Clash!

Clash!
A Guide to Effective Debating

Clash! A Guide to Effective Debating ..................................... 1
Introduction: Why Debate?....................................................... 3
Chapter 1: Introduction to Debate............................................. 5
1.1 The Resolution ................................................................ 5
Questions for Section 1.1.................................................. 6
1.2 Contentions ..................................................................... 6
Questions for Section 1.2.................................................. 8
1.3 Speeches and Cross-Examination ................................... 8
Questions for Section 1.3................................................ 10
1.4 Claims, Warrants, and Impacts ..................................... 10
1.5 Refutation...................................................................... 12
1.6 Flowing ......................................................................... 13
1.7 Signposting ................................................................... 18
Chapter 2: The Basics of Policy Debate ................................. 20
2.1 Introduction to Policy Debate ....................................... 20
2.2 Plans and Topicality...................................................... 22
2.3 Stock Issues................................................................... 25
2.4 Cards ............................................................................. 27
Sample Advantage (Immigrant Health Care) ................. 28
2.5 Negative Disadvantages................................................ 33
Sample DA (Spending DA 1NC).................................... 35
Copyright 2009 Kathryn Kernoff
2.6 On- and Off-Case Arguments ....................................... 39

2.7 Extending Arguments ................................................... 41
Chapter 3: The Basics of Lincoln-Douglas Debate ................ 45
3.1 Introduction to Lincoln-Douglas Debate ...................... 45
3.2 The Civil Disobedience Topic ...................................... 47
3.3 Values and Value Criteria............................................. 49
3.4 Social Contract Theory ................................................. 51
3.5 The Affirmative Constructive ....................................... 53
3.6 The Negative Constructive ........................................... 56
3.7 Rebuttals in LD ............................................................. 58
Chapter 4: Clash...................................................................... 61
4.1 Cross-Examination........................................................ 61
4.2 Refuting Revisited ........................................................ 63
4.3 Turns ............................................................................. 65
4.4 Extending Offense and Rebuilding............................... 67
4.5 Necessary and Sufficient............................................... 68
4.6 Blocks ........................................................................... 71
Sample 2AC Block (AT: Spending DA) ........................ 72
4.7 Impact Calculus ............................................................ 74

Chapter 5: Plans and Counterplans ......................................... 77
5.1 Extra Topicality and Effects Topicality........................ 77
5.2 Topicality Violations .................................................... 79
Sample T Violation (Federal Poverty Line).................... 82
5.3 Answering Topicality.................................................... 83
Sample Aff T Block (AT: Increase Doesnt Mean
Removing a Barrier) ....................................................... 85
5.4 Counterplans ................................................................. 86
Sample CP (States CP).................................................... 88
5.5 Permutations ................................................................. 89
5.6 Answering Counterplans............................................... 91
5.7 Counterplan Theory ...................................................... 93
Chapter 6: Introduction to Philosophy.................................... 96
6.1 Rights ............................................................................ 96
6.2 Justice............................................................................ 98
Questions for Section 6.2.............................................. 101
6.3 Morality: Means and Ends .......................................... 102
6.4 Kant and the Categorical Imperative .......................... 104
6.5 Utilitarianism .............................................................. 106
6.6 John Rawls .................................................................. 108
6.7 John Locke Revisited.....Error! Bookmark not defined.

Chapter 7: Research and Case Writing ................................. 110
7.1 Key Words and Searching .......................................... 111
7.2 Cutting and Citing Cards ............................................ 111
7.3 Footnotes and Following Up....................................... 111
7.4 Tagging and Underlining ............................................ 111
7.5 Case Writing ............................................................... 111
7.6 Frontlines and Extensions ........................................... 111
7.7 Blocks Revisited ......................................................... 111
Appendix A: Flowing Abbreviations.................................... 112
Appendix B: Glossary of Debate Terms............................... 114
Introduction: Why Debate?

"Those 4 years in debate were the educational foundation
of everything I did. And I don't mean that in some simple
form...I'm saying the finest education I got from any of the
institutions I attended, the foundation of my mind that I got
during those 4 years of competitive policy debate; that is,
90% of the intellectual capacity that I operate with today-Fordham [University] for college, Fordham for the Ph.D.,
Harvard for law school--all of that is the other 10%." -John Sexton, President of NYU
People debate for many different reasons. Some enjoy
the opportunity to speak and be heard, some like the
competition, some seek to challenge themselves, and some
value the educational benefit of debate. Many people enjoy
debate for all four reasons.
Debate offers an opportunity to get up and speak your
mind and have someone listen and care what you say. Instead
of just sitting in a classroom and listening to a teacher, you get
to voice your own opinions. When the judge decides the
debate, its based on the arguments you make and the other
team makes no matter what the judge really thinks.
Debate is also, for the most part, a competitive activity.
When you debate in class, you will have the opportunity to
compete against your classmates. If you do debate as an
extracurricular activity, you will get to compete against other
schools. The winner of a debate is not the most popular
student; its the student with the best arguments. Theres a
strong relationship between how hard you work at debate and
how successful you are. Many people find this refreshing.
Debate can also be very challenging. There are several

different debate events. Some tend to involve more work and
time commitment but, in turn, offer more intellectual
challenge. At the highest levels, debaters use arguments and
evidence from philosophy, politics, science, and other fields to
support their side. Debate can expose you to many ideas that
you otherwise couldnt get until college.
Finally, debate offers many educational benefits. As
the quote at the beginning of the introduction illustrates, many
people identify debate as one of the most important educational
experiences in their life. Debaters go on to be successful in
many different fields, especially law.
Famous Former Debaters1
Ted Turner (owner of CNN)
Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, and
Woodrow Wilson (US presidents)
John Wayne and Brad Pitt (actors)
Oprah Winfrey (talk show host)
Sonia Sotomayor (Supreme Court justice)
Debate develops critical thinking skills, which are
valuable in virtually every class and every job. One metaanalysis of nineteen separate studies found that, regardless of
the measure used to assess critical thinking, debate improved
it.2 This is because debaters learn to recognize multiple sides
1
"| British Debate | Why do people debate?" | British Debate |

online home of the ESU Centre for Speech and Debate. 20 May
2009 <http://www.britishdebate.com/site/why_debate.asp>.
2
Allen, Mike; Berkowitz, Sandra; Hunt, Steve; Louden, Allan.
"A meta-analysis of the impact of forensics and
communication education on critical thinking,"
to issues instead of accepting one viewpoint as true. Debaters

have a lot of practice refuting, comparing, and assessing
arguments. They also learn to think strategically.
Debate also improves information literacy, especially
research skills. Experienced debaters do high-quality research
to support their arguments. By some estimates, debaters at the
highest level of competition do as much research as a graduate
student earning a masters degree or even a PhD. This research
experience makes writing research papers in college a breeze.
Because of the educational benefits, debate helps many
students get into college or earn scholarships. In an era of
grade inflation, colleges are more and more looking to success
in extracurricular activities as a metric of achievement.3
According to a Wall Street Journal report, being captain of a
debate team "improved an applicant's chances by more than
60% compared with the rest of the pool. By contrast, being a
school newspaper writer, sports team captain, or class president
improved the chance of admission by 5% or less.
Communication Education; Annandale; Vol. 48, pp: 18-30, Jan

1999.
3
Luong, Minh A. "Accidental Hero. College Admission |."
PBS. 20 May 2009
<http://www.pbs.org/accidentalhero/parents/college.html>.
Chapter 1: Introduction to Debate

In this chapter you will learn the basic structure of a
debate round and a debate argument. There are several
different types of debate that you may participate in, but all of
them are based on the same fundamental ideas.
The essential questions that you should keep in mind while
reading this chapter:
1. What is a debate round like?
2. What makes a good argument?
3. How does a judge evaluate a debate?
4. How do I win a debate?
1.1 The Resolution

Every debate begins with a topic for the participants to
argue over. This topic is called the resolution. Without a
resolution, teams might talk about two different things. They
wouldnt be debating at all; they would just be talking.
You have probably heard of New Years resolutions.
When you make a New Years resolution, you are making a
statement about a change you should make, like going on a
diet. Likewise, some resolutions are statements that a change
should be made. For example, a resolution might be
Resolved: AITE should require students to wear uniforms.
Right now, students at AITE are not required to wear uniforms.
This resolution is a statement that AITE should change its
policy to require them.
Other resolutions are more abstract. They are not about
a specific change. Instead, they are about general principles.
Many of these resolutions are about morality or justice. For
instance, a resolution might be Resolved: Human genetic
engineering is morally justified. You are not debating about a

specific government or a specific change. Instead, you are
debating about whether genetic engineering is good or bad
overall. Another example is Establishing a safe educational
environment in grades K - 12 justifies infringement of
students civil liberties. In this case, you are comparing two
principles: safety and liberty.
Sample Resolutions:
Resolved: The United States federal government should
substantially increase alternative energy incentives in
the United States.
Resolved: That the United States government should
substantially strengthen regulation of immigration to
the United States.
Resolved: The death penalty is immoral.
Resolved: An adolescents right to privacy ought to be
valued above a parents conflicting right to know.
The two sides in a debate are called the aff and the neg.
The affirmative or aff tries to prove the resolution is good or
right. They try to convince the judge to say yes to the
resolution. For instance, lets say you are debating the topic
about whether AITE students should have to wear uniforms.
The aff says, Yes, they should have to wear uniforms. It
would be good if all AITE students wore uniforms.
The negative or neg tries to prove the resolution is bad
or wrong. They try to convince the judge to say no to the
resolution. In the school uniform example, the neg says, No,
they should not have to wear uniforms. It would be bad if all
AITE students had to wear uniforms.
Examples of Aff and Neg:

Resolved: An adolescents right to privacy ought to be
valued above a parents conflicting right to know.
Aff: Privacy is more important.
Neg: The right to know is more important.
substantially increase its alternative energy incentives
in the United States.
Aff: Alternative energy incentives are good.
Neg: Alternative energy incentives are bad.
There are three main types of debate youll be learning
about: policy, Lincoln-Douglas, and public debate. Policy
debate resolutions are all about whether a change should be
made. Specifically, you debate about government policies. In
policy debate, there are two aff debaters on one team and two
neg debaters on the other. Lincoln-Douglas resolutions are
about more philosophical issues. In Lincoln-Douglas, there is
one aff debater arguing against one neg debater. There are
many different types of public debates and they can use any
kind of resolution. Usually, there are two debaters on a side
but there can be more or less. The important thing about public
debates is they are meant for a public audience, not policy or
philosophical experts.
Questions for Section 1.1

