Policy Debate Notes – alec

Notes
 Speech Order/Length
1AC – 8:00
1AC Cross-examination by the 2N – 3:00
1NC – 8:00
1NC Cross-examination by the 1A – 3:00
2AC – 8:00
2AC Cross-examination by the 1N – 3:00
2NC – 8:00
2NC Cross-examination by the 2A – 3:00
1NR – 5:00
1AR – 5:00
2NR – 5:00
2AR – 5:00

Both teams have exactly 8 minutes of preparation time in the debate.

 Speech Role/Purpose
Each partner is given a role, typically if a speaker is the 1A, they will be the
2N, and thus the 2A will be the 1N.

Since Brock has a little more experience with policy debate, I advise that
you at least start out as the 1A and the 1N, since aside from the 1AR, the
overall demand in a debate is lower when it comes to the final speeches.
We can discuss changing speaker order at a later time.

The roles you will play, at least starting out:

1A – the 1A gives both the 1AC and the 1AR. In the 1AC, you will read a
pre-written case. This entire 8 minute speech is already written. The 1AR,
on the other hand, is a difficult speech since you will need to answer both
the 2NC and the 1NR in 5 minutes. This might sound daunting, but it’s very
much possible. I’ll break down some ideas later on in the notes as to how
to give a good 1AR.

1N – the 1N gives the 1NC and the 1NR. The 1NC, like the 1AC, is a pre-
written 8 minute speech. The 1NR happens after the 2NC and 2NC CX. As a
1N, you should NEVER, I repeat… NEVER take prep time away from your
2N. The 1NR is a 5 minute speech, but you have 2NC prep (the time Brock
will take to prep for the 2NC), the 2NC Speech (8 minutes), 2NC CX (3
minutes) to prep your 5 minute speech. On the negative, the 2NC and the
1NR speak back to back, meaning you and Brock will each give a speech
before the other team is able to. It is very, VERY important in the 1NR to
not repeat anything that the 2NC has already said. During prep for the 2NC,
you and Brock will discuss what each speech will contain. This is called
‘splitting the block.’ An example: if yall’s strategy is a K argument, Brock
will take the Links, impacts and most of the line by line. You will take the
alternative and the permutation, as well as some of the bottom of the line
by line (note: the line by line is otherwise known as the ‘flow’). You and
Brock will have discuss who is answering what argument on the line by
line.
 1AR Tips
You should formulate blocks depending on what Brock wants his 2AR to
look like. Know what you both want to extend in the 1AR. You have to
predict changes in your strategy, don't pre-prep too many blocks. There is
a type of block writing called ‘skeleton blocks’ where you have an outline
of arguments you need as well as blanks to put in arguments that are
specific to the debate you’re having.

Should have slightly different way to flowing. Backflow for your partner,
read the 2AC cards they read so you can know the arguments. During
block you'll be prepping 1AR during what they say, instead of writing down
the entire tag, make a mark "XX" so you know where a card should be.
Write only your response because you'll know what their argument is.

Don't go for everything.

You need to answer most levels of the argument. Extend the 2AC stuff and
give analysis, don't just read the 2AC. Impact your arguments. Read
evidence in the 1AR IF NECESSARY, the 2A should make the file with extra
evidence and extensions, however evidence sometimes takes too much
time. You should prioritize efficiency. If it is more efficient to make an
argument with a piece of evidence, read evidence. If it is less time-efficient
to make an argument with evidence, just make an argument without the
evidence.

Damage control – focus on impact calculus, if you screw up and miss an

entire off case, you can still win on impacts. You can bring up a piece of
1AC evidence in the 1AR that helps with damage control.
 Types of Arguments
Topicality (T) – this argument concerns the plan text of the 1AC you are
debating against. The argument is that the plan text, in a vacuum (meaning
the plan text ALONE, not the advantages or solvency), violates a certain
word or phrase within the resolution. If the plan text is not topical, that
makes it harder to be negative.

Framework (FW) – this argument is similar to topicality, but against critical

affirmatives (K aff’s) that either A. do not defend that the United States
federal government should enact a topical plan text, or B. does not talk
about or affirm the resolution at all.

Disadvantages (DA’s) – these are arguments that say that the 1AC does
something bad, triggering an impact. The four parts of a DA are the
Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, and the Impact. A DA says that the 1AC
does ‘X,’ which triggers ‘Y,’ and ‘Y’ is bad because of ‘Z.’ The Uniqueness
is basically a description of what is happening in the world now, without
the plan. The Link is what the plan does, which then causes the Internal
Link, and the Internal Link causes the Impact. An easy example: UQ – I’m
happy, L: I decide to drive my car even though I’m low on gas, I/L – I run
out of gas, I – that makes me sad.

