Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
For example, because the Affirmative usually runs a case and has to demonstrate stock issue burdens have been cleared, running a values-versus-virtue debate on the Negative to shift the debate's qualitative format and tone to Lincoln-Douglas steals ground from policy debate.
In addition to speeches, policy debates may allow for a certain amount of preparation time, or "prep time", during a debate round. NSDA rules call for five minutes of total prep time that can be used, although in practice high school debate tournaments often give eight minutes of prep time. College debates typically have 10 minutes of ...
Policy debate, different from debating policy plans, is a "pure" values debate about which resolutions are best or better than the given resolution's stated policy goals. The bright-line debate between some of the adversarial groups' modern classical issues is narrow and difficult to debate for the uninitiated debate club.
One traditional way to judge policy debate is to judge the Affirmative on four issues or burdens to meet, called the stock issues. The four stock issues are modeled after U.S. court procedural aspects of administrative law in deciding cases (as opposed to Constitutional controversies): ill (Harm), blame (Inherency), cure (Solvency), cost ...
Stock Issues: Will ideally vote mainly based on the affirmative case's stock issues, and will usually vote negative if the affirmative has lost at least one of them. Policymaker : Will see whichever team has the most net beneficial policy option as the winner.
In policy debate, a disadvantage (here abbreviated as DA) is an argument that a team brings up against a policy action that is being considered. [1] A disadvantage is also used in the Lincoln-Douglas debate format. [2]
She proposed that there should be one debate in June, "after Donald Trump’s New York criminal trial is likely to be over and after President Biden returns from meeting with world leaders at the ...
Topicality is a resolution issue in policy debate which pertains to whether or not the plan affirms the resolution as worded. [1] To contest the topicality of the affirmative, the negative interprets a word or words in the resolution and argues that the affirmative does not meet that definition, that the interpretation is preferable, and that non-topicality should be a voting issue.