1. Write a resolution for each of the following topics:
a. Homework in school
b. The drinking age
c. Global warming
d. Something else youre interested in debating
2. Identify the aff and neg side for each of the resolutions
in question 1.
3. Why do you think its important to have a resolution?
1.2 Contentions
In every debate, each team makes arguments that
support its side. At the beginning of the debate, teams usually
organize their arguments into cases. A teams case tells the
judge the main reasons that side should win. When youre aff,
your case contains your reasons why the resolution is good.
When youre neg, your case contains your reasons why the
resolution is bad.
Cases are usually organized into contentions. Aff
contentions are pros, or specific reasons why the resolution is
good. For instance, an aff team debating uniforms might have
a contention that says, Uniforms reduce school violence
because students wont display gang symbols. They might
have a different contention that says, Uniforms increase
academic achievement because students wont be distracted by
clothes. Each of these is a specific reason why uniforms are
good.
Neg contentions are cons, or reasons why the resolution
is bad. For instance, a neg team debating uniforms might have
a contention that says, Uniforms will make students hate
school so they wont want to learn. They might have a
different contention that says, Uniforms violate the right to

free speech. Each of these contentions is a specific reason
why uniforms are bad.4
Sample Contentions:
Resolved: Violent video games should be regulated.
Aff: Regulation of violent video games is good.
Aff Contention 1: Violent video games make kids more
violent.
Aff Contention 2: Video games make kids obese
because they play them instead of sports.
Neg: Regulation of violent video games is bad.
Neg Contention 1: Regulating video games just makes
kids want to play them more.
Neg Contention 2: Regulating video games undermines
rights and freedoms.
When we talk about contentions, well often just
summarize the main idea like in the above examples. In an
actual debate, speakers support their contentions with evidence
and reasoning just like the main points in an essay. The type
and amount of evidence you use depends on the particular
debate. For the first few days of class, well do mini debates
where you dont have to worry about doing research. Later,
you will learn about how to use research to support your
arguments.
In policy debate, the negs cons are usually called

disadvantages or disads instead of contentions. Theyre still
reasons why the resolution is a bad idea. You dont need to
know about disads yet; youll learn more about them in the
next chapter.
Sample Contention for an In-Class Mini Debate:

My first contention is that school uniforms decrease
school violence. I have two reasons for this. First,
when kids where uniforms they wont be able to display
gang symbols, offensive messages, sports team logos,
and other items of clothing that could cause violence.
Theyll all be wearing basically the same thing so
theyll have nothing to fight over. Second, when kids
are dressed up theyll behave better. When they look
respectable, they feel like they have to act respectfully.
This means fewer kids will get hurt and theyll also be
less violent when they grow up.
At the end of the debate, the judge decides, based on
the arguments in the debate, which side of the resolution is
stronger. He or she then votes for that team. The stronger their
contentions are the more likely a team is to win. The judge is
not supposed to let his or her personal feelings decide the
winner, so it is up to you to persuade the judge that you should
win.
Like football or other sports, debate is won through a
combination of offense and defense. Offense means scoring
points for your team. In football, this means advancing
forward on the field to score touchdowns. In debate, this
means winning your own contentions.
Defense means preventing the other team from scoring
points. In football, this means blocking other players from
advancing forward on the field. In debate, this means refuting
the other teams contentions to disprove them. Good debate
teams, like good football teams, will make a combination of
offensive and defensive arguments.
Offense and Defense:

Aff offense: School uniforms increase academic
achievement (the resolution is good).
Aff defense: School uniforms dont cause students to
hate school (the resolution is not bad).
Neg offense: School uniforms cause students to hate
school (the resolution is bad).
Neg defense: School uniforms dont increase academic
achievement (the resolution is not good).

1. Identify at least one aff and one neg contention for each
of the following resolutions:
a. Resolved: That the United States government
should substantially strengthen regulation of
immigration to the United States.
b. Resolved: Marijuana should be legalized.
2. Identify one example of aff defense and one example of
neg defense for each of the resolutions in question 1.
3. Assume you are debating the topic Resolved: The
death penalty is immoral. Label each argument aff or
neg and offense or defense:
a. The death penalty wont reduce crime because
criminals dont think theyll get caught.
b. The death penalty is immoral because killing is
wrong.
c. Its okay to kill murderers. Because they killed
someone else, they no longer have a right to
live.
d. The death penalty will protect innocent lives.
4. Why does a strong debate team have a combination of
offense and defense?
1.3 Speeches and Cross-Examination

The exact structure of a debate round depends on the
type of debate youre doing. However, all debates have some
things in common. The first half of a debate is made up of
constructive speeches or constructives. They are called
constructives because they are used to build or construct cases
by making arguments in support of your side. Whether you are
aff or neg, you introduce your contentions in your first
constructive speech.
Each constructive is followed by cross-examination
5
(CX). During cross-examination, the other team gets to
question the person that just spoke. Cross-examination is not a
time to make arguments, just to question the other team.
When you are first learning to debate, you will probably
use a lot of your cross-examination time just figuring out the
other teams arguments. For instance, you might ask them to
explain one of their contentions if you are confused. Thats
okay. Understanding is your first priority because otherwise
you wont give effective speeches. As you get better, you will
start asking more advanced questions to expose flaws in their
case or set up arguments you plan to make in your next speech.
This is almost always true but may not be the case in some
specific types of public debate.
Examples of Cross-Examination Questions:

Clarification: Can you please explain how school
uniforms reduce violence?
Expose flaws: Do you have any evidence that
uniforms are actually effective?
Set up arguments: How will you pay for school
uniforms?
The second half of a debate is made up of rebuttal
speeches or rebuttals. They are called rebuttals because they
are used to rebut or refute the other teams arguments as well
as rebuild your own. They are shorter than constructive
speeches.
An important difference between constructives and
rebuttals is that brand new arguments can be introduced in
constructives but not rebuttals. You cant just read a new
contention at the end of the debate. However, this doesnt
mean you should spend your rebuttals just repeating your old
arguments. You can explain your existing arguments more or
better. You can support your arguments with new evidence.
You can understand the difference using a construction
analogy. In your first constructive, you build up your
arguments much like you build a house. The other team tries
to tear down your argument or your house by making holes in
it. In your rebuttals, you should focus on repairing the holes in
your existing house, not building a new house.
Table 1 Differences Between Constructives and Rebuttals

Brand new
arguments
Focus
Length
Followed by CX
Constructives
Yes
Rebuttals
No
Broad lots of
Narrow your best
different arguments arguments in more
depth
Longer
Shorter
Yes
No
The rest of the time in a debate is called preparation

time or prep. Each team is given a certain amount of prep time
that they may use at any time during the debate to prepare for
upcoming speeches. You might use this time to talk to your
partner or plan what youre going to say.
Table 2 Sample Mini Debate Structure
Aff Constructive
(AC)
Cross-examination
(CX)
Neg Constructive
(NC)
Cross-examination
(CX)
Aff Rebuttal (AR)
Neg Rebuttal (NR)
3 minutes
1st aff speaker
1 minute
2nd neg questions

1st aff
1st neg speaker
3 minutes
1 minute
2 minutes
2 minutes
2nd aff questions 1st

neg
2nd aff speaker
2nd neg speaker

1. Identify which of the following can be introduced in
rebuttal speeches:
a. New evidence for existing arguments
b. New arguments
c. New explanation of existing arguments
2. Who speaks first and last?
3. Imagine you are debating about school uniforms and
the other team reads the contention on p. 7. What are
three cross-examination questions that you could ask?
1.4 Claims, Warrants, and Impacts

You have practiced identifying aff and neg arguments.
However, not all arguments are equally strong. In fact, many
of the arguments weve identified so far are pretty weak. As an
example, remember the argument that school uniforms reduce
school violence. By itself, this is nothing more than a claim.
We havent provided any support to prove the claim is true so
the argument wont help us at all.
The second component of an argument is a warrant. A
warrant is a reason why your argument is true; it often follows
a word like because. You can think of a warrant as an
answer to the question Why? or How do you know?
Types of Warrants:
Statistics
Qualitative studies
Historical examples (also known as empirical
examples)
Logical or philosophical reasoning
Expert opinion
Analogies
For example, to prove that school uniforms reduce
violence you could use a study of schools with uniforms. You
might find that schools experience a decrease in violence after
they start requiring their students to wear uniforms. You could
also use logical reasoning to explain how schools with
uniforms will experience less violence because students wont
display gang symbols. You could also do both. The more
warrants you have and the better they are, the stronger your
contention will be.
Usually, you will need to do research to support your
claims with strong warrants. You can use evidence from a
qualified source to make your warrant better. The study of
schools with uniforms is an example of using evidence. Other
times, you can use your own examples or reasoning.
Arguments you make without evidence are known as analytical
arguments or analyticals. The reasoning about gang violence
was analytical.
By combining a claim and warrant, you have made a
complete argument but it is not yet a winning argument. To
make a winning argument, you need to prove the impact,
which is the reason why it matters in the debate. You can think
of the impact as the answer to the question Who cares? For
example, the impact to your contention about school violence
is injuries to students or even death.
10
Example of Claim, Warrant, and Impact:

Claim: The death penalty reduces violent crime.
Warrant: Criminals are less likely to commit a crime if
they know they could die.
Impact: If we keep the death penalty, there will be
fewer cases of violent crime.
Strong warrants and impacts are important for winning
debates. Remember, a judge evaluates the debate by
comparing the aff and neg contentions. When evaluating the
affs contentions, the judge considers both the impact and how
likely the aff is to prevent the bad impact from happening.
When evaluating the negs contentions, the judge considers
both the impact and how likely the aff is to cause the bad
impact. Although debates can be complicated, the team with
the greatest likelihood (or probability) and impact generally
wins. Its sometimes helpful to think of this numerically:
The Basic Principles of Judging:
Strength of Aff Contentions = Probability x Impact
Strength of Neg Contentions = Probability x Impact
Strength of Aff Contentions > Strength of Neg
Contentions => Aff Win
Strength of Neg Contentions Strength of Aff
Contentions => Neg Win
Returning to the football analogy, you can think of the
probability as the likelihood that your play will succeed. This
is influenced by how well you prepare your offense and by the
strength of the other teams defense. The impact is the number
of yards you can expect to go if the play works. The higher
each of these values is, the better the play is and the more
likely you are to win. Likewise, in debate the probability of

your contentions is influenced by the strength of the warrants
supporting it and the quality of the defensive arguments the
other team makes. The better your warrants and impact, the
more likely you are to win.

