warner, am studs

WARNER, AM STUDS

Basic Debate

What is argumentation? One debate textbook defines it as "a process whereby people reason their way from one set of ideas

to the choice of another." In other words, it is the set of reasons for doing what we do and believing what we believe.

What is persuasion? It is simply argumentation directed at another person; it is the way in which we try to affect the choices

that other people make in what they believe and what they do. Persuasion is used to convince us to buy and sell, to vote for

one political candidate or another, and to believe in ideas, causes, and crusades.

What is critical thinking? There is the story of the Egyptian king Thymus, who was suspicious of the new technology of

writing. He felt that it was bound to weaken people’s memories, and it would lead to an overflow of information, allowing

those who were merely loaded up with facts to pass themselves off as wise.

Thymus was right; to be truly wise in modern society, in which there is far more information stored than in Egyptian times,

we must be able to exercise critical thinking, which is the ability to evaluate and critique words, thoughts, and ideas. It is the

ability to pick and choose those ideas worth accepting and believing, and to separate them from those not worth accepting

and believing. To not think critically is to be unarmed in the marketplace of ideas.

What are public speaking and communication? The best definition of communication I have found it "the transfer of

meaning;" the ability to make someone else see and hear exactly what we see and hear. Public speaking is simply one way of

achieving that---through the spoken word. Debaters must be understood to be believed.

THE DEBATE PROCESS

The two sides in a debate are the Affirmative and Negative. In general, the Affirmative team supports the statement of the

resolution (in this case, they would feel that the government should provide public health services to a greater extent than

they do now), while the Negative argues that a new program or new action in this area is either unnecessary or undesirable, or

both.

The Affirmative team presents a case, which (using this year's topic as an example) is a discussion of some ways in people

suffer from problems of mental health and/or mental illness. They then propose their plan, which is a new law or policy that

will supposedly solve or at least reduce those problems. On this year’s topic, that plan must involve helping people through

public health services.

The Negative team can oppose the Affirmative in a number of ways. On this year’s topic, they may argue that no real

problems of mental health exist, or that the current policies are capable of solving the problems, given enough time or effort.

They may argue that the plan offered by the Affirmative will not work in the way they want it to, or that it will cause severe

problems that are worse than the original problem. Or they may argue that, while certain problems in the area of mental

health may indeed exist, the solution offered by the Affirmative is the wrong one, and may propose their own solution to the

problem(s).

Both sides support and defend their arguments with research (evidence, sometimes referred to as “cards” by the debaters)

from published sources (books, periodicals, newspapers, etc.), and with logic and reasoning. Good debaters are always on the

lookout for new and better evidence to support their arguments, but they are also always thinking about the logic of their

arguments and the arguments made by their opponents.

A simple and sound way to look at a debate is from what is known as the policy-making paradigm (view). The Affirmative

team represents two members of Congress who are in favor of adopting a new law (the Affirmative plan); they offer and

defend arguments in favor of that law. The Negative team represents two members of Congress who oppose that new law,

and offer arguments against it. We assume that the vote in Congress is currently tied; the judge or judges (there will usually

be an odd number) are the tie-breaking votes. How they decide will determine the fate of the new law. Indeed, many of the

rules and conventions of debate are taken from the rules used by Congress and other legislatures in dealing with new laws.

MR. HARTNEY’S THREE LAWS OF DEBATE

Before we go further, I want to try to get you to think about the process of debate in a particular way. To do that, you need to

understand three fundamental truths:

# 1: IT'S ONLY A GAME! Debate is a contest or a game between two sides; the object of the game is to win! Like any good

game, debate has rules, standards for behavior which make the debate fair and give each side an equal opportunity to win

WARNER, AM STUDS

(these are actually very few in number); and it has conventions, things that it is generally or usually good to do if you want to

be successful.

# 2: MOST DEBATES ARE WON OR LOST BEFORE THE DEBATE BEGINS: This simply means that, like most games,

debate wins tend to go to the side that is most prepared to win. A football team that seldom practiced or never scouted and

prepared for their next opponent would not win many games. The same holds true for almost every type of competition.

Attorneys, for example, spend a great deal of their time trying to decide what the attorneys for the other side in the case are

likely to do, so that they can prepare their strategies.

Likewise, the debate team that knows their own arguments well, has brainstormed and thought about what arguments their

opponents might make and how to defeat them, has filed their materials so that it can be easily found in a debate, and has

practiced their delivery and presentations so that they are most effective, is the team most likely to win. All of these things

can and should be done before the debate begins.

# 3: IT AIN’T OVER 'TILL IT'S OVER: A single debate consists of twelve speeches and questioning periods, and takes

slightly over an hour to conduct. There is no scoreboard to see which side is ahead; at the end of the debate (and only at the

end), the judge will decide which side did a better job of debating. In fact a good way of looking at it is that the debate

“occurs between the ears of the judge” (i.e., it occurs in the judge's mind). This means that winning or losing the debate

depends on how the judge hears and evaluates what you say.

You cannot know for sure if you are winning or losing the debate until the judge makes his or her decision at the end of the

debate. So the best position to take is that the debate is always in doubt, and that victory is always within the grasp of either

team. In every speech, you should be trying to win the debate. Never give up and assume you cannot win a debate; never

back off and assume that your victory is assured. It ain't over 'till it's over.

THE RULES OF DEBATE: THE DEBATE FORMAT

Unlike many arguments that you may have had with friends or family members, debates are NOT "shouting matches;" it is

not a contest on who can drown the other one out or subdue them with volume. In a debate, each side is given speech time,

and the other side is not allowed to speak during those times! It is a serious breach of debate manners (and probable grounds

for disqualification!) to talk Out loud during your opponents' speeches. You will have your time to speak, just as they have

their time to speak.

The times given are the maximum times allowed for each speech; there is no rule that all of the time be used, but it is usually

a good idea to do so. Just as a baseball team would be unwise to decline their turn at bat in an inning, or to take the field

again after only one or two outs, it is thus a convention of debate that you should use your available time.

