Policy Debate Details, Meaning Policy Debate Article and Explanation Guide

Policy Debate Guide, Meaning , Facts, Information and Description

Policy Debate (also known as Cross-Examination Debate) is a form of speech competition. See Debate for other types of debate competition. High school policy debate is sponsored by the National Forensic League, the National Catholic Forensic League or one of the regional speech organizations. Collegate debates are generally competed under the guidlines of the National Debate Tournament (NDT), the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA), or the National Educational Debate Association (NEDA).

Table of contents

1 Description
2 Judging
3 Resolutions

3.1 Recent NFL high school resolutions
3.2 Recent CEDA-NDT intercollegate resolutions

4 Event Structure

Description

Debate topics (resolutions) are selected annually by ballot of the coaches of affiliated schools, and a single topic is debated by affiliated students nationally for the entire season.

Policy debate involves the analysis of a policy-oriented, rather than philosophically-oriented question (as in Lincoln-Douglas Debate). The debate is conducted by teams of two people, alternating speeches for their side.

In policy debate, emphasis is place upon well-researched arguments , and it is necessary for the affirmative to advocate a plan by which the resolution can be affirmed. The negative attacks this plan through various methods of their choice.

Judging

Judging policy debate can be challenging. The total time available is short, the issues are complex and the judge may have personal beliefs that cloud impartiality. Additionally, underlying pedagogical considerations result in widely varying speech practices which may challenge judging.

Competative policy debate is uniformly seen as an educational activity. Students are provided with a long-term opportunity to research a topic, prepare a case, and defend that case against attackers, or to attack the case prepared by others. Beyond this common basis, a division of purpose results in opposing debate "styles" which can challenge judges.

Some coaches, and institutions see a secondary purpose of policy debate to be the clear, eloquent presentation of elaborate issues. These coaches and circuits tend to use judges without extensive debate experiance as part of "the game." These circuits tend towards a slower, more oratorical speaking style, and to arguments which bear directly on the evidence raised by the opposing team.

Another school of coaches and institutions see the secondary purpose of debate as the analysis and execution of complex argumentation. These coaches and circuits tend to restrict lay judges to novice or lower class events, requiring judges in upper division events to have debate experiance and occasionally certification. These circuits tend towards very high speed presentation of material in order to present as full and complex an argument as possible and to argue in favor of "technical" judging criteria. This group of debators and coaches frequently use arguments which do not directly bear on the case raised.

This stylistic difference has been a source of considerable controversy in the debate community since the 1970s.

Resolutions

Recent NFL high school resolutions

Resolved: That the United States federal government should establish a foreign policy substantially increasing its support of United Nations peacekeeping operations. (2004-2005)

Resolved: That the United States Federal government should establish an ocean policy substantially increasing the protection of marine natural resources. (2003-2004)

Resolved: That the United States federal government should substantially increase public health services for mental health care in the United States. (2002-2003)

Resolved: That the United States federal government should establish a foreign policy significantly limiting the use of weapons of mass destruction. (2001-2002)

Resolved: That the United States federal government should significantly increase protection of privacy in the United States in one or more of the following areas: employment, medical records, consumer information, search & seizure. (2000-2001)

Resolved: That the federal government should establish an education policy to significantly increase academic achievement in secondary schools in the United States. (1999-2000)

Resolved: That the United States should substantially change its foreign policy toward Russia. (1998-1999)

Recent CEDA-NDT intercollegate resolutions

(2003-2004) Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should enact one or more of the following:

Withdrawal of its World Trade Organization complaint against the European Union’s restrictions on genetically modified foods;
A substantial increase in its government-to-government economic and/or conflict prevention assistance to Turkey and/or Greece;
Full withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization;
Removal of its barriers to and encouragement of substantial European Union and/or North Atlantic Treaty Organization participation in peacekeeping in Iraq and reconstruction in Iraq;
Removal of its tactical nuclear weapons from Europe;
Harmonization of its intellectual property law with the European Union in the area of human DNA sequences;
Rescission of all or nearly all agriculture subsidy increases in the 2002 Farm Bill.

(2002-2003) Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should ratify or accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
The Kyoto Protocol;
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;
The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.

(2001-2002) Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should substantially increase federal control throughout Indian Country in one or more of the following areas: child welfare, criminal justice, employment, environmental protection, gaming, resource management, taxation.

(2000-2001) Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its development assistance, including government to government assistance, within the Greater Horn of Africa.

Event Structure

The exact procedure of the debate may vary depending on the sponsoring body. The order of speeches is invarient. The speeches description, and the speech times (under NFL rules) are as follows:

First Affirmative Constructive Speech (abbreviated 1AC)	8 minutes
Cross-Examination of First Affirmative by Second Negative	3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (1NC)	8 minutes
Cross-Examination of First Negative by First Affirmative	3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC)	8 minutes
Cross-Examination of Second Affirmative by First Negative	3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC)	8 minutes
Cross-Examination of Second Negative by Second Affirmative	3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR)	5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR)	5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR)	5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR)	5 minutes

In college debates, constructive speeches are nine minutes, and rebuttals are six minutes.

In addition to speeches, policy debates may allow for a certain amount of preparation time, or "prep time," during a debate round. NFL rules call for 5 minutes of total prep time that can be used. College debates typically have 10 minutes of preperation time. The preparation time is used at each team's preference; they can use different amounts of preparation time before any of their speeches, or even none at all.

This is an Article on Policy Debate. Page Contains Information, Facts Details or Explanation Guide About Policy Debate