1. Identify the warrant in each of the following arguments:
a. School uniforms increase academic achievement
because revealing arguments wont distract
students anymore. Increased academic
achievement makes the US more economically
productive so that everyone benefits.
b. Wind power prevents global warming by
reducing our need for fossil fuels. Global
warming causes food shortages throughout the
world.
c. The Iraq war proves that when terrorists attack,
the US will retaliate, causing even more death.
d. Poverty has killed more people than all wars
combined.
2. Identify the impact in each of the arguments from
question 1.
3. Make one defensive argument against each of the
arguments from question 1.
4. Use the judging formula to explain why each of the
following helps you win:
a. Warrants
b. Impacts
c. Defense against the other teams contentions
d. Evidence
11
1.5 Refutation
Refutation means making arguments against the other
teams contentions. This usually means making defensive
arguments like youve already learned. If you dont refute you
wont have any defense and you will probably not win.
Refutation is an important part of clash. Clash is when
teams respond effectively to each others arguments. A debate
without clash wouldnt really be a debate at all; it would just be
two people talking. In a good debate, each team will clash with
all of its opponents arguments.
You can refute the other teams contention in many
different ways. Try to think of some reasons why their
contention is not true. For instance, if their contention is that
uniforms increase school violence, you could say that uniforms
wont increase academic achievement because students will be
distracted no matter what. You can suggest there are other
causes of the problem. For example, you could say that low
academic achievement is because kids are too lazy to do their
homework. You can also say the impact is small or the
problem is not that bad. You should refute in any way you can
think of, even if it doesnt fall in any of these categories.
Ideas for Refutation:
The problem is inevitable (Uniforms wont increase
academic achievement because students will be
distracted no matter what).
There are other causes of the problem (Students are too
lazy to do their homework).
The impact is small (Decreased academic achievement
wouldnt hurt the U.S. very much our economy is
strong enough to take the hit).
Their evidence is flawed (They dont have any studies
to prove that uniforms would increase achievement).
To be a good debater, you need to refute all of the other

teams contentions. Not refuting a contention is like not
playing defense against one of their plays it guarantees that
the other team will score. You can make your refutation
stronger by making multiple arguments against each
contention.
Each argument you make to refute will be stronger if
you make sure it includes four parts. First, you need to label
which argument you are refuting. In debate, this labeling is
often called signposting. You can signpost by saying They
say and then summarizing their argument. For example, you
could summarize their argument about how uniforms increase
academic achievement as They say: Uniforms increase
achievement.
Next, you should say why their argument is wrong. For
instance, you could say, They say: Uniforms increase
achievement but actually there are more important causes of
the lack of achievement.
You should also supply a warrant for your argument.
For instance, you could say, They say: Uniforms increase
the lack of achievement like the fact that students are too lazy
to do their homework.
Finally, you should tell the judge what it means if you
win your argument. How does it help you win the debate? For
instance, you could say, They say: Uniforms increase
the lack of achievement like the fact that students are too lazy
to do their homework. Therefore the aff wont effectively
address the academic achievement problem.
12
Refutation Formula:
They say
But
Because
Therefore
If you are debating a good team, they will refute your
arguments just like you refute theirs. As a result, you will need
to rebuild your own arguments. Rebuilding means responding
to the other teams refutation by saying why your argument is
still true and still important. You will learn more about this
later but you should start practicing it now.

1. Make at least two arguments, using all four parts of the
refutation formula, to refute each of the following
contentions:
a. Uniforms restrict free speech
b. Playing video games makes kids more violent
c. Carbon dioxide from cars causes global
warming, which is dangerous.
d. The death penalty reduces violent crime by
deterring (discouraging) people from
committing them.
2. Explain why each part of the refutation formula is
important.
3. Why is clash important?
1.6 Flowing
You now know how to make and refute arguments.
However, to do this effectively you will need to have a record
of the arguments the other team made so you can respond.
You may think you can do this in your head, but as you get
better your debates will get more complicated and you will
need some other way of keeping track. The way debaters keep
track of the other teams arguments is called flowing. The
more you practice flowing now, the more effective you will be
later when it really starts to make a difference. Every
successful debater, without exception, flows in some way.
A flow is a piece of paper divided into columns, usually
with one column per speech. Theres an example of a blank
Lincoln-Douglas flow on p. 14. You write down the arguments
for each speech in the corresponding column. Because the
columns are side-by-side, you can trace way an argument flows
through a debate. As you get more experienced, you can flow
by making columns of text with a regular piece of paper.
Theres an example of a good flow on p. 15. Notice that this
flow is oriented vertically. Experienced debaters usually flow
this way but its okay to flow horizontally when youre first
learning.
The details of flowing depend on the type of debate
youre doing. You will learn about these details later. For
now, you should learn some general rules of flowing that are
true for all types of debate:
13
AC
NC
1AR
NR
2AR
14
QuickTime and a
TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
15
1. Separate aff and neg offense. In policy, you will use a

separate sheet of paper for each contention. In public debate or
Lincoln-Douglas, you will put the aff contentions all on one
side of your paper, called the aff side of the flow. The neg
contentions are on the reverse side, called the neg side of the
flow. Separating the two makes it easier to keep track.
2. When a team is refuting, flow next to the arguments they are
refuting. This way you can always locate arguments and see
how they evolve over the course of the debate. Aff defense
should be flowed next to the neg argument being refuted. This
means it goes on the neg side of the flow or the corresponding
sheet of paper. For instance, the argument that school uniforms
dont reduce violence should go right next to the argument that
school uniforms do reduce violence. Neg defense should be
flowed next to the aff argument being refuted. It goes on the
aff side of the flow or the correct sheet of paper.
What Goes Where:
Aff side of the flow/aff sheets of paper: Aff contentions
(aff offense) and neg responses to those contentions
(neg defense)
Neg side of the flow/neg sheets of paper: Neg
contentions (neg offense) and aff responses to those
contentions (aff defense)
4. Paraphrase and abbreviate. If the other team is long-winded,

you cant and shouldnt write down every word they say.
Paraphrase their argument into fewer words or into words that
make more sense to you. You should also practice using
abbreviations so each word on your flow can be represented as
a symbol or a few letters. Some abbreviations are suggested
below but you should feel free to invent your own. Using
abbreviations effectively will take some practice but when you
learn it will really help you not only with debate but also with
note taking in your classes.
Table 3 Common Flowing Abbreviations
Resolution
Warrant
Increase
Affirmative
! Impact
Decrease
Negative
bc Because
Cause
Flowing is one time when its okay to write like youre

text messaging. In fact, its actually good! The fewer letters
you use, the easier flowing will be. In fact, if you look at an
experienced debaters flow you will probably not understand it
because they use so many abbreviations. As long as you can
read your own flow, this is not a problem. Remember, its
your own flow so only you need to understand what it says.
3. Write small. In order to keep arguments lined up next to

each other, you need to write in columns. This basically means
you need one column per speech. Because debates involve lots
of speeches, you have to fit lots of columns on the page. As a
result, your flow will probably be crowded. Thats okay. It
takes some practice to make your writing fit in the columns.
Try to work on writing smaller so you take up less space.
16
Paraphrasing and Abbreviating:

You hear: Uniforms reduce school violence because
students wont display gang symbols.
You paraphrase: Uniforms reduce violence gangs.
You write: Unif viol
You hear: Uniforms increase academic achievement
students arent distracted by clothes
You paraphrase: Uniforms increase academic
achievement distractions
You write: Unif AA distract
Using Your Flow to Plan Arguments:

You write: AA hate school
You say: They say uniforms increase academic
achievement but actually they reduce it because
students will start hating school if they have to wear a
uniform.
You write: Win BC viol ! ppl die
You plan to say: We should win the debate because our
school violence impact is the most important. Its the
only impact thats actually a matter of life or death.
5. Flow everything you can and dont stop. Sometimes youll

miss arguments or not understand them. Dont worry. Just put
a circle around the empty space or unclear argument on your
flow. You can then ask the other team about the missing
argument in cross-examination.
6. Use your flow to plan your own arguments too. In the
column for your next speech, write an abbreviated version of
your response next to every argument. When you deliver your
speech, be sure to elaborate and signpost as necessary. Using
this method for planning your speech will ensure that you give
an organized speech addressing all the necessary arguments.
17

1. Assume you are debating Resolved: School safety is
more important than the freedom of students. Explain
whether each argument would go on the aff or neg side
of your flow in a Lincoln-Douglas debate.
a. The aff contention school safety prevents
students from becoming drug addicts.
b. The neg argument that student freedom is
important for free speech.
c. The neg argument that school safety doesnt
prevent drug use because kids will just use
drugs at home.
d. The aff argument that students shouldnt get
free speech rights because theyre not adults yet.
2. Write what you would put on your flow for each of the
3. Imagine that you are neg and you need to refute the first
argument in question 1.
a. Write what you would put on your flow to
refute the argument.
b. Write what you would actually say in your
speech, including signposting.
4. Why is flowing important?
1.7 Signposting
Judges flow just like debaters. A good judge uses his or
her flow to help make a decision. As a result, you want to
make sure the judge gets down your arguments on his or her
flow. You can assure that the judge flows your arguments by
signposting, which tells the judge where to flow your
arguments. Just like signs posted at the side of the road,
signposting prevents people from getting lost.
Signposting starts in your first constructive speech
when you lay out your case. Each time you start a new
contention, youll want to clearly identify it with a number and
a name. For instance, you could say, My first contention is
academic achievement or My second contention is school
violence. If you have multiple warrants or impacts, its a
good idea to number them so the judge knows they are
separate. For example, you might say, There are two reasons
for this. FirstSecond
All speeches except for the first speech generally begin
with a road map. A road map is used to plan out your route,
just like a road map in a car. You tell the judge in what order
youre going to go to the sheets of paper or sides of the flow.
This way the judge can get everything in order and be ready to
flow.
Examples of Roadmaps
Ill start on the aff side of the flow and then go to the
neg side.
Ill rebuild my arguments first and then refute theirs.
Im first going to summarize why we win, then go to
the neg side of the flow, then the aff side.
18
Signposting continues when you refute and rebuild.

Youll want to start by telling the judge what side of the flow
or sheet of paper youre on. For instance, you might say, Ill
start by rebuilding my contentions or Now, on to the neg
contentions. Then youll want to tell them the specific
arguments youre dealing with. The simplest way to do this is
to precede your arguments with They say like you
practiced with refutation. This tells the judge to flow your
argument next to the argument you are refuting.
Examples of Signposting
My first contention is
There are two reasons for this
This is important for three reasons
Now Ill respond to their contentions
They say
Like you learned in the previous section, its a good
idea to plan arguments on your flow. You dont need to write
signposting on your flow. Instead, you should just practice
using it. Every time you flip over your paper or switch to a
new sheet, tell the judge where you are going. Every time you
refute an argument, use they say. This will quickly become
automatic.