SPEECH TIME LIMIT

First Affirmative Constructive Speech (lAC) 8 minutes

Cross-Examination by Negative 3 minutes

First Negative Constructive Speech (lNC) 8 minutes

Cross-Examination by Affirmative 3 minutes

Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC) 8 minutes


Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC) 8 minutes


First Negative Rebuttal Speech (lNR) 5 minutes

First Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (lAR) 5 minutes

Second Negative Rebuttal Speech (2NR) 5 minutes

Second Affirmative Rebuttal Speech (2AR) 5 minutes

Both sides are allowed 5 minutes of preparation time (prep time, for short) to use between speeches. This time may be used to

prepare the next speech or to consult with the partner about arguments and strategy.

CONSTRUCTIVES & REBUTTALS: WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE?

In looking at the order of speeches listed above, you should note that the speeches are divided into constructive speeches and

rebuttal speeches. Debate conventions dictate that each type of speech has unique functions in the debate.

WARNER, AM STUDS

Constructive speeches are the first four speeches in the debate. Think of the word “construct” and you will always remember

that these speeches are the debaters' time to make or build arguments for the debate. Any argument that the debater wants to

be considered in the judge's decision must be introduced and developed during one of that team's constructive speeches.

These speeches are longer than rebuttals because this “building” process can be quite time-consuming. There must be time

for reading evidence that proves the argument being made, and the argument must be explained, developed, and applied

(made relevant to the issues in that debate). Thus all constructive speeches are 8 minutes in length.

Rebuttal speeches are the last four speeches in the debate. As compared to constructive speeches, debate conventions dictate

that no “new” arguments may be made in rebuttal speeches. In other words, any brand-new idea that the debaters want

considered in the debate must have been brought up before the rebuttals start. The rebuttal speeches are devoted to extending

arguments (comparing your argument and the opponents’ position against it, showing how your position still stands), re-

evidencing or re-explaining your arguments, and summarizing your position. Rebuttal speeches are 5 minutes in length.

(Note: some older debate texts may list rebuttals as 4 minutes long; this rule was changed in 1992.)

SPEECH ORDER

The order of speeches in a debate gives each side a unique advantage over the other side; most debate coaches feel that these

two advantages essentially offset one another. You probably noticed that the speech order starts and ends with the

Affirmative side. This is based on the legal (courtroom) tradition where the plaintiff or prosecution (analogous to the

Affirmative) opens the trial and has the final summation to the jury. Having the first and last chance to persuade the judge is a

major weapon for the Affirmative. In between, the Negative has two back-to-back speeches (2NC and 1NR), separated only

by a cross-examination period. This preponderance of time in the middle of the debate is known as the negative block, and is

the Negative's best chance to inflict irreparable harm on the Affirmative case and plan.

SPEAKER POSITIONS AND DUTIES

Debaters work as a team; they debate as a team; they plan strategy as a team; they win or lose as a team. Very often,

teamwork is the difference between being a good team or a not-so-good team. As with any team, each member of the team

has specific duties and responsibilities. For the team to succeed, both members of the team must do their assigned job to the

best of their ability.

First Affirmative Constructive (lAC): The lAC speaker presents the case and the plan in a pre-prepared speech. (The specific

issues that should be included in this speech are detailed in a later chapter.) This is the only speech in the debate that can be

prepared prior to the debate; every speech that follows is a reaction to the lAC. Since the judge knows that this speech is

prepared beforehand, the expectation is that this speaker will be fluent with the speech and knowledgeable about its content

during cross-examination.

First Negative Constructive (lNC): The INC speaker begins the Negative’s attack and strategy in the debate. In recent years,

the standards for what arguments were to be made in this speech have changed quite drastically. Today, this speaker may

choose to:

1. Attack the Affirmative’s plan as un-representative of the resolution to be debated (See Topicality in later chapters);

2. Present arguments against the problems cited by the Affirmative case;

3. Present arguments against the Affirmative plan;

4. Construct an attack that combines any of the above arguments.

Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC): This speaker's job is simple: Answer every argument made by the lNC. Simple,

huh? If any argument made in the INC is not answered in the 2AC, it is considered "dropped" (i.e., conceded to the Negative

team), since the next Affirmative speech following the 2AC is a rebuttal, and (as we covered earlier), new arguments are not

acceptable in rebuttal speeches! After answering all lNC arguments, the 2AC may (if time remains) re-establish the case

arguments made in the lAC or even add new ones (this is, after all, a constructive speech).

Second Negative Constructive (2NC): The 2NC speaker has many options. He/she may “pick up” one or more of the

arguments initiated by the lNC, spending a great deal of time to thoroughly refute all of the 2AC answers to these points. The

fact that the lNC probably initiated several different arguments gives the 2NC much to select from. In addition, he/she may

choose to introduce some new arguments into the debate (issues not begun in the lNC), although this strategy is generally

falling into disfavor with debate judges.

First Negative Rebuttal (1NR): This speaker's job is essentially defined by what the 2NC does. The lNR should extend and

defend all of the lNC issues that were not covered by the 2NC. In other words, the 2NC and lNR should not cover the same

WARNER, AM STUDS

ground. By dividing the arguments between them, they can maximize the effectiveness and potency of the negative block

mentioned earlier.

First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR): The lAR is generally considered to be the most difficult speech in the debate. The task of

the lAR is to answer all of the arguments that were extended in the 2NC and the lNR. In other words, the lAR has to cover 13

minutes' worth or arguments (8 minutes of the 2NC and 5 minutes of the 1NR) in only 5 minutes! Efficient use of time is

essential to this speech; a good 2AC speech can help the lAR greatly by providing good, solid, defensible answers to the lNC

positions.

Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR): This is the Negative's final speech in the debate. The 2NR's job is to isolate the arguments

that he/she feels his team has the best chance of winning, and to make those issue most important in the debate, while

minimizing the importance of the issues that the Negative may be losing. It is important that this speaker choose carefully, as

the Affirmative will always have the last say on these issues.

Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR): This is the final speech of the debate, as well as the Affirmative's last speech. This

speaker should cover all arguments that were extended in the 2NR, showing how they are either really issues for the

Affirmative aide or unimportant to the decision. He/she should also remind the judge of any issues not covered by the 2NR

that might help the Affirmative side.

CROSS-EXAMINATION

The cross-examination periods that follow the constructive speeches are designed to allow a direct exchange between the

debaters (in all other cases, the debaters are speaking to the judge(s), not to each other!). The speaker who has just finished

speaking is required to answer questions from one member of the opposition for a period of up to 3 minutes. It is an

opportunity for the judge to compare the debaters directly. It is also an opportunity to advance your arguments and/or to

minimize the positions taken by your opponents.

