In high school, all four constructive speeches are generally eight minutes long and all four rebuttal speeches are four or five minutes in length depending on the region; in college they are nine and six minutes long respectively. All cross-examination periods are three minutes long in high school and in college.
History
Traditionally, rebuttals were half the length of constructive speeches, 8–4min in high school and 10–5min in college. The now-prevailing speech time of 8–5min in high school and 9-5 in college was introduced in the 1990s. Some states, such as Missouri, Massachusetts and Colorado, still use the 8–4min format at the high school level.
1AC
The First Affirmative Constructive (1AC) is the first speech given in a round, presented by the affirmative team. Nearly every 1AC includes inherency, advantages, and solvency, as well as a plan text, the textual expression of the affirmative policy option. The 1AC is generally pre-scripted before the round.
1NC
The First Negative Constructive (1NC) is the first speech given by the negative team and the second speech in the round. It is given by the first negative speaker.
The 1NC will generally present all of the major arguments which the negative plans to present in the round. Off-case arguments made include topicality, disadvantages, counter plans, and critiques. The negative generally also goes on case, contesting the advantage scenarios presented by the affirmative in the 1AC, also often contesting solvency and/or inherency.
2AC
The Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC) is the second speech given by the affirmative team, the third speech in the round, given by the second affirmative speaker.
The 2AC must answer all of the arguments read in the 1NC. If there is time remaining, the 2AC sometimes also includes add-ons, or additional advantage scenarios. If negative arguments are not addressed, they are considered conceded.
2NC
The Second Negative Constructive (2NC) is the second speech given by the negative team, the fourth speech in the round, given by the second negative speaker.
It is the first part of the negative block and thus will only cover part of the 2AC.
Often the 2NC will bring up new arguments, to require the 1AR to cover more arguments in their 5 minutes (6 minutes in college). However, some judges consider it abusive to add new off-case arguments, as the affirmative only has five minutes to respond. It is not inappropriate to ask the judge's view on allowing new arguments in the 2NC; after all it is a constructive speech.
1NR
The First Negative Rebuttal (1NR) is the third speech given by the negative team, the fifth speech in the round, given by the first negative speaker.
Because it is the second part of the negative block, it usually takes arguments not covered by the 2NC. The 1NR can also take arguments which the 2NC did not finish answering or which the 2NC realizes that it accidentally dropped during the cross-examination.
The 1NR undoubtedly has the most preparation time of any speech given in the debate. It can often start prepping during the 2AC, and always has whatever prep time is taken for the 2NC, the 2NC, and the cross-examination of the 2NC to prepare (after cross-examining the 2AC). This amounts to a minimum of 11 minutes in high school and 12 minutes in college even if no preparation time is taken for the 2NC (rare). Theoretically, the 1NR could spend a few minutes preparing and then give the speech (subvocally) twice before having to speak.
As a result, the 1NR will often answer the 2AC arguments which are more preparation intensive (arguments to which the negative does not already have prescripted blocks). Although the 1N is the first speaker to be done with speeches in the round, a good 1N will continue to flow the rest of the speeches to protect the 2NR and retain a more accurate flow to have more information for future rounds.
1AR
The First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) is the first rebuttal speech given by the affirmative, the sixth speech in the round.
The 1AR must respond to the entirety of the negative block. The ratio of negative block time to 1AR time is 5:00 in high school and 5:2 in college. A 1AR may make strategic concessions or undercover certain positions to gain a time trade off to compensate for this apparent inequity. The 1AR is also in many ways a shadow speech for the 2AR and the community consensus between what constitutes shadow coverage and what leaves legitimate room for 2AR extrapolation is still contested.
Almost all judges will allow the 1AR to read new pieces of evidence and make new arguments, especially in response to new arguments during the negative block.
2NR
The Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR) is the fourth and last speech given by the negative team. It is the seventh speech in the debate, given by the second negative speaker.
The 2NR will often take the remainder of the negative's preparation time.
The 2NR will usually only go for some of the arguments presented in the 1NC although community norms prevent it for going for 1NC arguments which were not extended in the negative block. Especially in rounds with experienced debaters, the 2NR will usually try to win the round with as few arguments as possible enabling it to effectively cover all relevant 1AR arguments while gaining a substantial time trade off. However, sometimes the 2NR will go for multiple positions, allowing it to win the round in multiple worlds, if it believes it can effectively pressure the 2AR. This is risky because the 2AR, in that situation, will most likely go for the arguments which the 2NR covered the least.
The 2NR also has to "close doors" for the 2AR by predicting the areas in which the 2AR will attempt new extrapolation. The 2NR can caution the judge to reject new 2AR arguments but this is less effective than preempting such arguments with "even if" statements.