1. Assume you are debating Resolved: School safety is
more important than the freedom of students. You are
neg. You read your contention that student freedom is
important for free speech. Then you refute the other
teams contention that school safety prevents students
from becoming drug addicts.
a. Write out the road map you would give.
b. Write out what you would say to signpost
during your speech.
2. You are aff and you are giving the last rebuttal. You
start by saying who wins, then rebuild your arguments,
and then refute theirs.
a. Write out the road map you would give.
b. Write out what you would say to signpost
during your speech.
3. Why is signposting important?
19
Chapter 2: The Basics of Policy Debate

In this chapter you will learn the basic structure of a
policy debate round. You will learn how to make the main
types of aff and neg arguments in policy debate. You will also
learn some of the most important policy debate jargon.
1. What is a policy debate round like?
2. What makes policy debate different from other kinds of
debate?
3. How do the aff and neg win with advantages and
disadvantages?
4. What are some arguments for and against providing
social services to people in poverty?
2.1 Introduction to Policy Debate

In policy debate, you will use all of the ideas you
learned in Chapter 1. However, policy debate is different from
the debates you have been doing so far in class. It is more
technical and specialized with less emphasis on persuasion and
rhetorical skills. Many lawyers, members of Congress, and
academics find that policy debate is excellent training.
In class, you have debated many different kinds of
resolutions. In policy debate, the resolution is always a
statement that a change should be made. Specifically, they are
about changes in government policy. Every policy debate
resolution since 2000 has begun with the phrase The United
States federal government should The United States federal
government (USFG for short) is the government in
Washington, D.C. with power over the whole country. It
includes President Obama, federal agencies like the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Congress, and the
federal courts.
Sample Policy Debate Resolutions:
substantially increase social services for persons living
in poverty in the United States (2009-2010)
substantially increase alternative energy incentives in
the United States (2008-2009)
substantially increase its public health assistance to
Sub-Saharan Africa (2007-2008)
establish a policy substantially increasing the number of
persons serving in one or more of the following
national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps,
Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America,
and/or the Armed Forces (2006-2007)
You may notice that after each resolution there is a
range of years. This indicates when each topic was debated.
There is one policy debate resolution for each school year that
all policy debaters in the country use.6 From the first
tournaments in September or October to the last tournaments in
May or June, policy debaters debate the same topic. You can
6
You can find the current resolution as well as a list of past

ones on the National Forensic League website
(http://www.nflonline.org/StudentResources/Topics). Much
like the National Football League, the National Forensic
League is called the NFL.
20
go to a tournament in Texas, California, or even Hawaii and

they will have the same topic as you. This may seem boring
but actually each debate is completely different. You will learn
more about why in the next section.
Policy debate is always two-on-two, with one team of
two aff debaters and one team of two neg debaters. Each
debater gets one constructive speech and one rebuttal speech.
Each debater gets to ask questions in one cross-examination
and answer questions in another cross-examination. At most
tournaments, each team gets 8 minutes of preparation time to
use throughout the debate.
Table 4 Policy Debate Structure
First Aff Constructive (1AC)
Cross-examination (CX)
8 min
3 min
First Neg Constructive (1NC)

8 min
3 min
Second Aff Constructive

(2AC)
8 min
3 min
Second Neg Constructive

(2NC)
8 min
3 min
First Neg Rebuttal (1NR)

First Aff Rebuttal (1AR)
Second Neg Rebuttal (2NR)
Second Aff Rebuttal (2AR)
5 min
5 min
5 min
5 min
1st aff speaker

2nd neg questions 1st
aff
1st neg speaker
1st aff questions 1st
neg
2nd aff speaker
1st neg questions 2nd
aff
2nd neg speaker
2nd aff questions 2nd
neg
1st neg speaker
1st aff speaker
2nd neg speaker
2nd aff speaker
You may notice a couple of things about policy debate.

First, the constructive and rebuttal speeches are 8 and 5
minutes respectively. This may seem like a really long time to
fill up. In reality, a good policy debater will tell you its never
enough time. When you learn more about how evidence is
used in policy debate, you will get a better idea of how you fill
up your time.
Second, you may notice that each speech has an
abbreviated name in parentheses. This abbreviated name starts
with either 1 or 2, depending on whether it is the teams first or
second constructive or rebuttal. Next, the abbreviated name
has either A for aff or N for neg. Finally, the name has
either C for constructive or R for rebuttal. Speeches are
almost always called their abbreviated names because theyre
much shorter and easier.
Third, you may notice that each debater has a specific
cross-examination to ask questions. The debater that is not
about to speak is always the one asking questions. If you are
not asking questions, you should use this time to plan your next
speech.
Finally, you may notice that there are two neg speeches
in a row in the middle of the debate. This is because
traditionally the aff always gets to speak first and last. Each
team still gets the same amount of speech time. The two
speeches in a row, the 2NC and 1NR, are often collectively
called the neg block or just the block. In order to prevent the
neg from repeating itself, they are basically treated as one big
speech in two parts.
21

1. Explain whether each of the following is part of the
United States federal government:
a. Obama
b. The governor of Connecticut
c. The Supreme Court
d. The ambassador from Mexico
e. The US Department of Education
f. Connecticuts two senators
2. Identify the aff and neg side of the topic about poverty
on p. 20.
3. What should you do when its not your turn to ask
cross-examination questions?
4. What is the neg block?
5. Pick a resolution on p. 20 and write two affirmative and
two negative contentions.
2.2 Plans and Topicality

Remember, the same policy debate topic is used all
year, all across the country. However, this does not mean that
every debate is the same. In each debate, the aff presents a
specific plan to narrow down the topic. Teams usually debate
many different plans at each tournament and dozens of
different plans over the course of the year.
A plan is a specific example of the resolution.
Debating the whole resolution would be so broad that it would
be impossible to have any meaningful clash. As a result, the
aff gets to choose one plan that they want to defend. The neg
then has to attack that plan specifically, not the resolution in
general. The negs job is to prove that the status quo, or the
way things are right now, is better than the plan. By defending
the status quo, the neg proves there is no need for change to be
made.
Sample Plans for the Poverty Resolution:
substantially increase social services for persons living
in poverty in the United States (2009-2010)
Plan: The United States Department of Housing and
Urban Development should double funding for housing
programs for people living in poverty in the United
States.
Plan: The United States Congress should implement a
universal health care program that provides free health
insurance for people living in poverty in the United
States.
The United States Supreme Court should rule that
denying Medicaid coverage of abortions is a violation
of the 14th Amendment right to equal protection.7
The United States federal government should require
schools to provide free breakfast to students that qualify
for free and reduced-price lunch.
The United States federal government should extend
Medicaid to make undocumented immigrants eligible.
You may notice that the sample plans are all about
social services but the details are very different. There are
some arguments, called generics, which you can make against
all of them. For instance, they all probably spend money. At
Medicaid is a program that provides health insurance for lowincome individuals and families. It is different from Medicare,
which provides health insurance for the elderly.
22
the same time, debating school lunch is very different than

debating Medicaid funding for abortion.
You may also notice that many of the plans dont say
United States federal government. Instead, they use specific
agents like the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, Congress, or the Supreme Court. These are all
parts of the federal government. Specifying a particular agent
can be strategic if you have a reason why that agent would be a
good one to use. Some teams specify an agent and some dont.
No matter what plan the aff chooses it has to fall under
the resolution. This obligation is called topicality. Topicality
means the plan is part of the topic, or the resolution. You can
check whether a plan is topical by looking at all the words in
the resolution. The poverty topic is, Resolved: The United
States federal government should substantially increase social
services for persons living in poverty in the United States. If
a plan violates any part of the resolution, its not topical.
Topicality for the Poverty Resolution:

Resolved: The United States federal government
should the plan must be done by some part of the
United States federal government, not the state of
Connecticut or the country of China.
substantially the plan must be something large
enough to be meaningful, not giving one homeless
person one dollar.
increase the plan must make more social
services available, not less
social services the plan must provide social
services like health care, housing, or food. Just giving
money is probably not a social service.
for persons living in poverty the plan must
provide social services specifically for people in
poverty, not rich or middle-class people.
in the United States the plan must give social
services to people in poverty in the US, not in Mexico.
The neg can challenge whether a plan is topical by
reading a topicality violation. A topicality violation is a way
of proving that the aff is non-topical. The neg argues
topicality as a voting issue, meaning that if they win their
topicality violation, the judge has to vote for them regardless of
the rest of the debate. Because some words in the resolution
can be ambiguous, challenges to the affs topicality actually
happen very frequently. For instance, some people define
social services so that it includes public housing projects and
some exclude housing. The neg could challenge the first plan
on p. 22 by saying its not a social service.
23
Topical and Non-Topical Plans

A nontopical
plan
A topical
plan
Another
topical
plan
The boundaries
of the topic notice the gray
areas
As you learned earlier, debaters abbreviate many words

to make flowing easier. Usually, topicality is abbreviated with
just the letter T, circled. As a result, policy debaters often call
topicality T and call a topicality violation a T violation.
You can call it topicality, but this way if the other team reads
T, you know what they mean.
Table 5 Common Policy Flowing Abbreviations
Topicality
SQ Status quo
NT Non-topical
sbs Substantial
ss Social
Services
pov Poverty
pl Plan
USFG United
States federal
government
PLIP Persons
living in poverty
1. Write a topical plan for each of the following

resolutions:
a. Resolved: The United States federal government
should legalize one or more recreational drugs.
b. Resolved: The rights of students should be
significantly expanded.
c. Resolved: That the federal government should
establish an education policy to significantly
increase academic achievement in secondary
schools in the United States.
2. Assume you are debating the poverty topic on p. 22.
Identify one argument you could make for why each of
the following plans is not topical.
a. The state of Iowa should redirect money from
housing projects to food stamps.
b. The United States federal government should
give Miss Kernoff free health care.
c. The United States federal government should
give social services to outer space aliens in
poverty.
d. The United States federal government should
expand Medicaid to include more people in the
United States.
e. The United States federal government should
make free- and reduced-price lunch more
nutritious.
3. Explain what the status quo means. Which side defends
the status quo?
24
2.3 Stock Issues