It is important to note that most debate judges consider cross-examination to be binding (i.e., the answering team is

committed to stand by whatever position or answer they gave in the cross-exam period), and that answers and/or information

gained in the cross-exam period is generally not considered to be effective until it is actually used in a speech which follows

the questioning.

The functions of cross-examination are:

Clarify: Any misunderstanding or confusion about the arguments in the debate should he clarified in cross-examination. It is

a bad idea to go into a constructive speech of your side1s without being totally clear on exactly what your opponent has

argued. If you don't know--ASK! Clarification can also include clarifying what your opponent did not argue. Any “dropped”

arguments from your side's last speech can be pointed out through cross-examination.

Contest: Any arguments concerning the quality of arguments made, or the evidence used to support them, can be begun in

cross-exam periods. Beginning such arguments at this point forces your opponent to answer them directly, instead of hoping

that they become “lost” in the muddle of a later speech.

Command: The cross-exam period is an excellent chance to show off logical or reasoned arguments, because these arguments

and their answers depend on your ability to think on-the-spot, rather than relying on evidence in files. It is important to avoid

becoming rude or hostile in these situations. Self-control, confidence, and maturity are the key ingredients to establishing

command over the cross-exam period.

CONCLUSION

This, then, is the overview to the process of academic debate. When you step up to the front of the classroom to make your

first debate speech, you will be following a long line of distinguished men and women who have been high school debaters.

Debate in the United States is a unique institution, one that many newly emerging democracies around the world are seeking

to copy as a way of teaching their citizens how to function in an open political system. Whether you become a national

champion or not, you will leave the activity wiser, better educated, and better able to function in a modern world that seems

to keep changing all of the time.

Good luck and good debating!

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BY NOW

WARNER, AM STUDS

1. Be able to re-create the debate format, complete with names, order, and length of speeches.

2. Be able to explain each of the following:

argumentation

persuasion

critical thinking

communication

switch-side debate

Affirmative

Negative

case

plan

research

policy-making

prep time

constructive speech

rebuttal speech

extending arguments

negative block

dropped arguments

cross-examination

Mr. Hartney’s 3 Laws of Debate

Basic Debate Text, Chapter 2

DEBATE AS A PROBLEM-SOLVING ACTIVITY

One way in which debate is used is to decide how to solve a specific problem. The problem may be specific to an individual

family---such as, whether or not to replace the aging family car with a newer model, or how to deal with a shortage in the

family budget. It may be specific to a group of friends---such as, how to cope with a friend with self-destructive habits, or

even what to do for fun on a given night. It may be specific to a community---how to deal with stray dogs, or whether or not

to institute a recycling program. Or it may be a problem that affects an entire country--such as immigration, or health

insurance, or, in the case of the 2002-2003 topic, public health services for mental health.

All problem-solving discussions involve four essential elements:

1. The topic to be discussed

2. The significance of the problem

3. The cause of the problem

4. Solutions to the problem

While the names given to these issues are different when used in the context of competitive debate, the concepts are the same.

The topic to be discussed~--The Resolution

All efficient problem-solving discussions are focused on a central topic. The topic is known to all of the participants in the

discussion, and every effort should be made to limit the discussion to the agreed-upon topic. For example, if the family were

discussing whether to buy a new car, it would not be helpful to lapse into a discussion of the upcoming Presidential elections.

As in any problem-solving discussion, debates on this subject may well drift over into related issues, such as the problem of

paying for additional mental health care, just as the family’s discussion on buying a new car may well drift over into related

issues such as the problem of affording such an expense while paying for a child’s college education, or which members of

the family would be able to use the new car. The resolution serves as a starting point for the discussion. The Affirmative is

expected to provide a policy change that is an example of the resolution. The degree of faithfulness between that resolution

and the example provided by the Affirmative is the issue known as topicality.

The importance of the problem---Significance

The problem being discussed is the reason why the discussion took place at all. If the family car is perfect in every way, few

families will pursue serious discussions on buying another one. It is only when the car begins providing more misery than

help, or when it is no longer adequate for the size or needs of the family that the topic of new car purchases comes up.

Similarly, if there were no substantial problems in mental health today, or if mental health was not a valued concept in our

society, there would be little point in debating this topic. The issue of significance provides the justification for the plan that

is being proposed.

WARNER, AM STUDS

Returning to the family decision on buying a new car, assume that one feature of the new car under discussion is its size,

being capable of carrying more passengers than the old car. A careful analysis of the significance issue would cause us to ask:

(1) how often is the old car too small to carry the number of people needed (i.e., how many instances have there been or will

there be when we need to carry more people. than the old car. will safely transport)? (2) What are the consequences

(inconveniences, extra expenses, missed opportunities, etc.) of not having enough carrying capacity?

Similarly, debaters often divide their discussion of significance into two main elements: the first deals with the total number

of incidents or instances of the problem at hand, and is known as quantitative significance; the second is the harm or damage

caused by the problem,--- and is known as qualitative significance.. The former is normally associated with statistics,

measurements, numbers, or some other quantitative measure---the number of homeless people who are mentally ill, for

example. The latter deals with the total impact of those problems---the ways in which people’s lives are harmed by their

illness, or the consequences to society of having mentally ill persons in such conditions.

It is not uncommon to hear debate cases that treat these two elements of significance as one issue, especially if the available

evidence to support the case deals with both elements in the same quotation(s). It is important to remember, however, that a

good significance argument will have both quantitative and qualitative dimensions to it.

The cause of the problem--Inherency

Any important element of any problem-solving discussion involves why the problem exists. Without knowing the cause of a

problem1 effective solution will be unlikely. Imagine a doctor who treats only the symptoms of illness mentioned by patients,

without trying to find out the cause of the symptom. Such a doctor might try to bring down a patient’s high fever but never

discover the infection that caused the fever in the first place. It is unlikely that any true healing will take place. Similarly,

Affirmative debaters must attempt to isolate the cause of the problem they intend to solve. In debate, this issue is known as

inherency.

According to Webster's, the word inherent means “.. existing in someone or something as a natural and inseparable quality.”

