Policy Debate (or the ultimate intellectual face-crush) - General

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrJdCbHqhGk&feature=related[/media] Hey facepunch, I wanna introduce you to my favorite activity. Not video-gaming, but a contest of quick whits and thinking on your feet. [quote=Copypasta-Pedia]Policy debate is a form of research-based speech competition in which teams of two advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States Federal Government. It is also referred to by institutions such as the Cross Examination Debate Association as cross-examination debate (sometimes shortened to Cross-X, CX, or C-X) because of the 3-minute questioning period following each constructive speech. Affirmative teams generally present a plan as a proposal for implementation of the resolution. However, many teams also partake in alternative forms of argumentative presentation that do not focus on the acceptance or rejection of a specific plan.[/quote] Two teams of two, the aff and the neg debate against each other. The first affirmative speaker is called the 1a, his partner is the 2a. The first neg speaker is the 1n, his partner is the 2n. Each member gives a speech, followed by 3 minutes of cross-ex, where the other team pokes holes in the others arguments. Each team also gets 8 minutes of prep-time, where they can choose their arguments. The 1ac gives an 8 minute speech, followed by 3 minutes of cross-ex, then the 1n gives an 8 minute speech, followed by 3 minutes of cross-ex. The 2a gives an 8 minute speech, followed by 3 of cross-ex. The 2n gives an 8 minute speech, followed by 3 minutes of cross ex. Then the 1n gives a 5 minute speech (the 2n and the 1n go right after each other, a 13 minute nearly consecutive speech called 'the block') then 1a has 5 minutes to respond to the block. Then 2n, then 2a bothl give 5 minute speeches. [b][i]An average debate round is 80 minutes[/i][/b] In Policy Debate, an affirmative team presents a plan that is within the topic, or resolution, of the year. This year, on the high school level, the resolution is [quote]Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase social services for persons living in poverty in the United States.[/quote] After the affirmative presents their plan, they give reasons why the judge should vote for them, or 'advantages'. They access their advantages through three things. Uniqueness- What is happening in the status quo (currently in the world right now). Basically something bad is happening now, like people are being exploited or something Link- What the plan does. Such as providing broadband to people to help raise them out of poverty. Impact- What happens if we don't do the plan. In our exploitation scenario, probably racism. Usually in debate however, the impact is nuclear war. Then the neg and refutes the aff's claim, talking about how they can't solve, or how even though their plan is a good idea, it is partisan in congress and would disrupt health care legislation, which outweighs the case. Uniqueness- The status quo is good. Link - Plan fucks shit up. Impact - Bad things. [b]Kritiks[/b] The neg will often say bad things will happen, like war, but other times they'll make other arguments. Sometimes the neg will say that even if the plan is good they'll attack the assumptions behind it, like since you have to tax people to get money for it the plan it leads into coercive action by the state which is a fate worse than death. Other times they'll say your plan enriches capitalism which turns people into tools and makes them forget that they are the source of their wealth, and think their wealth is the source of them. These are called "k's" or 'Kritiks'. Affs often make perms on these, which are like, "Do the plan and also reject capitalism." [b]Framework/ Theory[/b] In debate, the only thing that is a rule if speech times. Though generally the judge looks at the round through a 'utilitarian' lens (whoever saves the most people win), you can change that. You can run framework arguments to tell the Judge what the round means. Some teams rap or dance or read poetry and read framework that says debate should be about that. Other teams run theory arguments that say the arguments the other team runs are illegitimate, and ruin debate and ect ect. and that they should be 'voted down' because of it. These are called Theory arguments, which are the rules in debate. [b]Counterplans[/b] The neg advocates a similar advocacy like the affirmative, like instead of having the federal government do the plan they have the states do it. Then they claim a disad (as talked about above) to the plan as an advantage. For example, the states aren't perceived by congress so they don't link to politics. The aff makes perms often on these arguements like, "perm do both" which means "do the plan we said in the 1ac, and also this counter plan". [b]Spreading[/b] As you saw in the video, it is basically reading fast. With only 8 minutes to a speech, obviously the more arguments you get in the better.

I'm in policy debate, there was this kid who was at the new trier tournament, he just wacked off at zizek and won on it. bu everyone knows zizek is an asshole, therefore that kid was an asshole. Think his name was Nathan or something like that. luckily because he didn't have partner he couldn't break, so he got what he deserved

Or how to sound like a pompous twat and find the only outlet in life you can establish your pseudo-alpha male dominance.