In policy debate, the aff reads contentions to give the
judge reasons to vote for them just like you learned in the first
chapter. One difference is that in policy debate the contentions
are reasons the specific plan is good, rather than reasons the
resolution in general is good. If your plan is about health care,
you shouldnt start talking about why school breakfast is good.
In policy debate, the specific reasons the aff gives for why the
plan is a good idea are called advantages.
If you are debating the poverty topic, the most obvious
advantage is reducing poverty. Its suggested by the
resolution. The aff can claim that providing health care,
housing, or food to people in poverty will prevent them from
having to spend their own money on these things, making them
less poor. Also, the aff can say that poverty will be easier to
bear if theres food, medical care, or shelter available.
While this is the most obvious advantage, it is not the
only advantage. If youre creative, you can think of many other
reasons why your specific plan might be good. For example, if
your plan provides health insurance, you should probably have
an advantage about the spread of disease. You could say that
free health care makes people more willing to go to the doctor
so contagious diseases are caught early before they spread.
You could also have an advantage about the economy because
sick people are unproductive. None of these advantages is
about poverty but thats okay. Advantages dont have to be
topical. Only plans have to be topical.
Possible Advantages for a Health Care Plan:
Poverty
Disease
Economic Growth
To turn one of these ideas into a winning advantage,

you need to prove several things. First, you need to prove that
there is some sort of problem or harm in the status quo. If
everything is great right now, there is no need to do the aff
plan. You need to prove that there is a lot of poverty or disease
now or that the economy is doing poorly now. You can also
prove that harm is coming in the near future. For instance, you
could say that the economy is going to decrease soon if the
plan is not enacted. As you learned from the judging formula
in the first chapter, bigger impacts help the aff win. As a
result, the aff wants to prove that the harm is really, really bad.
Second, you need to prove that the problem is not going
to go away on its own. If the status quo is going to take care of
the problem soon, theres not a very strong reason to do the
plan. Some people call this inherency. If a problem is
inherent in the status quo, it means its not going away without
the plan. For instance, you could say that none of the current
anti-poverty measures are effectively addressing poverty.
Third, you need to prove that the plan effectively gets
rid of the problem. This is called solvency. In other words, the
plan has to solve the harm. If the plan is not effective, its
pretty pointless. If your advantage is disease, you need to
prove the plan prevents or slows the spread of disease. If your
advantage is economic growth, you need to prove that the plan
could help the economy or prevent it from declining in the
future.
Parts of an Advantage:
Inherency
Harms
Solvency
25
All three components of an advantage need to be

supported with warrants. As you will learn later in this
chapter, the aff reads evidence in the 1AC to support these
warrants. These three components, along with topicality, are
called stock issues because they are the basic, or stock, things
the aff usually has to prove to win.8 Topicality is different than
the other three because the aff doesnt have to prove it unless
the neg challenges it first. If you think about it, you can
probably come up with a convenient acronym for remembering
the stock issues.
Stock Issues:
Solvency
Harms
Inherency
Topicality
Neg defense in policy debate means refuting the aff
advantages. This alone is usually not enough to win but
defense is an important part of winning. Later you will learn
about more specific ways to refute. For now, you just need to
know the three main ways of refuting, corresponding to the
three parts of an advantage. You can say the status quo solves
the problem because the harm is going away on its own. You
can say theres no impact because theres no harm or the harm
is small. You can also say theres no solvency because the
plan doesnt effectively get rid of the harm. If you make a
combination of arguments, your refutation will be stronger.
Refuting an Advantage:
Status quo solves (The harm is going away on its own
or something is going to happen in the status quo to
address it)
No impact (There is no harm or the harm is small)
No solvency (The plan doesnt effectively get rid of the
harm)

1. Pick three of the plans on p. 22. For each plan, identify
at least two advantages that the aff could read.
2. Pick two advantages and explain what the inherency,
harms, and solvency would be for each.
3. Write three neg arguments to refute each of the two
advantages from question 2.
4. Are advantages about the plan or the resolution?
Explain.
This is not always true. You earlier learned about offense and
defense. The affirmative can also win by basically intercepting
the negs offense and turning it into their own touchdown.
This is called a turn and you will learn about it later.
26
2.4 Cards
So far, you have learned about all the different parts of
an advantage. However, you have only really learned about the
claims. Its not enough to just say things like, The status quo
is not solving poverty or, Our plan solves poverty. You
have to prove these things are true. Policy debaters use cards,
which are quotes from qualified sources, to prove most of their
points. A piece of evidence is called a card because, before
computers and photocopiers were widely available, debaters
would hand write quotes on index cards and use them in their
speeches. Debate has gone a long way since then, but the name
card has stuck around.
Sample Card:
Economic decline causes nuclear war
Walter Russell Mead, Senior Counselor at the World
Policy Institute, 1992, New Perspectives Quarterly, p. 30.
Hundreds of millionsbillionsof people around the world
have pinned their hopes on the international market economy.
They and their leaders have embraced market principlesand
drawn closer to the Westbecause they believe our system
can work for them. But what if it cant? What if the global
economy stagnatesor even shrinks? In that case, we will
face a new era of international conflict: South against North,
rich against poor, Russia, China, Indiathese countries with
their billions of people and nuclear weapons will pose a much
greater danger to the world order than Germany and Japan in
the 30s.
A card has several parts. First, a card has a tag. The

tag summarizes what the card says. Its sort of like a topic
sentence in an essay. It gives the judge an idea of why youre
reading the card and why its important. In this example the
tag is, Economic decline causes nuclear war.
The second part of a card is the citation, or cite for
short. The citation is the source of the card, like you would put
in your bibliography if you were writing a paper. The citation
should include all the information needed to find a card but you
dont need to read all of that in a debate. In a debate, teams
usually just read the authors last name (Mead), the date (1992
or 92) and sometimes the authors qualifications. Reading the
qualifications improves the quality of your evidence and your
credibility with the judge. Notice these things have been
bolded.
Finally, the card includes the text of the book, article, or
web page itself. This may be as short as one paragraph or as
long as one or two pages. Theres not enough time to read all
the text in a debate so usually some parts of a card are
underlined. You only read the underlined parts. Now that you
know what cards are, you can see a sample advantage on pages
28-32.
Parts of a Card:
Tag
Cite
Text of the card with underlining
27
Sample Advantage (Immigrant Health Care)

Lack of adequate federal reimbursement for uninsured immigrants has caused an
economic crisis for hospitals
Ryan Knutson, Articles Editor, Boston College Third World Law Journal, 2008
(DEPRIVATION OF CARE: ARE FEDERAL LAWS RESTRICTING THE PROVISION OF
MEDICAL CARE TO IMMIGRANTS WORKING AS PLANNED? 28 B.C. Third World L.J.
401//ZE)
Despite the presence of federal and state reimbursement programs, many hospitals are suffering
an economic crisis due, in part, to large uncompensated and underpayment costs. 222 A recent
estimate from California suggests that the state provided approximately $ 700 million of care to
undocumented immigrants in 2006, with just $ 73 million in reimbursement from the federal
government. 223 High levels of uncompensated and underpayment costs are a result of many
factors. 224 Hospitals complain that demonstrating an immigrant's undocumented [*429] status
is both time-consuming and challenging. 225 Undocumented immigrants are often reluctant to
provide information about their status for fear of deportation. 226 Some hospitals choose not to
ask patients their immigration status, which means that the hospital is foreclosed from seeking
reimbursement under either Emergency Medicaid or MMA. 227 Each program has flaws that
hinder health care providers from recouping the cost of care provided to undocumented and
PRWOA non-qualified immigrants. 228 Emergency Medicaid provides no reimbursement for
care provided to immigrants who fail to meet state Medicaid eligibility. 229 Additionally,
EMTALA mandates more extensive care than that which is reimbursable under Emergency
Medicaid. 230 While in theory DSH allows medical providers to recover costs associated with
providing care to undocumented immigrants, its primary function is to reimburse medical
providers for providing charity care to uninsured citizens. 231 As a result, DSH funding has
historically offset only a fraction of uncompensated care costs. 232 Even MMA, a program
designed specifically to reimburse hospitals that provide care to undocumented immigrants, is
not achieving its maximum impact. 233 During the two fiscal years 2005 and 2006, $ 233 of the
$ 500 million available went unused. 234 In Illinois, just six percent of the $ 12 million available
annually under the program had been spent three quarters of the way into year 2006. 235
Reasons cited for hospitals' tepid response to MMA funds include the time consuming
paperwork, lower recalculation [*430] costs by the federal government that reduces hospitals'
claims, and concerns about providing the government with immigration information that might
scare undocumented immigrants from seeking needed care. 236 The funding programs' inherent
limitations, coupled with administrative burdens and moral concerns, have resulted in hospitals
being unable to fully utilize the allotted funding made available by the federal government. 237
This crisis has put the health care system on the brink
Medical News Today, March 16, 2009 l/n
The main providers that make up the U.S. health care system's safety net -- about 1,200
community health centers, 1,100 public hospitals and nearly 3,000 local health departments -have become "significantly busier" in recent months amid the economic recession and most of
them are "straining" to cope with "waves of new customers," the AP/San Francisco Chronicle
reports.
According to the AP/Chronicle, safety net health care providers "struggle as a rule, but times are
unusually tough" for community health centers and public hospitals that are "temporarily
maintaining their razor-thin operating margins, but say they can't keep it up for long."
Meanwhile, many health departments that "are heavily dependent on waning state revenues" are
"doing worse, eliminating thousands of jobs and shedding services," according to the
AP/Chronicle. A study released this week by the Trust for America's Health found that health
departments in 2008 eliminated 11,000 jobs and expect to cut an additional 10,000 jobs this year.
According to the AP/Chronicle, "[h]ospital funds lost money in the stock market like everyone
else, ... [c]haritable donations are drying up" and it is "harder to borrow from banks or through
tax-exempt bonds." In addition, Medicaid funding that is dependent on state tax revenues is
"precarious" and patients with more financial stability, on which the health care system depends
to compensate for the costs of care for the uninsured, are delaying or avoiding elective
procedures and other care, the AP/Chronicle reports. Safety net care providers "are looking
forward to a jolt of new money from" the $3.5 billion allocated for public health services and
safety net care as part of the $787 billion economic stimulus package that President Obama
signed last month.
This crisis is escalating and will spill over to collapse the economy
Brian Klepper, PhD/Healthcare Market Analyst and David Kibbe, M.D., 3/17/2009 (The
Intensifying Collapse of the Health Care System, Why It's Different This Time, and What We
Need to Think About Along the Way.
http://healthpolicyandmarket.blogspot.com/2009/03/intensifying-collapse-of-health-care.html)
As coverage erodes, we are most concerned about the hospitals and health systems that are the
anchor health care resources in most communities. With the economy and stocks tanking, the
investment income that was keeping many health systems afloat has disappeared. The ranks of
the uninsured and underinsured have exploded, so uncompensated care costs and bad debt are
skyrocketing. Few health systems have gotten serious about huge supply chain margins, often
north of 50 percent, so there's nowhere to turn in the short term. While safety net short term
acute care facilities have been under duress for many years, now these trends are conspiring to
also threaten the community facilities that cater to those with more resources. One recent survey
of 4,500 health systems, published before the economy really began to plummet, found that more
than half were "technically insolvent or at risk of insolvency." As the economy has worsened,
and jobs and money evaporate, many patients are breaking physician appointments or are unable
to pay for services received. Bad debt has become much more of a problem for physician
practices, so many have become more aggressive in collections. We have received anecdotal reports
that some physician practices are demanding payment in full prior to procedures, and are balance-billing their health
plan patients in direct violation of their contractual agreements. The health plans aren't positioned to police every
practice's policies. But if this trend is widespread in the system, it suggests that the niceties of business practice are
going by the wayside as practices struggle to maintain. Finally, the combination of health coverage erosion and high
care costs is fueling an arms race that, until fixes are in place, patients will lose. The two fastest growing segments
of the health care financial sector are individual credit scoring and collections, specifically aimed at capturing
available dollars for the system. In this economy, aggressive collections practices will drive many more patients into
bankruptcy, intensifying consumer dissatisfaction and further fueling the engines of change. Is Health Care A
Bursting Bubble? One of us recently had a 3.5 hour diagnostic procedure at a local hospital outpatient surgery
center. The EOB (Explanation of Benefits) from the health plan showed the hospital had submitted a facility charge
of just over $13,000 - more than four months of total income for one-third of American households - and the health
plan paid approximately $1,300, which means that willing vendors and purchasers agreed that the procedure's
market value was 10% of the charge. But without insurance, we would have been legally responsible for that bill,
with the willingness to negotiate utterly at the discretion of the health system. Setting aside the fact that charges are
crazily tied to the evolution of Medicare cost reports and grow out of stuffing every bit of possible cost into each
charge, the EOB begs three questions. 1. Is it appropriate to add a 1,000% surcharge for the sin of uninsurance. For
not-for-profit health systems especially, is it appropriate to do so while receiving a tax break for providing
community service? 2. When a provider chooses to pursue a receivable figure that is more than the established
market value (as determined through the contractual figure with the health plan), can that effort properly be
understood as inflating the market? 3. Can a system maintain stability when it inflates value beyond the means of
most of its purchasers ? The definition of a market bubble is a high variance between the intrinsic value of a product
and its market valuation. Bubbles always burst eventually, as inflated market values tumble back
towards intrinsic value. We're seeing this with homes and banking stocks. Are we there yet with
health care services? Could America's health system collapse? The Threat It's hard to imagine the
health care system in free fall. The federal government pays for approximately half of health care already, through
allocations for Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, the VA, and the Federal Employees' Benefit Program. The stimulus bill
allocates a "down payment" of $634 billion for health care reform over the next ten years, assuming that somehow
this money will go to save health care dollars. But it could just as easily become a bail out for the failing health care
sector, massively larger than the bailouts for the banks or the autos, and "too large to fail." Keep in mind that
health care is now 16 percent of the US economy, one dollar in seven and one job in eleven, so
large that any significant disruption in the sector would inevitably cascade to all other parts of
the economy.
Economic collapse causes World War Three