The Affirmative's duty in debate is to identify the characteristic present in the present approach to the problem at hand that

causes the problem to exist. It will be that characteristic that the Affirmative plan will attempt to remedy.

Returning to the example of the family---buying a new car. If the old car cannot hold enough passengers, we should first ask

why it couldn’t hold those persons. If the problem is that the car is too small, and is only designed to carry four passengers,

while the family size has grown to six, the problem is indeed inherent in the present car; it would be difficult if not

impossible to modify the current car to hold six passengers.

If, on the other hand, the problem with the old car is that the father has a habit of leaving all of his tools in the car, thus taking

up so much room that the family can no longer fit in the car, this problem is not inherent. The old car is capable of carrying

enough passengers, if only the extra junk is removed!

Similarly, if individuals who suffer from certain forms of mental illness are denied access to publicly funded psychiatric

hospitals, we must ask why that is happening. The answers to these questions will form the inherency argument of the case.

Traditionally, the Affirmative team may argue three distinct types of inherency: structural barrier, structural gap, and

attitudinal. We will discuss each type separately.

The most well recognized inherency is that of a structural barrier. In this type of position, the Affirmative argues that the

cause of the problem is that some existing law, legislation, regulation, or other type of policy requires the action or condition

that causes the problem. In other words, structural barrier inherency argues that we have “bad law” on the books, which is

creating a problem.

One example of structural barrier inherency might be the military regulations that require medical personnel such as

psychiatrists to report any psychiatric visit to the soldier’s commanding officer. If this reporting serves to deter individuals

from getting needed help, then the case might claim structural barrier inherency. As long as that regulation remains in place,

the problem is likely to continue.

The second form of inherency is structural gap inherency, which is the virtual opposite of structural barrier; this refers to

situations in which the problem is the lack of a law or regulation. In other words, the Affirmative argues that the problem

exists because the status quo has not yet devised or implemented a solution to it. Sometimes this happens because the

problem is so new that there has been inadequate time for policy-makers to deal with it; other times it is that the repeal of an

WARNER, AM STUDS

old law has created some unforeseen circumstances. In either case, the Affirmative argument is that the Affirmative plan

must “fill in” the “gap” in the law.

In the current topic, an example of structural gap inherency might be found on the “parity” case. In many states there is no

law requiring insurance companies to cover psychiatric/mental health care to the same extent that they do cover traditional

medical care. Without such a requirement, insurance companies undercover mental health care, as they wish to make larger

profits. Without such a requirement, change is unlikely to occur. This would argue that there is a “gap” in our current laws,

hence the arguments of structural gap inherency.

The final type of inherency is attitudinal inherency, and is often the most misunderstood. This type of inherency argument

takes the position that the true cause of the problem is the beliefs or attitudes of those persons most critical to the solution of

the problem; this may mean the general public or a specific group of persons. It is this belief or attitude that must then be

overcome through more-or-less coercive legislation.

Mandatory seat belt laws are one example of a response to attitudinal inherency; cars had seat belts for many years, but many

people simply refused to wear them. Laws requiring their use have increased seat belt use somewhat, although usage is still

far from universal.

On the mental health topic, attitudinal inherency is best exemplified in the ADD/ADHD case; some doctors routinely

prescribe the drug Ritalin to any squirmy, non-attentive child whose parents bring him/her in for an appointment. If the

doctor is convinced that ADD/ADHD are “real” conditions and that Ritalin is an effective drug to correct that condition, that

practice is likely to continue. Thus a case which argues that ADD/ADHD are massively over-used diagnoses and that Ritalin

is a dangerous drug to give out so easily might choose to argue that their case is based on attitudinal inherency. The problem

with attitudinal inherency as opposed to the other two types is that it is often much harder to change a belief or an opinion

than it is to change a law. The seat belt law is a good example of this; the fact that it became illegal to not wear a seat belt did

not change people’s behavior overnight.

The reason we attempt to distinguish which type of inherency argument a given Affirmative case uses is that each of these

inherency types would justify a different solution from the Affirmative plan, and can be attacked by the Negative in a

different way. A patient's headaches may be the results of many different medical conditions and a careful doctor will attempt

to discover the “real” cause so that the prescribed cure is likely to be more effective. So, too, a debater must properly analyze

the inherency argument used to determine his or her correct approach.

The solution to the problem--Solvency

Once it has been established what is wrong and why it is wrong, the next step in problem solving is to design a solution. The

analogy of a doctor treating a patient is still relevant; once the symptoms are noted and the cause identified, a cure or

treatment must be designed to deal with the problem.

Debaters deal with solutions to the problems isolated in the Affirmative case through the Affirmative plan; the degree to

which it would be effective in solving or reducing the problem is known as solvency. The Affirmative is responsible for

designing a new law or policy that will address the causes and effects of the problem. They must be fairly specific on exactly

how this policy would operate, and are responsible for providing evidence that shows that this solution is likely to be

somewhat effective. Most judges do not require that the Affirmative prove that their plan will remove 100% of the problem

(after all, what policy or program has ever proven 100% effective in solving anything?), but there must be evidence of a

measurable, definite progress toward a solution.

Obviously, the solution to the problem must be less harmful than the original problem. As the old saying goes, it does very

little good to burn down a barn to get rid of the rats that infest it! Similarly, a solution that creates worse problems that it

solves is also to be rejected.

Common Term Debate Term

Topic Area……………………………………….Resolution

The Problem……………………………………..Significance

The Cause…..……………………………………Inherency

The Solution……………………………………..Solvency

CONSTRUCTING A PRIMA FACIE CASE

WARNER, AM STUDS

According to Webster’s, the term prima facie means “.. adequate to establish a fact unless refuted...” Its literal translation is

“at first look,” and refers to what we think or see of the Affirmative case at first glance, prior to any refutation by the

Negative. The Affirmative is expected to provide a prima facie case in the lAC speech; applying the definition above, a prima

facie case is defined as one that would be accepted as adequate support for the resolution until refuted by the Negative.

The concept of a prima facie case assumes the existence of an impartial critic, one who would assess the Affirmative case to

determine if it is sufficient reason to believe in the need for the plan. This is necessary because of the concept of presumption.