2AR
The Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) is the second rebuttal speech given by the affirmative, and the eighth and final speech in the round.
The 2AR generally only answers the arguments made by the 2NR, going to other flows only when the affirmative believes the negative has made a strategic blunder on that piece of paper. In general, the 2AR may not make new arguments that were not in the 1AR. However, because the negative does not go for arguments that the 1AR had to answer, the 2AR is almost always bigger than the portion of the 1AR it represents. Some arguments are never new, like certain forms of extrapolation from 1AR arguments and impact calculus (although many judges prefer it earlier in the round).
The 2AR will almost never present new pieces of evidence but often will refer to pieces of evidence read earlier in the round by their citation, especially if the affirmative wants the judge to read that piece of evidence after the round.
Cross-Examination Periods
Following each constructive speech, there is a three-minute cross-examination period in which the opposing team questions the team which just spoke. Usually, the cross-examination is conducted by the opponent who will not speak next of the speaker who just spoke, but some cross-examinations are open, that is: either partner may ask or answer questions. However, it is often frowned upon when a partner who is not the previous speaker answers cross-examination questions. Typically the cross examiner and the cross examined will not be allowed to look at each other during cross examination.
Preparation Time
In addition to speeches, policy debates may allow for a certain amount of preparation time, or "prep time", during a debate round. NSDA rules call for five minutes of total prep time that can be used, although in practice high school debate tournaments often give eight minutes of prep time. College debates typically have 10 minutes of preparation time. The preparation time is used at each team's preference; they can use different amounts of preparation time before any of their speeches, or even none at all.
Alternative Use Time
Some tournaments have neither cross-examination time nor preparation time. Rather, each team is given 16 minutes of alternative use time. Alternative use time can always be used as prep time but after a constructive speech it also doubles as cross-examination time. Thus, if the 2AC needs six minutes to get ready after the 1NC, the first affirmative speaker would get to cross-examine the first negative speaker for those six minutes while the second affirmative speaker is preparing. Alternative use time may not be used for cross-examination after rebuttal speeches.
Related Research Articles
Debate is a process that involves formal discourse, discussion, and oral addresses on a particular topic or collection of topics, often with a moderator and an audience. In a debate, arguments are put forward for common opposing viewpoints. Debates have historically occurred in public meetings, academic institutions, debate halls, coffeehouses, competitions, and legislative assemblies. Debates have also been conducted for educational and recreational purposes, usually associated with educational establishments and debating societies. These debates emphasized logical consistency, factual accuracy, and emotional appeal to an audience. Modern forms of competitive debate also include rules for participants to discuss and decide upon the framework of the debates.
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.
Congressional Debate is a competitive interscholastic high school debate event in the United States. The National Speech and Debate Association (NSDA), National Catholic Forensic League (NCFL) and many state associations and national invitational tournaments offer Congressional Debate as an event. Each organization and tournament offers its own rules, although the National Speech and Debate Association has championed standardization since 2007, when it began to ask its districts to use one of a number of procedures for qualification to its National Tournament.
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.
The National Educational Debate Association (NEDA) is an American collegiate debate association emphasizing audience-centered debate. It was founded by debate educators who believe that the debate tournament is an extension of the communication classroom and that even competitive debates should provide students with skills of research, argument selection, and presentation style that will benefit them as public advocates. NEDA schedules eight invitational tournaments a year, primarily in the mid-west. The association debates two resolutions per year. The fall resolution is one of value, and the spring resolution is one of policy.
The National Parliamentary Debate Association (NPDA) is one of the two national intercollegiate parliamentary debate organizations in the United States. The other is the American Parliamentary Debate Association. Its membership is national with participating schools throughout the country. In 2015, NPDA was the largest debating organization in the United States with around 200-250 participating schools in any given year.
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 debate is an academic debate event. Many university-level institutions in English-speaking nations sponsor parliamentary debate teams. In addition the format is currently spreading to the high school level. Despite the name, the parli is not related to debate in governmental parliaments beyond formal speaker titles such as "Opposition Leader" and "Prime Minister".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Arena is a debate-style television show produced by Mediacorp Channel 5 in Singapore. Season 1 of the show was broadcast from January–March 2007. A second season, known as The Arena II, was aired from March–May 2008. The show involves teams of students from secondary schools in Singapore debating against each other on issues of topical interest.
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.
Square Off is a television debate program broadcast on the ABS-CBN News Channel (ANC). It broadcasts every Friday at 6:00 pm PST, with replays throughout the week. The show is hosted by Maiki Oreta and is primarily sponsored by the Philippine Graphic.
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.
Policy debate 