Mead, 9 Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign
Relations
(Walter Russell, Only Makes You Stronger, The New Republic, 2/4/09,
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2)
None of which means that we can just sit back and enjoy the recession. History may suggest that
financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other, less
reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300year rise of the liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of
the League of Augsburg and the Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American
Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars; the cold war: The list of wars is almost
as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars. Europe was a pretty
peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring
Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might
start slouching toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States
may not, yet, decline, but, if we can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to
fight.
States shoulder the costs now only a change in federal policy restores the system
Adrianne Ortega, 2009 (J.D. Boston U, M.P.H. Boston U School of Public Health. . . . And
Health Care For All: Immigrants in the Shadow of the Promise of Universal Health Care. 35
Am. J. L. and Med. 185//ZE)
Federal legislation creates a heavy burden on hospitals which then transfer social costs to the
state. n96 Hospitals often treat non-citizen patients after stabilization in the emergency room
while arranging an appropriate discharge. n97 Hospitals largely absorb the cost of this expensive
treatment. n98 A recent survey estimated that hospitals are collectively spending about $ 2
billion a year in unpaid medical expenses to treat undocumented [*196] immigrants. n99 One
hospital spent $ 1.5 million on one patient alone. n100 Sixty California hospitals were forced to
close between 1993 and 2003 due to outstanding bills for services rendered. n101 400 emergency
rooms closed between 1993 and 1998, and after the enactment of EMTALA, one of six trauma
centers decertified. n102 In 2008, the California Medicaid program spent an estimated $ 20
million on about 460 patients. n103 In a New York City public nursing home, undocumented
immigrants occupy roughly one fifth of 1,389 beds. n104 Hospitals transfer these financial
burdens to the states in the form of social costs. n105 For example, if a hospital in an urban area
must close for financial reasons, the individuals served by that hospital must seek treatment at
other local hospitals. As one hospital administrator put it, "We're unable to provide adequate care
for our own citizens . . . . A full bed is a full bed." n106 Closures, therefore, affect those in
surrounding areas with insurance and become a social problem for the state. n107 The high cost
of treating non-citizens after emergencies leads hospitals to go to great lengths to get rid of
expensive, undocumented patients. n108 A recent New York Times article, Immigrants Facing
Deportation by U.S. Hospitals, details the process by which United States hospitals are
"repatriating the sick." n109 Tactics include flying or driving undocumented patients back to
their country of origin. n110 Once a hospital repatriates a patient, the patient "is out of sight . . . out of mind"
and the hospital fails to follow-up with the patient. n111 Startling statistics revealed in the article include: Some
96 immigrants a year repatriated by St. Joseph's Hospital in Phoenix; 6 to 8 patients a year flown to their homelands
from Broward General Medical Center in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; 10 returned to Honduras from Chicago hospitals
since early 2007; some 87 medical cases involving Mexican immigrants -- and 265 involving people injured
crossing the border -- handled by the Mexican consulate in San Diego last year, most but not all of which ended in
repatriation. n112 [*197] Some label this type of international patient dumping a "death sentence," because most
home countries lack the facilities to treat the patients' often complex diagnoses. n113 For example, a Phoenix
hospital repatriated an uninsured farmworker, Antonio Torres, to Mexico when he was comatose and connected to a
ventilator. n114 "For days, Torres languished in a busy emergency room . . . but his parents . . . found a hospital in
California willing to treat him, loaded him in a donated ambulance, and drove him back to the United States as a
potentially deadly infection raged through his system." n115 Antonio recovered and leads a healthy life today in
Phoenix. n116 The hospital, St. Joseph's in Phoenix, repatriates six to eight patients per year. n117 The VicePresident of Scottsdale Healthcare in Arizona explained his view of the situation: Somebody falls out of a walnut
tree. They show up in our Trauma One center. We don't have any problem with treating or stabilizing them. It's the
humane thing to do. That's not where the costs run up. The costs run up after they're moved out of the
trauma unit into a regular bed. Nobody, no nursing home, wants to take them . . . . n118 The
hospital that willingly admitted Antonio, El Centro Regional Medical Center in California, said
"it never sends an immigrant over the border. 'We don't export patients . . . I can understand the
frustrations of other hospitals but the flip side is the human being element.'" n119 These
repatriation practices are largely unregulated by state or federal law. n120
Notice how the teams use cards to support all of their

claims. This is common in constructive speeches. The 1AC is
generally made up entirely of cards along with the plan. The
1NC is generally almost all cards. As the debate moves
forward, each speech usually relies a little less on cards and a
little more on analysis or comparison of cards that have already
been read. This illustrates that cards are very important in
policy debate.
The practice of finding evidence and turning it into
cards is called cutting cards. You will learn more about how
to do this later. If you want to get practice cutting cards now,
one of the best resources is Google News (news.google.com).
You can search newspapers from all around the world and most
of them are free to read. If you know whats going on in the
world, you will be able to make the most up-to-date-arguments
about the topic. This is particularly helpful when it comes to
debating disadvantages, which you will learn about in the next
section.

1. Identify the inherency, harms, and solvency in the
sample advantage
2. Cut a card on any subject. Its usually easy to find
articles with good cards by doing a search on Google
News (news.google.com).
3. Give your card a citation and a tag.
4. Underline your card.
5. Why are cards underlined?
2.5 Negative Disadvantages

In policy debate, the neg presents disadvantages to the
plan just like the aff presents advantages to it. A disadvantage
is a reason the plan is a bad idea. Disadvantages are often
called disads or DAs because these are common flowing
abbreviations for them. Like advantages, disads can be about
many different things. One of the most common disads is the
spending disad. The spending disad is an argument about how
the plan is bad because it spends too much money.
Like advantages, disads have several parts. The first
part is uniqueness. Uniqueness is an argument that the disad is
not going to occur in the status quo. In other words, it is
unique to the plan. Uniqueness is part of a negative DA but it
is similar to inherency for the affirmative. Inherency proves
the plan is not going to happen in the status quo. Uniqueness
proves the DA is not going to happen in the status quo.
To win uniqueness for the spending DA, you have to
prove that the government is not spending too much money in
the status quo. This is tricky because the government spends
money all the time. To win uniqueness, you need to prove that
the plans spending is different, or unique, from status quo
spending. For instance, you can say that the government is
getting spending under control now. Your uniqueness would
be something like, Obama is controlling spending in the status
quo.
The second part of a disad is the link. The link is what
connects, or links, the disad to the plan. It is a statement about
what the plan does that causes the disad. In the case of the
spending disad, this is as simple as saying, The plan spends
lots of money.
33
The next part of the disad is the internal link. The

internal link is everything between the link and the impact. It
is the link between those two parts of the disad. The internal
link for the spending disad is, Spending lots of money crashes
the economy. Sometimes disads have several internal links
because it takes several steps to connect the link to the impact.
Sometimes they dont have one at all because you can go
directly from the link to the impact.
Parts of a Disad:
Uniqueness
Link
Internal Link
Impact
You already learned about impacts in Chapter One.
Remember, an impact is why an argument is important. In the
case of the disad, the impact is the really, really bad thing that
will happen as a result of the plan. This usually means proving
that a lot of people will die. For instance, you might say that
crashing the economy causes a war.
Spending Disad:
Uniqueness: Obama is controlling spending in the
status quo
Link: The plan spends lots of money
Internal Link: Spending lots of money crashes the
economy
Impact: Crashing the economy causes a war
You can view an example of a disad with all of these parts on
pages 35-37.
Another common type of disad is the politics disad.