Presumption is the notion that we begin the debate with the assumption that no change in policy is needed or desired; it is up

to the Affirmative team to convince us otherwise. It is analogous to the principle in our courts of law that a defendant is

presumed to be “innocent until proven guilty.” It is up to the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt; that proof must be

sufficient to establish guilt in the mind of an impartial jury until refuted by the defense. A prosecution case lacking such

strength would probably not ever make it to trial.

In debate, presumption would thus lead us to believe that there is no need to buy a new car for the family until it is proven

that a new car is needed. In the area of this year's debate topic, presumption would lead us to conclude that there are no

serious problems with mental health, until the Affirmative proves that there are. We would presume that the present system is

working effectively--until the Affirmative proves that it is not. We would presume that the Affirmative plan would not make

any beneficial difference---until the Affirmative proves that it will.

CONCLUSION

The three elements of a prima facie debate case--significance, inherency, and solvency---have been described briefly in this

chapter. Together they hold up the resolution, or the topic area.

Create a mental picture of an old-fashioned three-legged stool; the seat of the stool is the resolution, and the three legs of

significance, inherency, and solvency support it. Should any of the three legs of the stool be removed or become broken, the

stool will no longer stand; if the seat is removed, it is no longer useful. In this same way, removing or defeating any of the

three prima facie legs of an Affirmative case means that the case will not stand; removing the resolutional seat of the stool

makes it useless. The Affirmative team must be able to win the arguments dealing with all of these parts of their case to win

the debate.


Explain each of the following terms:

resolution

topicality

quantitative significance

qualitative significance

inherency

structural barrier

structural gap

attitudinal inherency

solvency

disadvantage

prima facie

presumption


Debating on the Negative side involves arguing reasons why the Affirmative plan should be rejected or not adopted. The

Affirmative team has a tremendous advantage is being able to select which example of the resolution they will defend in the

round, but they also take on the tremendous task of defending that example on all fronts. If the Affirmative loses any one of

the stock issues in the debate, this is often enough to warrant a vote for the Negative team.

What are the "stock issues"? They include the prima facie issues you learned about in Chapter Two--significance, inherency,

and solvency--but also include two other issues that were mentioned but not developed in that chapter--topicality and

disadvantages.

The "stock issues:

Significance

Inherency

Solvency

Topicality

Disadvantages

The Negative team has many, many weapons they can choose from to attack a particular Affirmative case. Obviously,

different cases will lend themselves better to some of these than others, but the list includes:

WARNER, AM STUDS

1. The proposed plan is not a true example of the resolution; it fails to satisfy all of the terms of the resolution (topicality);

2. The proposed plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution; it provides for actions and policies which are not allowed by

the resolutional wording (extra-topicality);

3. The problem cited is insignificant in a quantitative sense--that is, there are too few examples of the problem to warrant a

major policy change (quantitative significance);

4. The problem cited is insignificant in a qualitative sense--that is, the examples provided; while possibly significant in

number, do not cause any major harm or detriment of any real consequence, and thus do not warrant a major policy change

(qualitative significance);

5. The status quo (the "present system") is already attempting to solve the problem, and already has mechanisms in place

which will solve it, given enough time (inherency);

6. The status quo has mechanisms in place which, given some minor adjustments or modifications---such as increased

funding for a more extensive program---are capable of solving the problem (minor repair);

7. The plan will not solve the problem because its mechanisms will produce no effect or the opposite effect as was desired by

the Affirmative (solvency);

8. The plan will not solve the problem because it only deals with part of the cause of the problem; other factors will continue

unabated, defeating the purpose of the plan (alternate causality);

9. The plan will not solve the problem because it is unworkable from a logistical or realistic perspective (workability);

10. The plan will not solve the problem because it is opposed by those in a position to carry it out, and the enforcement

mechanisms are inadequate to ensure its proper administration (attitudinal barrier/enforcement);

11. The mechanisms of the plan will create unintentional consequences which will be greater in their impacts than the

problem the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to plan mechanics);

12. The effects of the plan will set in motion a series of unintentional consequences which will be greater than the problem

the Affirmative wants to solve (disadvantage linked to solvency);

13. The Affirmative plan would operate better if it were enacted by a different level of government than the one specified in

the resolution, such as state governments instead of the federal government (agent of action counterplan);

14. The Affirmative's advantages could be better achieved by a method of solvency that differs from the Affirmative plan

(method of solvency counterplan);

15. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a different policy which will solve the problem in a more

efficient manner (policy lock counterplan);

16. Enacting the Affirmative plan prevents us from adopting a totally different political or social philosophy that would be

overall more beneficial than simply solving for the problems cited in the case (systematic or utopian counterplan).

17. One or more of the fundamental assumptions of the plan or its supporting arguments and/or rhetoric are flawed and

should be examined and rejected (critique or kritik)

This list includes most of the major options for the Negative team; others may exist for specific Affirmative cases or debate

situations. As debaters gain more in-round experience, they will begin to see ways to attack their opponents' evidence, look

for contradictions in basic Affirmative positions, and other possible attacks.

It is also important to note that most of these options can be combined with any other options on the list. This gives the

Negative an almost infinite number of combinations of strategies. There are also situations where positions may contradict

each other and thus should not be run in the same round. For example, an inherency argument which argues that the status

quo is capable of doing everything the Affirmative plan can do (#5 above) would contradict a disadvantage which stems from

solving the problem (#11 above); it would mean that the Negative was arguing a disadvantage against the status quo as well

as against the Affirmative plan!

WARNER, AM STUDS

TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS

Imagine a tennis match (Fig. 3.1) in which there was no rule requiring the server to place the ball in play in any particular

spot; the server was free to hit the ball anywhere he or she pleased, and the returner obliged the return the serve. Obviously, it

would be in the server's best interest to serve the ball as far away from the returner as possible, even if that meant hitting the

ball in the opposite direction. That way the serve would never be returned, and the server would win every point. Of course,

the returner would do the same whenever he or she had the serve, so the entire game would be pointless!

Figure 3.1

Similarly, there would be little point in conducting a debate contest if there were no boundaries on the particular case and

plan that the Affirmative could propose. By being unrestrained in its scope of argument, the Affirmative would almost always

be able to prove that something was wrong in the world, and that something ought to be done about it.

Topicality is the most basic of all Affirmative burdens, and it is there that the Negative should begin its search for arguments

against a case. If the case proposed by the Affirmative is not within the boundaries of the resolution, that argument should be

vigorously advanced by the Negative.

Unlike the tennis match, the area described by the topic is not a square within the overall court, but is best imagined as a

circle within a broad field. (Fig. 3.2) The broad field includes all of the policy options which might be exercised: solutions to

different problems1 solutions that might be proposed by the Affirmative, other solutions to the Affirmative's problem, and

taking no action at all. The circle includes all possible interpretations of the resolution; the Affirmative may propose any

policy that reasonably would fit within the circle. The area outside the circle then is everything other than the resolution, and

the Negative is free to make whatever arguments it deems necessary within that field.

Like the tennis match, the debate process creates a situation whereby the Affirmative is required to "Put the ball in play"

inside a specified area. But instead of visible lines drawn on a playing surface, the debate process creates limits by words and

ideas. The resolution is very specific in its wording; the national committee which writes the national debate topic takes great

care in selecting the words that make up the resolution. Those words--or, more precisely, the ideas which are suggested by

those words (i.e., the definitions of the words) provide the line's of the debate topic. And, like any good idea, the definitions

and meanings of words can be debated.

We can debate within the round, for example, what the term "increase" implies--does "increase" mean an enlargement of

something that already exists, or could the Affirmative supply something that does not yet exist? Is it an "increase" if they

prevents a future decrease? Similarly, we can debate about what is included in the term "mental health;" most sources would

classify conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders as "mental health" issues, but what about addictive behavior?

What about dangerous hobbies? These and many other differences of interpretation can occur in Topicality debates.

In general, the Negative team usually attempts to promote definitions of key terms which are relatively narrow and which

exclude some ideas or policies which might be implied by the resolution, while the Affirmative will usually promote

definitions which tend to give them more leeway in deciding which cases are "in" the topic. At the very least, they will

promote definitions which put their example of the resolution inside the wording circle.

If the Negative succeeds in having their definitions and thus their interpretation of the resolution accepted, this would have

two effects on the debate, both of which benefit the Negative side.

(1) Narrow definitions make the "size of the circle" smaller, thereby making it more difficult for the Affirmative to craft a

good case which fits within that circle. The same effect would be achieved in tennis by making the service court smaller; it

would be more difficult for the server to place the serve within the prescribed area. (2) Narrow definitions make the

Negative's job easier in preparing - for the debates, by excluding some items that might otherwise be debated. If the

Negative's definitions reduce the number of possible Affirmative cases from 50 to 30, they have substantially reduced the

amount of research that must be done. The same effect is achieved in tennis with a smaller serving area; the returner has less

ground to cover, and is thus better able to be in the proper position to return the serve.

Therefore, unlike a tennis match, where the size of the serving area will remain constant from match to match or even from

one tennis court to another, the size of the circle may change from one debate to another, depending on the skills of the

debaters in the round. In one debate, the Affirmative team may be more skillful in debating Topicality, and will enlarge the

circle greatly. In another, the Negative may be better on this issue, and will restrict the area of debate.

WARNER, AM STUDS

In any case, the issue of Topicality is of vital importance to the Affirmative, as it is generally considered to be a voting issue

(an issue that, if lost by the Affirmative, is enough to give the Negative team a win, even if all other issues are decided for the

Affirmative). For this reason, Topicality is an issue that must be given great attention by both teams in the debate.

SIGNIFICANCE REDUCTION ARGUMENTS:

SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY, SOLVENCY & COUNTERPLANS

The main goal of the Affirmative team is to convince the judge(s) that there is a serious enough problem with the status quo

that we need to enact a new policy to try to correct the problem.

The Negative team can help its chances of winning the debate if it can substantially reduce the judge(s) perception of the

seriousness of the problem and/or reduce the degree or amount of improvement that would be achieved by adopting the

Affirmative plan. By reducing the significance of the Affirmative case, the need for change becomes less compelling. The

Negative has four main tactics for accomplishing this.

Attacks on Significance

The most direct approach is to try to deny that the problem is as serious as initially presented. In some cases, this may

initially seem difficult, but virtually every topic has the potential for argumentation in this area.

For example, the Negative might be able to argue that the incidence of "mental illness" has been vastly overestimated in the

media; some estimates claim that up to 20% of the population suffers from a serious mental disorder, and that only 20% are

functioning free from any form of disorder. This estimate has been disputed and criticized as being unrealistic and subjective;

other estimates can be attacked as being the basis for requests for larger budgets for mental health agencies and thus not

trustworthy.

Another possibility lies in the seriousness (qualitative) issue. Not all mental disorders are equally serious, life threatening, or

life disrupting. If the Affirmative case has chosen to focus on one specific mental disorder that is relatively benign (to avoid

some larger Negative attacks), the Negative may be able to argue that the qualitative significance of the case does not justify

a full-blown federal program to deal with it.

Attacks on Inherency

In many parts of the country, it has become somewhat rare for the Negative to put much time into arguing inherency, as it is

mistakenly believed that doing so automatically makes other, more effective (and fun?) arguments less effective. But careful

attention to arguing inherency can allow the Negative to damage the significance of the case and make other attacks as well.

The logic of attacking inherency can be seen by referring back to our previous example (in Chapter Two) of the decision on

buying a new car. The old car may not operate well, but it may well be less expensive to fix the problems with the old car

than to buy a new one. If the car will not start, it could be that the car simply needs a tune-up, a relatively inexpensive

procedure. Or if the car stops running, it could simply be out of gas. Most families do not buy a new car every time the old

one fails to operate as it should; they buy a new car when it costs more to fix the old-one than to buy a new one.

The same logic applies to government programs. If the current program has not yet solved the problem at hand, it would be

well to answer the question "Why has it failed?" If the problem is that the current policy has not yet had enough time to be

fully effective, that would not justify scrapping that policy and implementing a new one. Nor would it be justified if the old

problem could be altered in some minor way to be more effective. In either case, the Negative can argue that we should give

the current policy a chance to prove itself before making changes.

Thus, in debating inherency, the Negative is arguing not about what the status quo situation is (which was the argument

above on significance), but rather on what the status quo can become, given the time and patience to see it through. This has

the same effect on the round as the significance argument; it narrows the gap between what we have now (line A) and what

we will have as a result of the Affirmative plan (line B).

The first step to debating inherency is to examine what the status quo is already doing to solve the problem. In many cases

that I can recall over the past few years, the Affirmative team presents a harm that has already been remedied by the present

system. In some cases, the new policy has been enacted but is not yet in effect; in others, the policy is in effect and is

currently reducing the problem (it is, after all, quite rare to find a problem that can be instantly corrected by any policy--these

things take time!). Over the past century, a substantial number of laws and programs have been established at both the federal

WARNER, AM STUDS

and state levels to provide public health services for mental health care. A Negative team that researches current laws and

policies may be able to demonstrate that no new solution is necessary; all we need to do is wait for a current policy to work

as it is designed to do. There are certainly risks and problems with this type of argument (see the uniqueness discussion in a

later chapter on Disadvantages) but it is a strategy worth preparing.

A different and somewhat more controversial inherency argument is the minor repair. Under this strategy, the Negative

argues that there are programs already existing in the status quo which could solve the problem, provided some relatively

"minor changes" are made in the programs. Usually, these changes involve issues of scope or size. The Negative argues that

current isolated programs, spread into a much wider or more comprehensive program, would be capable of solving the

problems as well as--or better--than the Affirmative plan. Note that this strategy involves admitting that at least some change

in the status quo is necessary; doing so is in conflict with the "traditional" role of the Negative as the defender of the status

quo. However, that view of Negative obligation is not nearly as popular or strong as it was in past years. In modern debate, it

is quite common for the Negative to not support the status quo but still oppose the Affirmative plan.

Attacks on Solvency

The issue of solvency is quite simple; the Affirmative team must prove that the policy they propose will do what they say it

will do. In other words, they must prove that their policy works; it must either reduce or eliminate the harm(s) that were

developed in the significance section of the Affirmative case. Failure to do so means that the Affirmative plan will not move

us further away from the status quo, but instead leave us back where we started, or (in cases where the Negative reduces but

does not totally defeat the Affirmative's solvency claims) at least closer to the status quo than originally claimed.

This concept is so fundamental to any rational or logical-thinking person---after all, if you are asked to buy a new product,

don't you ask for some reasonable proof that it works?--but is often under-utilized by many Negative teams. Solvency

arguments generally fall into four major categories: simple solvency, alternate causality, workability, and attitudinal

barriers/enforcement.

Solvency mechanism arguments are usually attacks on the specific method or policy that the Affirmative uses in their plan.

Simple solvency argues that the suggested policy is ineffective in its operation or design; for example, if the Affirmative plan

is to require a brain scan of any child where diagnosis of ADD/ADHD and/or a prescription of Ritalin is contemplated, the

Negative might argue that such brain scans are only accurate in their diagnosis about 65% of the time. Alternate causality

arguments maintain that the Affirmative has cited a problem with many causes but the plan only addresses one or a few of

them; this the problem will likely continue unabated. For example, schizophrenia is one of the leading causes of

homelessness in the US, but it is not the only cause. If the Affirmative plan deals with schizophrenia but claims to

substantially reduce homelessness, the Negative might argue that other factors will continue to keep millions of people on the

streets.

Workability arguments suggest that the plan might work in theory but not in practice, due to unforeseen problems. For

example, the plan might call for putting counselors in all schools specially trained in the detection of violent tendencies in

children and the therapy techniques to overcome those tendencies; if the Negative can show that the supply of trained

counselors is critically low and that few people are interested in entering this profession, they can argue that solvency will not

be achieved because of this shortage. Finally, attitudinal barriers/enforcement arguments state that attitudes and prejudices

(often the same ones stipulated in the Affirmative's attitudinal inherency) may prevent achieving a sufficient level of

solvency. For example, one Affirmative case argues that in the US military forces, any soldier who seeks out treatment from

a staff psychiatrist or psychologist is routinely reported to his/her commanding officer, and that this knowledge prevents

many soldiers needing help from seeking it. However, even if the plan mandates confidentiality, if the soldier does not

believe that his/her visits will be kept secret, he/she is still unlikely to go and receive needed help. Thus each of these

arguments could help to reduce the solvency of the Affirmative case and thus reduce their rationale for adopting their plan.

Counterplans

As the name implies, a counterplan is simply a plan which will counter the Affirmative proposal. It argues that adopting the

Affirmative plan is not necessary or desirable because there is a better solution available. The Negative then proposes that

"better solution" and much of the debate now centers on a comparison, not of the Affirmative plan versus the status quo

(which is the scenario in the First Affirmative Constructive), but of the Affirmative plan versus the Negative plan.

The Negative's counterplan must compete with the Affirmative plan (i.e., it must force us to choose between the Affirmative

plan and the counterplan). For example, if the Affirmative plan is to have the federal government build more community

mental health centers, the Negative might propose that state governments should build them instead. Doing this would

(according to the Negative) avoid a financial crisis in the federal budget, and thus the counterplan is the more rational choice.

WARNER, AM STUDS

If, at the end of the debate, the judge decides that we could do both the Affirmative plan and the counterplan, then there is no

valid reason to reject the Affirmative plan, and the Affirmative should win that issue. There are definite ways to accomplish

this, and the existence of a counterplan in a debate round fundamentally changes the dynamics of the debate.

DISADVANTAGES

What is probably the most popular Negative strategy involves the use of disadvantages, or problems created by the workings

of or the result of the Affirmative plan. The fundamental philosophy of the policy disadvantage was expressed by past ABC

anchorman Eric Severiad, who once observed that "The cause of most problems in the world is solutions to other problems."

Put another way, disadvantages ask the rhetorical question: "Does it make any sense to burn down the barn in order to get rid

of the rats?"

The Negative strategy on disadvantages is that the Affirmative plan will cause problems , which are, individually or

collectively, greater than the advantages gained by that plan. In other words, the Negative wants to show that we will be, on

balance, worse off instead of better off with the plan compared to the status quo.

Disadvantages can come from almost any issue within the debate; against a policy to dealert US nuclear weapons, the

Negative might argue that US allies (such as Japan and Germany) might feel vulnerable without such a strong US presence,

and would seek to develop nuclear weapons of its own. The harms from having even more nuclear armed countries in the

world (especially Japan and Germany, against whom many countries of the world have deep-seeded hostilities left over from

WWII) must then be balanced against the benefits of the Affirmative policy.