Jesus christ where do you get that much crack

[QUOTE=professional;17787425]Or how to sound like a pompous twat and find the only outlet in life you can establish your pseudo-alpha male dominance.[/QUOTE] What? It's like any other intellectual sport like chess or speech time or math 1337s.

I thought you liked roleplaying Neolk

[QUOTE=professional;17787425]Or how to sound like a pompous twat and find the only outlet in life you can establish your pseudo-alpha male dominance.[/QUOTE] ^this

[QUOTE=Jessesmith1;17787456]I thought you liked roleplaying Neolk[/QUOTE] I like roleplaying as policy makers.

Get fucked

So basically, it's like Internet flaming, only in the form of a competition?

Ah I im debate to. Ive done public forum, and policy, a modified policy, I think we had less c-x in it. I always got negative, that where against my own morals, or opinion, I had to say nuclear power is bad, then I had too fight for that the UN should prioritize environmental protection over poverty. Now I finally got affirmative, but guess what, Fucking LB debate, so no back up, eh should be fun. At least i get to debate over somethings that morale correct, vaccines. also thanks for posting this thread, it reminded me to do my research and write the speech. [editline]02:33AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Doug52392;17787665]So basically, it's like Internet flaming, only in the form of a competition?[/QUOTE] eh no, internet flaming is two idiots, you actually require a form of a skill to debate the way they do it, research, presentation, and overall good logic, also you can't be a general idiot.

[QUOTE=ScoutKing;17787668]Ah I im debate to. Ive done public forum, and policy, a modified policy, I think we had less c-x in it. I always got negative, that where against my own morals, or opinion, I had to say nuclear power is bad, then I had too fight for that the UN should prioritize environmental protection over poverty. Now I finally got affirmative, but guess what, Fucking LB debate, so no back up, eh should be fun. At least i get to debate over somethings that morale correct, vaccines. also thanks for posting this thread, it reminded me to do my research and write the speech. [editline]02:33AM[/editline] eh no, internet flaming is two idiots, you actually require a form of a skill to debate the way they do it, research, presentation, and overall good logic, also you can't be a general idiot.[/QUOTE] At our school Public Forum is considered :downs: Also I hate policy its pretty fucking boring.

[QUOTE=RaveRaze;17787700]At our school Public Forum is considered :downs: Also I hate policy its pretty fucking boring.[/QUOTE] Policy is the most stressful of the sort. LD is fun I hear, but not as intense.

[QUOTE=RaveRaze;17787700]At our school Public Forum is considered :downs: Also I hate policy its pretty fucking boring.[/QUOTE] Eh it moved pretty slow, we had ares go 45 minutes, but we didn't spend much time on. seeing are class is novice in this area, AKA debate 1, we are still learning the forums, and how to write speech but right now we are ready to go to compilations. I really think the OP could be in my class, because this sounds a hell of alot like what my teachers said, or that this form of debate is commonly tough [editline]02:38AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Neolk;17787738]Policy is the most stressful of the sort. LD is fun I hear, but not as intense.[/QUOTE] I found public form intense in the grand crossfire, but someone in policy debate (they where negative, the debate was over should national service be required) and he just said "AMERICA! freedom!" he won....

[QUOTE=Neolk;17787738]Policy is the most stressful of the sort. LD is fun I hear, but not as intense.[/QUOTE] LD IS EXTREME [img]http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/12/extreme_football.jpg[/img] EXTREMEEEEEE

[QUOTE=ScoutKing;17787742] I really think the OP could be in my class[/quote] Like actually or being able to? I don't think we go to the same school ;D [quote] I found public form intense in the grand crossfire, but someone in policy debate (they where negative, the debate was over should national service be required) and he just said "AMERICA! freedom!" he won....[/QUOTE] Lol

[QUOTE=zeroth;17787769]LD IS EXTREME [image]http://growabrain.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/12/extreme_football.jpg[/image] EXTREMEEEEEE[/QUOTE] Yeah I could imagine its more extreme, seeing it can't go off topic, seeing two people on both sides, thats 4 speeches and you could easily derail the debate/ [editline]02:42AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Neolk;17787776]Like actually or being able to? I don't think we go to the same school ;D Lol[/QUOTE] a texan school? because the high school level resolution, which is state wide, is the same that we have. or is it nation wide...

I would be in my school's debate team if the coach wasn't a pretentious cock. Some of my friends go to other schools and are in debate, they fucking hate him. Every time they go up against us they hate it. Not to mention i took speech with him and now he hates me with a burning passion.

[quote] a texan school? because the high school level resolution, which is state wide, is the same that we have. or is it nation wide...[/QUOTE] It is a nation wide resolution, I live in Illinois. [quote] I would be in my school's debate team if the coach wasn't a pretentious cock. Some of my friends that go to other schools are in debate, and they fucking hate him with a passion. Every time they go up against us they hate it. Not to mention i took speech with him and now he hates me with a burning passion. [/quote] Whats his name? Most coaches are widely known in the debate community.

-snip-

[QUOTE=Lazor;17787823]OP didn't mention kritiks, theory, counterplans, topicality, or anything cool like that. Well except topicality, that sucks ass.[/QUOTE] I talked about K's and theory, but I didn't talk about Cplans or T. But yeah, I'll add the Cplan to the op.

My coach is quite nice. We where ahead because we debated so quickly, we got to watch a episode of the office. [editline]02:46AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Neolk;17787834]I talked about K's and theory, but I didn't talk about Cplans or T. But yeah, I'll add the Cplan to the op.[/QUOTE] I have not learned about K's and theory, or the CPplans or T. what ever they mean... ow never mind, I read what it was, we have no name for it.

[quote] The neg will often say bad things will happen, like war, but other times they'll make other arguments. Sometimes the neg will say that even if the plan is good, since you have to tax people to get money for it it leads into coercive action by the state which is a fate worse than death. Other times they'll say your plan enriches capitalism which turns people into tools and makes them forget that they are the source of their wealth, and think their wealth is the source of them. These are called "k's" or 'Kritiks'.[/quote] You explanation of kritiks isn't very good. Kritiks are off case arguments that attack the basic assumptions of the affirmative or society as a whole. Example include: Capitalism good, capitalism bad, Heidegger, Securitization, Catastrophe Fix(<3), and Ivy Tower(kritik for dumbasses). And theory is what makes debate like intellectual Calvin ball.

[QUOTE=Neolk;17787810]It is a nation wide resolution, I live in Illinois. Whats his name? Most coaches are widely known in the debate community.[/QUOTE] Bill Jordan. I don't think the school system debates with anyone outside of itself though.

[QUOTE=ScoutKing;17787843] I have not learned about K's and theory, or the CPplans or T. what ever they mean...[/QUOTE] Are you a novice? I don't really wanna talk too in depth about them cause if you are then they'll totally corrupt your in-round debates. [quote] Kritiks are off case arguments that attack the basic assumptions of the affirmative or society as a whole. Example include: Capitalism good, capitalism bad, Heidegger, Securitization, Catastrophe Fix(<3), and Ivy Tower(kritik for dumbasses).[/quote] They are basically just non-unique disads with an advocated intellectual alternative to the plan.

[QUOTE=Neolk;17787880]Are you a novice? I don't really wanna talk too in depth about them cause if you are then they'll totally corrupt your in-round debates.[/QUOTE] Im alittle fish, but yes im a novice, I plan to take 4 years, I enjoy it so far.

Novice doesn't seem to boring until you get into junior varsity and/or actually judge a novice debate.

[QUOTE=Lazor;17787906]Novice doesn't seem to boring until you get into junior varsity and/or actually judge a novice debate.[/QUOTE] Ya. Like when they stumble through the road map and insist "don't worry judge I'll signpost" but never actually do. Or the best answer to cap k, "How is this true? I'm happy now."

You know whats even cooler standing in front or a room of "Congessors" and giving a shot 3 minute speech on passing a resolution. Yeah thats pretty cool and stuff

[QUOTE=Neolk;17787931]Ya. Like when they stumble through the road map and insist "don't worry judge I'll signpost" but never actually do. Or the best answer to cap k, "How is this true? I'm happy now."[/QUOTE] I am in a novice class so to say, alot of them use "what are your sources" I facepalm and automatically write down a 5 during refution on the grade sheet we use to grade the people debating.