The politics disad is an argument about how the plan will
affect Congress or the president politically. The most common
type of politics disad is about political capital. Political
capital is the presidents ability to convince Congress to do
whats on his agenda. For instance, Obama needs political
capital to pass health care reform and economic stimulus bills.
Presidents gain political capital by being popular with the
public, pursuing popular policies, being successful, or doing
favors for members of Congress. Presidents can lose political
capital by wasting it, pursuing unpopular policies, or calling in
their favors with Congress.
The politics disad argues that his political capital is
limited because the president only has so much time, money,
and influence. He cant ask for everything and expect to get it.
The basic idea of the politics disad is that the plan saps Obama
of the political capital he needs to pass something specific, like
health care reform.
You probably have experienced what its like to have
limited capital with your parents. If you ask them to stay out
late every night, theyre not going to let you. If you only ask
occasionally, they might let you. If you convince them youre
making a one-time-only request, theyre even more likely to let
you. According to the politics disad, Obama has a similar
relationship with Congress.
The uniqueness for the political capital disad is that
Obama has enough political capital now to accomplish some
specific policy, like health care reform. The link is usually that
the plan is controversial. In other words, Congress doesnt like
it or takes a lot of convincing. A well-developed political
capital disad will have two internal links. The first is that
controversial policies drain political capital. The second is that
political capital is necessary to pass health care reform.
34
Sample DA (Spending DA 1NC)

A. Congress is controlling its spending now re-instatement of pay-go proves
Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader, and George Miller, Chair of the House Committee on Education and
Labor, 6/25/2009 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124588708823850591.html)
President Obama has made the pay-as-you-go rule -- a.k.a. "paygo" -- a central part of his campaign for
fiscal responsibility. Under paygo, Congress is compelled to find savings for the dollars it spends. In the
1990s, paygo proved to be one of our most valuable tools for climbing out of a budgetary hole. As
President Obama put it earlier this month, "It is no coincidence that this rule was in place when we moved
. . . to record surpluses in the 1990s -- and that when this rule was abandoned, we returned to record
deficits that doubled the national debt." President George W. Bush and the Republican Congress set paygo aside,
turning borrowed money into massive tax cuts for the most privileged. Borrowing made those tax cuts politically
pain-free as long as Mr. Bush was in office, but it only passed the bill on to the next generation -- along with everinflating interest payments. Democrats, on the other hand, understand that we owe it to our fiscal future
to pay our bills up-front. As soon as our party took back Congress in 2007, we made the principle of
paying for what we buy part of the House rules. To be sure, Congress hasn't always lived up to that
commitment, usually when the Senate rejected House bills that were paid for. But that is all the more reason to give
paygo the force of law. On Mr. Obama's behalf, we have introduced legislation to keep Congress,
whether controlled by Democrats or Republicans, from sacrificing our fiscal health to the political
pressures of the moment.
B. New social service spending freaks out investors

Irwin, Staff writer for the Washington Post covering the economy, 6-4-9 [Neil Irwin, Staff writer for the
Washington Post covering the economy, June, 4th, 2009, Bernanke Presses for Fiscal Restraint,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/03/AR2009060301367.html]
The nation needs to begin planning now to eventually bring taxes and spending in line,
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said yesterday, arguing that large budget
deficits, if sustained, could deepen the financial crisis and choke off the economy. Bernanke's
testimony to Congress reflected growing concern among economists and investors that the
nation's long-term fiscal imbalances could stand in the way of economic recovery by driving
up the interest rates that the government, businesses and consumers pay to borrow money.
The rate the government pays has already risen in recent weeks. The Fed chairman argued that even as
the government spends massive amounts of money to contain the financial crisis, it must be
prepared to move toward fiscal balance. "Congress and the administration face formidable near-term
challenges that must be addressed," Bernanke told the House Budget Committee. But "unless we
demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer term, we will have
neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth." The financial crisis is driving the country
deeply into the red, with the national debt projected to double from about 41 percent of the economy last year
to more than 82 percent by the end of the next decade. Thereafter, things will only get worse, budget analysts
say, as the baby boom generation lays claim to benefits from Social Security and costly federal health
programs. So far, President Obama has offered no plan to rein in those costs, though he has stressed the
importance of reducing the deficit generally. Bernanke frequently delivers messages on the need for fiscal
responsibility to congressional budget committees. But his comments yesterday carried more weight
given recent swings in the market for Treasury bonds. In particular, the global investors who
finance the nation's large budget deficits have grown more antsy. The U.S. Treasury must now
pay 3.5 percent to borrow money for 10 years -- low by historical standards, but up from about 3.1 percent a
month ago and 2.9 percent three months ago. The increase has come even as the Fed has launched a program to
buy up to $300 billion in Treasury bonds -- purchases designed to push down rates and did, when the program
was rolled out in March. The higher rates for government borrowing have many likely causes, and some of
those reflect improvement in financial markets. For example, as investors have become more
comfortable investing in risky assets such as stocks, they have been willing to move money
out of safe U.S. Treasury bonds and into other investments. But other reasons for the shift are less
positive. Investors are also worried that Congress and the Obama administration will continue
to rely heavily on borrowed money to fund the government and thus are demanding a higher
premium to lend it money. "These increases appear to reflect concerns about large federal
deficits," Bernanke said in his testimony, before naming other causes that are also playing a role. Some
analysts worry that the Fed will succumb to political pressure in the future to effectively print money to fund
government borrowing -- a process known as monetizing the debt. Two congressmen raised that possibility explicitly in
yesterday's hearing. "This can be a dangerous policy mix. The Treasury is issuing debt. And the central bank is buying it,"
said Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.). "It gives the alarming impression that the U.S. one day might begin to meet its
financial obligations by simply printing money. And we all know what happens to a country that chooses to monetize
its debt. It gets runaway inflation, a gradual erosion of workers' paychecks and family savings." Bernanke said that the Fed
takes its political independence seriously, and while it is now focused on using all the tools at its disposal to ease the pain
of the recession, it will respond aggressively if inflation becomes a problem. The Fed has given no strong indication of
whether it will expand its purchases of Treasury bonds. Without doing so, though, the Fed would have less flexibility to
stimulate the economy. It has already cut a key interest rate it controls to nearly zero. "They definitely have less leeway" to
buy more Treasury bonds, said Michael Feroli, an economist at J.P. Morgan Chase. "The Fed hasn't done a stellar job of
communicating its strategy" with the bond purchases, which, he argued, has allowed the discussion to be dominated by
people who argue that the Fed's actions are effectively monetizing the debt. Doing so would increase the money
supply, thereby weakening the dollar and leading to high inflation. One thing that would help assuage those
fears would be for government leaders to signal that they will manage the nation's finances well in the long
run. That would tend to keep long-term interest rates low, which in turn would help encourage an economic
recovery. Bernanke, as is his habit, did not recommend specific ways that Congress should aim to reduce longterm budget deficits; he views tax and spending decisions as the domain of elected officials. "In the end, the
fundamental decision that the Congress, the administration and the American people must
confront is how large a share of the nation's economic resources to devote to federal
government programs, including entitlement programs," Bernanke said. "Crucially, whatever size
of government is chosen, tax rates must ultimately be set at a level sufficient to achieve an
appropriate balance of spending and revenues in the long run."
Investor confidence decline collapses the economy
The Economist 6/11/2009 (http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13829461)
This alarming trajectory puts policymakers in an increasingly tricky bind. In the short term government borrowing is
an essential antidote to the slump. Without bank bail-outs the financial crash would have been even more of a
catastrophe. Without stimulus the global recession would be deeper and longerand it is a prolonged downturn that
does the greatest damage to public finances. But in the long run todays fiscal laxity is unsustainable.
Governments thirst for funds will eventually crowd out private investment and reduce economic
growth. More alarming, the scale of the coming indebtedness might ultimately induce governments
to default or to cut the real cost of their debt through high inflation. Investors have been fretting on both
counts. Worries about default have been focused on weaker countries in the euro area, particularly Greece, Ireland,
Italy, Portugal and Spain, where the single currency removes the option of unilateral inflation (see our special
report). Irelands debt was downgraded for a second time on June 8th. Fears of inflation have concentrated
on America, where yields on ten-year Treasuries reached nearly 4% on June 10th; in December the
figure was not much above 2%. Much of this rise stems from confidence about economic recovery rather than fiscal
alarm. Yet eye-popping deficits and the uncharted nature of todays monetary policy, with the
Federal Reserve (like the Bank of England) printing money to buy government bonds, are prompting
concerns that Americas debt might eventually be inflated away. Justified or not, such worries will
themselves wreak damage. The economic recovery could be stillborn if interest rates rise too far too fast. And
todays policy remedies could become increasingly ineffective. Printing more money to buy
government debt, for instance, might send long-term bond yields higher rather than lower. What
should policymakers do? A sudden fit of fiscal austerity would be a mistake. Even when economies stop shrinking,
they will stay weak. Japans experience in 1997, when a rise in consumption taxes pushed the economy back into
recession, is a reminder that a rush to fiscal tightening is counterproductive, especially after a banking bust. Instead
of slashing their deficits now, the rich worlds governments need to promise, credibly, that they will
do so once their economies are stronger. Lord, make me prudentbut not yet But how? Politicians
promises are not worth much by themselves. Any commitment to prudence must include clear principles on how
deficits will be shrunk; new rules to stiffen politicians spines; and quick action on politically difficult measures that
would yield future savings without denting demand much today, such as raising the retirement age. Broadly,
governments should pledge to clean up their public finances by cutting future spending rather than
raising taxes. Most European countries have scant room for higher taxes. In several, the government already hoovers
up well over 40% of GDP. Tax reform will be necessaryparticularly in places, such as Britain and Ireland, which
relied far too much on revenues from frothy financial markets and housing bubbles. Even in the United States,
where tax revenues add up to less than 30% of GDP, simply raising tax rates is not the best answer. There
too, spending control should take priority, though there is certainly room for efficiency-enhancing tax
reforms, such as eliminating the preferential tax treatment of housing and the deductibility of employer-provided
health insurance.
Economic collapse causes World War Three
Mead, 9 Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow in U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations
(Walter Russell, Only Makes You Stronger, The New Republic, 2/4/09,
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=571cbbb9-2887-4d81-8542-92e83915f5f8&p=2)
History may suggest that financial crises actually help capitalist great powers maintain their leads--but it has other,
less reassuring messages as well. If financial crises have been a normal part of life during the 300-year rise of the
liberal capitalist system under the Anglophone powers, so has war. The wars of the League of Augsburg and the
Spanish Succession; the Seven Years War; the American Revolution; the Napoleonic Wars; the two World Wars;
the cold war: The list of wars is almost as long as the list of financial crises. Bad economic times can breed wars.
Europe was a pretty peaceful place in 1928, but the Depression poisoned German public opinion and helped bring
Adolf Hitler to power. If the current crisis turns into a depression, what rough beasts might start slouching
toward Moscow, Karachi, Beijing, or New Delhi to be born? The United States may not, yet, decline, but, if we
can't get the world economy back on track, we may still have to fight.
Finally, the impact is that health care reform prevents a

lot of people from dying of disease. Remember, health care
reform is just one example of a political capital disad. It can be
about anything Obama wants to spend political capital on.
Political Capital Disad:
Uniqueness: Obama has enough political capital to pass
health care reform
Link: The plan is controversial
Internal Link 1: Controversial policies drain political
capital
Internal Link 2: Political capital is necessary to pass
health care reform
Impact: Health care reform is key to prevent deaths
from disease
A disad is like a chain. Its basically an argument that
the plan causes X, which causes Y, which causes Z, which
causes something bad. As you can see with spending and
politics, some disads involve more internal links, or links in the
chain, than others.
To refute the disad, the aff needs to break this chain.

