Debate Form

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).

_________________________________________________________
FIRST CROSS EXAMINATION: The First Negative or Second Negative asks questions to First Affirmative. Note that any deficiencies in logic or planning must followed up in subsequent speeches, or they are ignored by the judge.

_________________________________________________________
FIRST NEGATIVE SPEAKER: Generally, the First Negative speaker has two duties: One, he must find holes in the First Affirmative's argument; Two, he must defend the "status quo."
A. As should follow, the First 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:
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 same evidence;
e. counter Harms (the solution works, but it creates worse problems than it solves);
-Evidence cards, of course, are needed.
B. The First 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.
2. If the Negative NEVER defends the status quo, but demolishes the Affirmative at any level, the Negative wins.
______________________________________________________
SECOND CROSS-EXAMINATION: The First Affirmative or Second Affirmative has the task of question the First Negative speaker. Again, anything interesting uncovered must be followed up in a following speech.

______________________________________________________
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE: The Second Affirmative has two basic tasks: patching up the previous arguments and detailing the plan. Usually, the stronger speaker is the Second Affirmative as this task is more difficult.
A. Any parts of the previous structure that have been challenged in the First Negative speech have to be repaired. So if all the Harms have been challenged, the Second Affirmative has to defend (though remember only one harm and need are enough to win).
B. The second affirmative must give more details on the plan. The following areas are most important:
1. Solvency: This usually involved money. The Second Affirmative has to show that the money can be found without causing additional new problems (very important in an era of a gigantic national debt).
a. Again, cards are needed.
2. Workability: The plan must be workable. Often, finding a working model in real life is helpful.
a. Again, cards are needed.
3. The plan is usually explained in "planks" (though the word isn't important) and in this order.
a. "Plank one"
-evidence cards
c. "Plank two," which builds on "Plank one"
-evidence cards.
d.....(etc.)
___________________________________________
THIRD CROSS-EXAMINATION: Whichever Negative speaker has not spoken gets a chance to do cross-examination which is the same as it is explained above.

_______________________________________________________
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

Victory!!
Solvency ($)-
Plan Plank 2----
Plan Plank 1---------
--Inherency---------------
-----Significance of remedy-------
-------Needs for changes in system------
-----------Harms of Status Quo-----------------
---------------------Definitions----------(Topicality)
(note that each level will need evidence)
(Also, the Pyramid doesn't line up well in HTML.)

Prime Negative Methods/Areas of Attack in any Debate:

1. Logical Flaws
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'
2. counter Harms (the solution works but it creates worse problems than it solves)
-Evidence cards, of course, are needed.
3. Defending the status quo as better than the solution.

The Insidious COUNTER PLAN

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.

Victory!!*
Solvency ($)*-
Counterplan Plank 2*----
Counterplan Plank 1*---------
--Inherency*---------------
-----Significance of remedy*-------
-------Needs for changes in system**------
-------Harms of Status Quo(a)-----------------
----------Definitions(a)-------------------------
(note that each level will need evidence)
* new
** optionally accepted by the negative or new
(a)accepted from the Affirmative Team.

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.