Links to Other Sites
The Kanto Plains Rule Book
Back to Debate
Back to Teams
Back to Fruit Home
A Debate has a classical form, almost like a ballet, that is followed. It is not just an "argument." In general, the Affirmative team is constructed the "pyramid" of logic. If any level of the pyramid is upset, the whole comes tumbling down (ie, the negative wins) because the system itself (in our case, the Federal Government) is already assumed to be working on the problem.
___________________________________________________________ FIRST AFFIRMATIVE --------------------------------------------------------- An introduction before or after Part A. in any speech is optional. --------------------------------------------------------- (The speech may begin with an introduction.) A. The First Affirmative first defines the terms of the resolution: "Resolved: The United States government should reduce worldwide pollution through its trade and/or aid policies." This usually consists of defining every word, including "and," with dictionary quotations. --------------------------------------------------- B. Next, the First Affirmative speaker defines at least one "harm" caused by the status quo. The Harms should be "significant," meaning whatever is defined above.* 1. The speaker gives card evidence that this harm exists. 2. The speaker gives evidence that each other harm exists. C. Next, the first speaker gives his "Needs," things that must be done to improve the situation. 1. The speaker gives card evidence to support this. 2. More card evidence is given for each need. (*Usually significancy is assumed by the Affirmative unless challenged, but the Affirmative should have a defense prepared). ------------------------------------------------ (OPTIONAL, the speaker may explain the "Inherent Block," the reason why the system cannot solve the problem itself. Inherent Blocks may be of two categories: (1. Attitudinal: meaning people are just not mentally up to solving the problem. Card evidence is given for this. (2. Systemic: meaning the system is just so flawed that it cannot solve the problem. Card evidence is given. (*Usually the Inherency is assumed by the Affirmative unless challenged, but the Affirmative should have a defense prepared. Kinnick ALWAYS attacks Inherency.) ----------------------------------------------- D. The first speaker briefly outlines the "Plan." 1. The plan must satisfy the Needs. 2. The Needs must satisfy the Harms. 3. Mention (briefly) must be made of funding. (Usually little or no evidence is given on the plan in this speech unless there's plenty of time yet to go into it.) ------------------------------------------------ (E. TOPICALITY is a rare area of challenge. This is essentially a statement that the Affirmative is trying to solve something other than the problem or using means outside its disposal. Kinnick ALWAYS challenges Topicality).
_______________________________________________________ SECOND NEGATIVE: The Second Negative follows up on the First Negative. His task is similar, defend the status quo (as explained above and cut and pasted below), and A. As should follow, the Second Negative can attack any of the major sections outlined above, meaning: 1. Definitions 2. Harms 3. Needs 4. Significance 5. Inherent Blocks 6. Plan, including funding 7. Solvency. 8. Workability. 9. Planks a.... 10.Topicality These attacks can focus on any of the following approaches or a combination: a. lack of logical sense (it doesn't fit together); b. lack of evidence or possession of counter-evidence; c. misquotations or misinterpretations; d. counter-interpretations of the evidence; e. counter Harms (the solution works but it creates worse problems than it solves); B. The Second Negative also can (though doesn't necessarily have to) defend the "status quo," proving that the status quo will eventually solve the problem. 1. Evidence cards need to be produced to show this. C. Generally, the second negative, also "concentrates the Debate" on several key issues (more or less because the other issues are lost). THIS IS THE LAST SPEECH IN WHICH NEW ARGUMENTS MAY BE INTRODUCED. __________________________________________________________ FOURTH CROSS-EXAMINATION: Whichever Affirmative speaker has not spoken gets a chance to do cross-examination which is the same as it is explained above.
_______________________________________________________
Five Minute Break
__________________________________________________________
FIRST NEGATIVE REBUTTAL: The purpose of all the rebuttals is basically to reiterate earlier arguments in the Debate. By now, the Debate usually hangs on one or two issues (ie the plan, Inherency, etc.) and the rebuttal concentrates on a winning argument on one or two issues. NEW EVIDENCE, but NOT NEW ARGUMENTS, may be introduced. ___________________________________________________ FIRST AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL: This follows the same format as the first negative rebuttal. Again, Affirmative must build an entire pyramid, so every major area of attack MUST be defended in one rebuttal or another. NEW EVIDENCE, but NOT NEW ARGUMENTS, may be introduced.
_______________________________________________________ SECOND NEGATIVE REBUTTAL: This is the negative's last chance to put at least one hole into the pyramid. This is also a time to summarize any (probable) victories the negative has made to remind the judge. NEW EVIDENCE, but NOT NEW ARGUMENTS, may be introduced.
_______________________________________________________ SECOND AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL: This is the affirmative's last chance. Every hole must be filled or negative wins, and there must be a plan that improves on the status quo. NEW EVIDENCE, but NOT NEW ARGUMENTS, may be introduced.
--------------- ----------------------------
The Affirmative Pyramid
A Counterplan is a Negative Team's method of attacking an affirmative team's plan without attacking it directly.
A counterplan team ACCEPTS affirmative's analysis of the problem, does not deny the acceptability of the resolution. The counterplan team, however, comes up with a NON-TOPICAL plan that CANNOT EXIST SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN. This means, for example, that the Negative decides that the problem exists, but that the Federal Government is not the one to solve the problem, instead the States should solve the problem. In other words, the Negative "steals" the bottom layers of the Affirmative's pyramid (sometimes even the Harms and Needs), but builds another pyramid on top, so we have two pyramids under construction
A Counter Plan Pyramid.
In this situation, the roles above become the same for both teams. With no even bothering to defend the status quo, each side concentrates on proving the benefits of its own pyramid and attacking those of its enemy's. It's quite possible that both pyramids will be standing at the end. The judge, then, must decide which pyramid BETTER SOLVES THE PROBLEM.