Counter-plans (CP’s) – a counter-plan is what it sounds like. It is a plan that

solves all or part of the 1AC. However, if the plan and the counter-plan
solve equal amounts, the 1AC still wins because of this theory called
‘presumption.’ To win a counter-plan, you need an opportunity-cost/trade-
off to doing the plan. You generate competition with a counter-plan and
1AC through reading Net Benefits to the CP. What are net benefits?
Disadvantages. Say the plan links to a DA, but the counter-plan doesn’t and
still solves the 1AC. That means that the CP solves the impacts of the 1AC,
but also avoids the DA’s impacts.

Kritiks (K’s) – K’s are traditionally philosophy based critiques of the plan. If
a plan says we should make prisons better, a K might say to abolish
prisons entirely. If a plan says we should boost the economy, a K might say
capitalism is bad and causes a whole bunch of problems. The parts of a K
are the Link, Impact, and the Alternative. The Link and Impact are kind of
similar to a DA, while the alternative is similar to a CP. We will go more in-
depth on K’s in conversation.
 Topicality
Topicality Shell:
- Interpretation - definition of a word(s)
- Violation - explanation of how the aff doesn't meet the interp
- Standards
○ Ground
○ Brightline
○ (fairness)
○ (education)
○ Predictability
○ Real world
○ Framer's intent
○ Limits
○ (competitiveness)
○ Effects T
○ Extra T
- Voters (never say that unless you're in a UIL circuit)

Standards:
- Ground
○ The amount/quality neg arguments
- Framer's Intent (not good)
○ The people who wrote the rez ideas
- Brightline
○ What's clearly topical and what's not
- Fairness (impact)
- Education (impact)
- Predictability
○ Predicting the affs on the topic
- Real world
- Framer's intent
- Limits
- (competitiveness)
- Effects T
- Extra T
 Counter-Plans
Agency CPs: when a different agent does the plan
- XO
- Courts
Advantage CPs: solves a specific advantage
PICs: Plan Inclusive Counter Plan
- Do all of the aff except for a small part
International Actor CPs: another country does it
- NB is anything about U.S. politics/process bad
Private Actor CPs
- Example: GM exploring/developing the ocean
Consult CPs
Conditions CPs

Going for a CP in the 2NR:

- What not to include: a DA that links to the CP, a K that links to the
CP, etc.
- What to include: a NB and a solvency deficit

Offense on a CP when you're aff:

- Their agent/actor bad
- Turn the NB
- Read an add-on advantage that the CP doesn't solve

Answering a CP:
- ALWAYS PERM, EVEN IF IT'S COMPETITIVE
- Offense
Writing a CP:
- Look at the solvency articles of a plan and you can get their own
author saying the CP solves the aff better than the aff does
- Look at impact authors, they usually provide solutions to the impact
and the plan usually isn't the one to solve it
- You can also fiat the internal links of the aff
- You can combine counterplans into one counterplan
- Creative advantage counter plans are the best
- NBs need to be good though

CP Theory:
- PICs bad
- Infinite regress
- PICs are based off a change in the plan
- PICs distract from topical education
- Aff should be able to defend the choices that they make
- Make the interpretation more specific
- Defend that the ground you're debating is good ground
- PIC s are editors - used to create better plan writing (aff would say
that leads to more vague plans)
- On the neg, say all CPs are PICs

Agent CPs:
- Is it good education?
- They take the focus off the policy (we talk about congress vs the
executive)
- They're really fucking boring debates
- Gov implementation and participation is k2 education

International Fiat:
- Infinitely regressive
- No particular policy actor has the option to be another policy maker
Beating CPs:
- Beat the NB
- Perms (winning perm do the CP means there's no net benefit to the
CP)
- Actor/Agent/Etc. bad

Counter Plan Complexity/Competitonal Theory:

