I'm going to do a "frequently asked questions" section here. Coming up soon.
FAQ
I'm going to do a "frequently asked questions" section here. Coming up soon.
Competent.
I'll take these questions!Originally Posted by theatrix04
1) 8 min 1st Affirmative Constructive (1AC)
3min cross-examination
8 min 1st Negative Constructive (1NC)
3 min cross-x
8 min 2AC
3min cx
8min 2NC
3 min cx
4 min 1st Negative Rebuttal (1NR)
4min 1AR
4 min 2NR
4 min 2AR
The middle of the debate where the negative has two speeches in a row is called the negative block, and it balances the debate since the affirmative gets the 1st and last speeches.
2. Topicality is one of the 5 essential issues of policy debate. If a team is topical, that means that their case follows the resolution. In traditional policy debate, if an affirmative team is not topical, they loose the debate. The other 4 "stock" issues are Inherency (does your plan already exist in the current situation?), Solvency (Does your plan do anything to fix the current problem) Harms (What is wrong with the current situation that means we need a new plan?) and Significance (Is the problem big right now?)
3. Disad or D/A- disadvantage, an argument run by the negative team showing a problem with doing the affirmative plan, for example plan: go get food at mcdonalds, disad mcdonalds makes you fat.
T-Topicality (see above)
Kritik- a negative argument which points out philosophical or moral problems with the plan. It is basically a disadvantage, but at a more metaphysical level than a disadvantage.
CP-Counterplan a negative argument which presents an alternative to the affirmative plan, example: plan: have the federal government increase alternative energy incentives, counterplan: have the states governments increase alternative energy incentives. Counterplans should NOT be topical because the negative is supposed to negate the resolution and a topical counterplan would affirm the resolution, effectively making two affirmative teams in one round.
Prima Facia- "At first glance" this means that until the affirmative proves that there is a problem, we assume that there is nothing wrong with the status quo (or current situation)
Fiat- the idea that we assume as soon as the judge signs the ballot in favor of the affirmative, the plan will go into action. The purpose of fiat is so that you don't spend a whole round arguing whether or not congress will pass the plan, but rather argue the implications of the plan after it passes.
Aff- Affirmative Team, says that the resolution is TRUE
Neg- negative team, says that the resolution is FALSE
lay judge- a judge who does not have debate experience
flay judge- a judge who has minor experience in debate or is of a proffesion which would make them more receptive to a slightly more advanced debate, example: lawyers, economists, etc...
Flow judge- a judge who has significant debate experience
paradigm- preferences that a judge has toward or against certain arguments, for example some judges will vote on topicality and some judges won't
tabula rosa- blank tablet, a paradigm suggesting that the judge has no specific preferences when it comes to arguments, and will vote on any argument if it is argued well
Card- a piece of evidence read in the round
Flow (verb)- flowing is a form of advanced note taking, basically it is outlining notes in collumns, so that you can 'flow' each speech next to the last one in the next column and see what argument answered what and what you need to say next to answer their answer.
Flow (noun)- a flow is the paper that has your notes from a specific part of the debate on it, for example in one round you might have three sheets for the affirmative case, a sheet for a neg disad, a sheet for the neg T and a sheed for a neg counterplan, so you would have three aff flows, and three neg flows.
4. in many areas, policy utilizes "speeding" in order to get more arguments out in the alloted period of time. The hope is to "spread" your opponent, or read more arguments than they can answer, but it is also used so that you can get deeper in arguments in a shorter period of time, but in some areas, like the midwest, speed is rarely used because the judging pool is mostly lay
5. A double breath is sometimes used to emphasize a part of a speech such as when you change from one piece of evidence to another, because when you are speeding sometimes it is hard for people to recognize when you are moving from one part of the speech to the next. It is also sometimes used because people need to get a lot of air so they can get going again when they are speeding
6. I'm not sure where they are from, but the team who won finals at NFL nats this year (earlier today) was Hernandez & Reid Ehrlich-Quinn
7. I'm not sure if you mean to carry things (rubbermaid tubs or something similar and expanding file folders (expandos) preferably the $15 kind from staples or office depot, because they last longer, but the $8 kind from wal-mark will work too they just have to be replaced more often) or if you mean what should you use to write cases (evidence from any source, but the best would be authors with more accredations, or very recent evidence, things which your opponents won't have seen or won't be able to discredit)
8. The three listed are good, lexis is GREAT if you have access to it, ebscohost is also good, mostly I would suggest just google what you want your evidence to say and then find articles that way, it is free so if you don't want to pay a subscription to an article provider it is good.
I hope these answers helped! If anyone has any other questions or if you would like information on any other debate skills (cutting cards, speaking drills etc... just reply on here, I'm happy to help. If you don't get a reply from me here, I have the same username on cross-x.com as I do here, so you can pm there. You are also welcome to email me at tayjdebater@gmail.com I'm happy to help, so please, leave any questions you might have and I'll do my best to answer them, or help you find any other resources that might be useful. ;-)
Last edited by dramageek; 06-19-2009 at 09:27 PM.
Close dramageek. But not quite. See the official events guide at:
http://www.nflonline.org/uploads/Abo...ts%20Guide.pdf
Rebuttals are 5 minutes, not 4. And prep time is 5 minutes per side.
As for stock issues:
Each stock issue has a conforming question (at least, that is how I was taught many moons ago. And it is how I teach my debaters now) In "traditional" Policy Debate, the affirmative must (by the burden of proof) prove all 5 of these stock issues are met by the case. The negative needs only win one issue in order to prove that the affirmative plan ought not be adopted.
The 5 stock issues are:
Topicality: Does the affirmative team's case conform to the wording/intent of the resolution?
Significance: Is the problem area addressed by the affirmative plan a significant one (worth addressing)?
Inherency: Is there something that prevents the status quo (current system) from properly addressing/solving the problem?
Solvency: Does the proposed plan solve the problem the affirmative proposes solving?
Advantages: Does the Affirmative plan have other advantages that outweigh any disadvantage created by the plan?
Specifically on Inherency, the arguments usually come in one of three flavors (we call these Inherent barriers):
- Structural - A law, bureaucracy, amendment, etc. exists in the status quo that prevents the problem from being solved.
- Existential - A law, regulation, amendment, etc. that could solve the problem does not exist in the current system.
- Attitudinal - There is a problem in the current system, or in society itself, that prevents the issue from being solved by the status quo, yet which the affirmative plan addresses.
Of these issues, Inherency and Significance are probably the least debated issues in most rounds. Which is sad, but I'll save my opinions for another forum.
Regards,
Mr J
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks