colloquially oftentimes just Parliamentary debate, is a formal framework for debate used in debating societies, academic debate events and competitive debate. It has its roots in parliamentary procedure and develops differently in different countries as a result.

A counterplan is a component of debate theory commonly employed in the activity of parliamentary and policy debate. While some conceptions of debate theory require the negative position in a debate to defend the status quo against an affirmative position or plan, a counterplan allows the negative to defend a separate plan or an advocacy. It also allows the affirmative to run disadvantages against the negative.

In policy debate, a disadvantage is an argument that a team brings up against a policy action that is being considered. A disadvantage is also used in the Lincoln-Douglas debate format.

Topicality is a resolution issue in policy debate which pertains to whether or not the plan affirms the resolution as worded. To contest the topicality of the affirmative, the negative interprets a word or words in the resolution and argues that the affirmative does not meet that definition, that the interpretation is preferable, and that non-topicality should be a voting issue. "Interpretation" is a low-level standard argued by high school debaters but not quibbled verbatim, "interpretation", by seasoned debaters beyond college. The difference is between what is said ("text") and what is allowed.

In policy debate, Lincoln-Douglas debate, and public forum debate, the flow is the name given to a specialized form of shorthand which debaters use to keep track of all of the arguments in the round.

In all forms of policy debate, the order of speeches is as follows:

In the formal speech competition genre known as policy debate, a widely accepted doctrine or "debate theory" divides the argument elements of supporting the resolution affirmative into five subtopical issues, called the stock issues. Stock issues are sometime referred to as on-case arguments or simply on-case or case arguments as opposed off-case arguments.

Inter-collegiate policy debate is a form of speech competition involving two teams of two debaters from different colleges or universities based on a resolution phrased as something the United States federal government "should" do. Policy debate also exists as a high school activity, with a very similar format, but different leagues, tournaments, speech times, resolutions, and styles.

World Schools Style debating is a combination of the British Parliamentary and Australia-Asian debating formats, designed to meet the needs of the World Schools Debating Championships tournament. Each debate comprises eight speeches delivered by two teams of three members, representing the Proposition and Opposition sides. The first six speeches are eight minutes in duration, with each team then finishing up by giving a four-minute concluding reply speech. Teams are given 30 to 60 minutes to prepare for their speeches.

Australia–Asia Debate, sometimes referred to as Australasian Debating or Australs Style, is a form of academic debate. In the past few years, this style of debating has increased in usage dramatically throughout both Australia and the Asian region, but in the case of Asian countries including Singapore, Malaysia, and the Philippines, the format is also used alongside the British Parliamentary Format. The context in which the Australia-Asia style of debate is used varies, but it is commonly used in Australia at the primary and secondary school level, ranging from small informal one-off intra-school debates to larger more formal inter-school competitions with several rounds and a finals series which occur over a year. It is also commonly used at university level.

A Value Premise is a component of high school Lincoln-Douglas Debate case structure. The value is usually a statement which one side is attempting to achieve throughout the debate. In general, the side that best upholds his or her value premise, which was adequately defended, wins the debate. The value premise is sometimes referred to as the "value" or simply "vp". The value premise is not to be confused with the value criterion, which is the specific means of achieving the value premise.

In Lincoln-Douglas Debate, the value criterion is the means of weighing the value premise. Unlike the value premise, the value criterion is often swayed to either the affirmative or negative side.

Public debate may mean simply debating by the public, or in public. The term is also used for a particular formal style of debate in a competitive or educational context. Two teams of two compete through six rounds of argument, giving persuasive speeches on a particular topic.

In competitive debate, an advantage is the way that the affirmative team refers to the positive consequences of adopting their position on the debate resolution. It is an argument structure that seeks to convince the judge that the affirmative plan, if adopted, would result in a net-beneficial improvement to the status quo.

This is a glossary of policy debate terms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Competitive debate in the United States</span>

Competitive debate, also known as forensics or speech and debate, is an activity in which two or more people take positions on an issue and are judged on how well they defend those positions. The activity has been present in academic spaces in the United States since the colonial period. The practice, an import from British education, began as in-class exercises in which students would present arguments to their classmates about the nature of rhetoric. Over time, the nature of those conversations began to shift towards philosophical questions and current events, with Yale University being the first to allow students to defend any position on a topic they believed in. In the late nineteenth century, student-led literary societies began to compete with each other academically and often engaged in debates against each other. In 1906, the first intercollegiate debate league, Delta Sigma Rho, was formed, followed by several others. Competitive debate expanded to the secondary school level in 1920 with the founding of the National Speech and Debate Association, which grew to over 300,000 members by 1969. Technological advances such as the accessibility of personal computers in the 1990s and 2000s has led to debate cases becoming more complex and to evidence being more accessible. Competitors and coaches have made efforts to reduce discrimination in the debate community by introducing new arguments and recruiting debaters from underprivileged communities.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.