- Functional (operational) competition - looks at what plans actually
do
- Textual competition - words matter
- The aff says perm do the CP is legit b/c we never specified - neg
says it's severance (Functional)
 Framework
Benefits to Debate:
- Debate both sides
- In depth debate
- Advocacy skills
- Research skills
- Competition
- Judge gives you feedback
- Time constraints
- Think ahead
Negative Debate:
- Commodification
- Disingenuous
- Not real world
- Isolated
- Spectator of tragedy
Framework is good for mostly the same reasons as topicality
- Predictable limits is a key issue in debate
- Their counter interpretation excludes, it's just self serving.
3 Things you MUST do on the neg to win FW:
- Topical version of the affirmative
○ The more specific you can be on the topical version, the
better. To be really convincing, provide a topical plan text(s). They'll group
multiple topical plan texts, so you point out that none of their general
answers actually answer the specific plan texts. Pick the best plan text and
go for it.
○ Most of the aff args why exclusion is bad is that their
discussion should be included. Topical version of the aff means their
discussion CAN be included.
- Make a switch side debate argument coupled with they can read this
argument on the negative
○ If their aff isn't topical, then they could read it on the neg as a
K. FW solves the inclusion of their discussion, it's just a reason to read
their aff on the neg.
- Epistemology argument
 ○ They cannot use any of the aff to answer FW, because if our
FW argument was true, then we weren't prepared to debate this aff and our
knowledge is harmed because our arguments don't get tested in debate.
Tips on Negative:
- Deal with the theory of their aff.
- Try to deal at least.
- You're unlikely to win if the aff goes uncontested.
- The more case you have, the more help you'll have on FW.
- Show how FW issues interact with the negatives FW.
Going Aff Against FW:
- Do you defend a plan? What way do you defend it (if you do defend
at all)?
- Are you going to make a counter interpretation?
○ AT: Links to offense: we don't think CI is true, we don't think
our counter interpretation affects other debates.
○ Counter interpretation: the 1AC has to be tied into the
resolution
- How close are you to being topical?
- Impact turning standards
○ Comes from the primary criticism of the aff
○ Use K words from your criticism to label these arguments
○ They narrow education until their knowledge becomes self
affirming until something challenges it
○ You can always say predictability is bad because it makes
them think that that's the way politics will be like in the real world. They will
be unprepared.
○ SSD might be bad because of the commodification stuff
○ Topical version of the aff should be answered by the criticism
of the 1AC. Answer topical version like a counter plan. Topical version
doesn't solve the aff if it's something about debate.
○ All our defensive args are reason they can test our aff
○ FW links to other K's
 More Framework Notes
Discussion of/about the topic means something related to the topic, NOT a
topical discussion

A discussion about the topic claims advantages from the discussion itself--
i.e. they are extra T and stuff

Aff structure against fw

- CI solves
- Interp doesn't solve
- Impact turn
Neg structure against that 2ac
- AT: CI
○ CI doesn't solve
○ Interp solves
- AT: Impact turn
○ Impact wrong
○ Impact o/w case
○ Impact turn
Stasis point
- You have to win that debate is good
- 1AC shouldn't be the endpoint of discussion, it should be the
starting point of discussion
- We can't know your discussion about the topic is good until we
have a stasis point that allows us to prepare
- Think about the difference between a discussion about the topic and
a topical discussion
- If the aff can say the topic is bad, then that's def abusive, but they
probs won't do that this year--it's not fair if you get to claim solvency w/o
state action
- Placing a demand upon the gov is bad--it allows for advantage
outside of not fiating the USFG
- Need to have reasons the state is good--why it's good for their stuff,
then also external offense--(look into warming--author is james hanson)
Another CI--rob endorse team best creates space of undercommons to
deconstruct something about anti-blackness
What is the best pedagogical method? We meet--our fw debate is about
why our view of debate is best pedagogical method
CI's affs make
- Resolved = to make a decision/reduce through mental analysis
○ Aff answer: we have to be resolved about decisions before we
make solutions via state policy
○ Neg answer: explodes limits--impossible for the neg to know
what you're going to say bc that allows anything to come into play--there
needs to be clash bc we need to test you
○ Aff answer: but isn't that what the point of debate is? We still
formulate decisions before externalizing our power into institutions
- Should = to describe a desire/not an obligation
- USFG = the people
- Neg needs to win that they don't follow a word in the resolution--you
need to be like "you don't get to decide what words in the resolution you do
or do not meet"--if the aff can pick and choose what words they do or don't
meet, then that opens the door and explodes limits because we can never
know what the aff will choose to meet or not meet--we just have to win that
you should defend the entirety of the words
Random
- Perms
○ Other rounds solve
○ Do your debate once debate is fixed
- We should have a debate over which limit is good
- Voting neg doesn't a precedent, voting aff doesn't spill over
- People write about why forcing creativity on high schoolers is good
for brain development
- Education bad--you're type of knowledge is bad or something
- In order to gain skills we have to have productive discussions,
research, etc.
- Switch side debate bad
○ Ethical engagement--forces us to defend the gov which forces
us to not learn from the perspective of other people
§ We have to debate the gov to know why it's bad
§ Even if the gov is racist, we can't ignore it--it's very
powerful
○ You link too bc you always defend the gov
§ We say the gov is doing something bad, and should
stop
 § We don't role play
○ We would lose on perm
○ No T version
○ Macroptx v. microptx
§ Aff prereq to ptx
§ State irredeemable/law fails
Agonism
- Must argue and fight on shit
- Clash is good
- Less about content and more about form
- Learn how to agonistically engage w/ people
 Answering the K
The basics
- The "K" is not just one argument. It's a bunch of arguments that fall
under a consistent theme
- Link + impact = disadvantage
- Alt = almost cp
○ It attempts to solve the case
○ It attempts to provide uq for the link and impact
- Framework = almost a theory argument
○ How the judge should evaluate the debate
○ Something like epistemology first
Answering the K
- Case o/w
- Perms
- No link
- Answer the impact/impact turn
- Attack the alt
○ Every alt has a method and a goal
Common K tricks to be aware of
Your epistemology is flawed