CRITIQUE OR KRITIK

A final form of argumentation involves challenging a fundamental (and usually unspoken) assumption (warrant) of the

Affirmative case or challenging the manner in which the Affirmative advocates their position(s). This critique (debaters often

use the German spelling of kritik to acknowledge that many of these arguments are derived from German philosophers) is

presented as a reason to reject the entirety of the Affirmative case, and usually argues that the advantages or disadvantages of

the Affirmative case are really irrelevant to any real consideration of issues, and that we should look to these critical/kritikal

issues before anything else. One popular kritik on this year's topic will involve a challenge to the legitimacy of the psychiatric

profession; if psychiatry itself is a fraud, as some argue, then any policy to further the reach of this profession is also

fraudulent.

NEGATIVE STRATEGY: PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

As you can see, the Negative team has many possible options in their attack on a specific Affirmative case. Indeed, if all of

the possible arguments were used, they would consume many times the sixteen minutes of constructive speech time allotted

to the Negative team in each debate. Moreover, each individual Affirmative case will be more or less vulnerable to different

tactics. Therefore, it is important that debaters develop the habit of forming a Negative strategy.

A Negative strategy is simply a team decision on which arguments the team will try to run against a particular Affirmative

case and/or Affirmative team. It is a process of considering the available arguments, deciding which ones are more likely to

be successful and which arguments "fit" well together. It is not unlike the task that faces the editor of a publication, who is

faced with more publishable material than can be used in the publication, but it is also similar to the job of a physician, who

must design a curative strategy for a patient in such a way that the prescribed treatments and procedures work with each

other, not against each other.

For example, the Negative may have what it feels is a good Topicality violation that it can advance against a particular case;

it may also have some good significance, inherency and/or solvency arguments to make. Advancing both arguments in the

same round may prove ineffective, however. The Topicality argument indicates that the Affirmative case is so far out of the

acceptable standards for the resolution that it would be unreasonable to expect the Negative to have specific evidence on it;

the second set of arguments indicate that the negative team did research and gather evidence on the subject. While the

contradiction is not automatic or absolute, running both arguments in the same round may reduce the overall effectiveness of

the strategy.

Similarly, the Negative may have some excellent inherency evidence on a case, indicating that the status quo is already

implementing a policy very similar to the one proposed by the Affirmative. It may also have a disadvantage which argues

that implementing that policy would be overall harmful to the United States. Running both arguments in the same debate

would put the Negative in the position or arguing that the status quo---the system traditionally upheld by the Negative---is

WARNER, AM STUDS

implementing a harmful policy. Again, there may be ways to stand by both positions, but a different strategy choice may be

more effective.

Thus a good Negative strategy can help your debating in two ways. First, it will enable you to make the maximum use of

your speech time, by running those arguments most likely to be effective and ignoring those which are less potent against a

specific team or case. Second, it will improve the. viability of each argument within the strategy by minimizing

contradictions that will discredit one or more of your arguments.

The best time to formulate a Negative strategy is before the tournament starts (remember Hartney1s Second Law of Debate

from Chapter One?). Thorough brainstorming about possible cases you might encounter and careful and objective evaluation

of your options will enable you to prepare for many debates before they ever occur.

Even the best-prepared teams, however, are occasionally faced with something they did not prepare, and in those cases, the

Negative strategy must be formed in the round itself. The key is that both members of the team must understand and

participate in the strategy for it to work for you.

CONCLUSION

The bottom line is that debate is a thinking activity, one in which strategy is vitally important. One former student referred to

debate as "verbal chess," and that metaphor is particularly apt. A policy debate is a series of twelve speeches and questioning

periods; arguments and strategies evolve and develop during the course of the round. Each speech involves both action

(making arguments of one's own) as well as reaction (adjusting to the arguments made by the opposition). Successful

competition depends on being well versed in the mechanics of your arguments, and a good strategy on when and how to use

them.


Be able to define each of the following terms with respect to its use within a policy debate contest:

stock issues

topicality

extra-topicality

minor repair

simple solvency

alternate causality

workability

attitudinal barrier/enforcement

disadvantage linked to plan mechanics

disadvantage linked to solvency

kritik

counterplan

agent of action counterplan

method of solvency counterplan

policy lock counterplan

systematic or utopian counterplan

voting issue

Negative strategy

WARNER, AM STUDS

Page 1

Basic Debate
















THE DEBATE PROCESS




both.










problem(s).
















WARNER, AM STUDS

Page 2


be successful.




























SPEECH TIME LIMIT


















WARNER, AM STUDS

Page 3













SPEECH ORDER




















choose to:

















WARNER, AM STUDS

Page 4


mentioned earlier.





positions.









CROSS-EXAMINATION









the questioning.













CONCLUSION









WARNER, AM STUDS

Page 5



argumentation

persuasion

critical thinking

communication

switch-side debate

Affirmative

Negative

case

plan

research

policy-making

prep time

constructive speech

rebuttal speech

extending arguments

negative block

dropped arguments

cross-examination
































is being proposed.

WARNER, AM STUDS

Page 6





















inherency.


















creating a problem.









WARNER, AM STUDS

Page 7














far from universal.


































WARNER, AM STUDS

Page 8

















CONCLUSION








the debate.



resolution

topicality



inherency

structural barrier

structural gap


solvency

disadvantage

prima facie

presumption








disadvantages.

The "stock issues:

Significance

Inherency

Solvency

Topicality

Disadvantages



WARNER, AM STUDS

Page 9











































WARNER, AM STUDS

Page 10







Figure 3.1









































WARNER, AM STUDS

Page 11



















trustworthy.




























WARNER, AM STUDS

Page 12













Attacks on Solvency


















streets.












Counterplans









WARNER, AM STUDS

Page 13




DISADVANTAGES





of the rats?"









CRITIQUE OR KRITIK








fraudulent.


















the strategy.





WARNER, AM STUDS

Page 14


more effective.











CONCLUSION






them.



stock issues

topicality

extra-topicality

minor repair

simple solvency

alternate causality

workability




kritik

counterplan





voting issue

Negative strategy