They can refute any part of the disad. They can make nonunique arguments against the uniqueness. For example,
against the spending disad the aff can argue that Congress is
spending tons of money now. They can make no link
arguments against the link. For example, they can argue that
the plan doesnt spend money or the money they spend is not
that much. They can make no internal link arguments against
the internal link. For example, they can argue that spending
money doesnt hurt the economy or isnt enough to crash it.
Finally, they can make no impact arguments against the
impact. For example, they can argue that crashing the
economy doesnt cause a war or that the war wouldnt be that
big.
Refuting a Disad:
Non-unique (The disad will occur in the status quo)
No link (The plan doesnt what they claim it does)
No internal link (Theres no connection between the
link and the impact)
No impact (Their impact wont happen or its not that
bad)
Disad Chains:
Plan X Y Z Impact (something bad)
Plan They spend money Spending money hurts
the economy Economic decline causes war War
is bad
Plan Its controversial Controversy drains
political capital Without political capital health care
wont pass Without health care disease will spread
Disease is bad
38

1. Identify the uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact
in the sample DA.
2. What does uniqueness mean? Give an example
3. Why is it necessary to prove that a disad is unique?
4. What is the internal link? How many internal links
does a disad have?
5. Imagine you are debating a plan that provides school
breakfast. You want to argue a political capital disad
that says the plan prevents Obama from using his
political capital to fund wind and solar power. Write
out what each part of your disad would say.
6. Write four aff responses to the political capital disad.
2.6 On- and Off-Case Arguments

In the 1AC, the aff team reads their plan and their
advantages. They support each advantage with many cards that
prove inherency, harms, and solvency. All of this the
contents of the 1AC is called the aff case.
In the 1NC, the neg does two things. First, they read
their own disads and sometimes topicality violations. These
are neg offense. These types of arguments are called off-case
arguments because they do not directly clash with the aff case.
In the 1NC, the neg should also refute each of the aff
advantages. Arguments that directly refute advantages are
called on-case arguments. Most on-case arguments are neg
defense. Its actually possible to have on-case arguments that
are offense. When you refute with offense, its called a turn.
A turn is like an interception in football. Although the other
team started the play, you gain yards. For example, you could
turn the spending disad arguing that spending lots of money

actually helps the economy by stimulating it.
Understanding the difference between on- and off-case
arguments is important because it influences flowing and
signposting. In policy debate, each off-case argument should
be flowed on a separate sheet of paper. This may seem
excessive now but when you get better at debate each sheet of
paper will be full of arguments. If you dont flow on separate
sheets of paper, your flows will be too crowded and confusing.
Each advantage should also be flowed on a separate sheet of
paper. On-case arguments should be flowed next to the
advantage they are refuting. If there are 2 advantages and two
disads, there should be at least 4 flows.9
When you give the road map for the 1NC, its
customary to first tell the judge how many off-case arguments
youre going to read. You dont need to tell them the names.
By telling them the number, you let them know how many new
sheets of paper theyll need. You can do this by saying
something like, Ill read 4 off-case arguments. This is often
abbreviated to just 4 off. Second, tell the judge what order
you will use to address the advantages. This tells them how
they should arrange their advantage flows.
Sometimes teams have extra contentions. They might have a

contention to respond to an argument the neg may make later.
They might also have inherency or solvency as a separate
contention. These should also have their own sheets of paper.
39
1NC Road Maps:

The order is 4 off-case, then the poverty advantage,
then the disease advantage
First Ill read 3 off, then Ill go to the economy
advantage, then Ill go to poverty
Two off, disease, poverty, economy
After the 1NC, the road map should tell the judge the
order of both the off-case arguments and the advantages. Since
the judge has already flowed the 1NC on specific sheets of
paper, they need to be able to get all of them in the right order.
Road Maps After the 1NC:
The order is the spending disad, then the politics disad,
then the disease advantage, then the poverty advantage
First Ill go to the topicality violation, then Ill go to
the disad, then Ill go to the economy advantage, then
Ill go to poverty
Topicality, spending, politics, disease, poverty,
economy
You should also signpost on- and off-case arguments
differently. One general rule is that you should always
announce to the judge when you change to a new sheet of
paper. This means you need to announce every time you go to
a new off-case argument or a new advantage. You can just say
something like Now on to the spending disad. A second
general rule is you should use They say to tell the judge
where you are on a specific sheet of paper. For instance, you
might say, They say non-unique but If you follow these
rules, the judge will have a good flow of your speech that he or
she can use to help decide the debate.
Table 6 On- and Off-Case Arguments

Examples
Off-Case
Topicality
Disads
Offense or defense
Offense10
Where to flow
Next to the
advantages they
refute (one sheet of
paper per
advantage)
Announce the
number of off-case
arguments
1NC road map
Later road maps

Signposting
On-Case
Status quo solves
No impact
No solvency
Defense except for
turns
New sheet of paper
for each off-case
argument
Announce the
order in which you
will refute the
advantages
Announce the
Announce the
order of the sheets order of the sheets
of paper
of paper
Announce when
Announce when
you change to a
you change to a
new sheet of paper new sheet of paper
and use They say and use They say
for specific
for specific
arguments on each arguments on each
sheet of paper
sheet of paper
10
The two examples youve learned about so far, topicality and

disads, are both offense. Later, youll learn about
counterplans, a type of off-case argument that isnt really
offense.
40

1. Assume you are debating the poverty topic and the aff
has a poverty advantage. Classify each of the following
neg arguments as on-case or off-case:
a. The plan doesnt solve poverty providing
health care is not enough to make sure people
have food or shelter.
b. The US has good relations with Mexico now.
The plan makes developing countries mad
because it shows we only care about poor
people in the US even though people in Mexico
are worse off. If Mexico is mad, they wont
help make the US-Mexican border secure. If
the border is not secure, terrorists will use it to
stage another attack.
c. The plan isnt topical because it only gives
health care to a small number of people so its
not substantial.
d. The plan makes poverty worse because people
will use free health care as an excuse not to
work.
2. Explain where the judge would flow each of the
3. Assuming these are the only arguments you plan on
making, write out your road map for the 1NC.
2.7 Extending Arguments

You now should have a pretty good idea of what goes
on in the 1AC and the 1NC. However, those are only the first
two of eight speeches. The other six speeches are about
refuting the other teams arguments and extending your own.
Extending an argument does not mean just repeating or
restating it. Assuming the other team refuted your argument in
some way, repeating it does not help you win. Extending an
argument means effectively refuting everything the other team
said in response. When you extend an argument, you keep it in
the debate so the judge can consider it when he or she picks the
winning team.
When you are neg, you can and should extend both onand off-case arguments. Extending an off-case argument
sometimes, but not always, starts with an overview. An
overview is a short explanation of your argument before you
get into refutation. It can be helpful to have a couple of
sentences to remind the judge what you are talking about,
highlight an important point, or clarify something confusing.
However, the overview should not be more than a couple of
sentences or else you are wasting your time.
After the overview, you should go on to refute each
point the other team made on that sheet of paper. Use They
say to reference the argument and then respond. You should
almost always use the same order they used. This type of
refutation is called line-by-line because you refute each line of
argument they make, one by one. Effective line-by-line
refutation can dramatically increase the number of debates you
win.
If you understand your advantage, disad, or topicality
violation well, refuting their arguments shouldnt be too
difficult. When they say non-unique, you prove your disad is
41
unique. When they say no link, you prove your disad does
link. The same is true when you are aff and you are extending
an advantage. Sometimes you can rely on the cards you
already read and sometimes you may need to read more.
Extending an on-case argument is similar. Start by
summarizing your argument very briefly. This allows the
judge to find it on his or her flow and remember what your
argument is. The best way to do this is to signpost with the
argument number and the argument name. Then refute
anything they said in response. You should use They say to
reference the other teams arguments.
Extending an On-Case Argument:
Extend our first argument that the plan doesnt solve.
Even if people have health care, they still wont have
food or shelter. They say health care is more important,
but you will die without food or shelter.
Extend number three status quo solves. There is
already Medicaid to provide health insurance for people
in poverty. They say its not enough, but it covers the
people most in poverty who are most in need.
The aff extends their advantages just like the neg
extends their disads. When youre aff, its also a good idea to
use line-by-line refutation. The aff extends their responses to
the disads and topicality violations just like the neg extends oncase arguments.
To win an advantage, disad, or topicality violation, you
must extend it in every speech. Likewise, to beat one of those
arguments you must extend a response in every speech. When
the judge makes his or her decision, he or she only considers
the last two rebuttals. The rest of the debate sets up the
arguments that are available in the 2NR and the 2AR. The one
exception is the neg block. Because it is considered one big

speech, there is no need to extend an argument in both the 2NC
and the 1NR. Its strategic to split the block by extending
some arguments in the 2NC and others in the 1NR.
Judges in policy debate are supposed to be unbiased.
They are supposed to decide based on the arguments debaters
make, not based on how they feel. If one debater makes an
argument with a warrant and the other team doesnt respond,
judges generally treat the argument as true.11 Failing to
respond to the other teams argument is called dropping it.
Dropping an argument in debate is sort of like fumbling the
ball in football. Its not good. When you extend an argument,
you should try not to drop any of their responses. Otherwise, it
might take out your whole advantage or disad.
Constructive speeches in policy debate are eight
minutes long but rebuttals are only five. Its impossible to
effectively extend every single argument in your last rebuttal.
As a result, its important to pick and choose. In the 2NR, you
should pick the disad or topicality violation that you think
gives you the best chance of winning. If you try to extend
more than one, you will probably extend neither effectively.
Remember, you also need time to extend on-case arguments.
You should also pick the best few arguments against each
advantage. Likewise, the aff needs to pick the best arguments
to extend in the 1AR and 2AR.
At any point in a debate, you can decide not to extend
an argument. When you dont extend an argument, its called
kicking out of it. As long as the other team didnt make any
turns, you can kick out of an on-case argument just by not
11
Notice this is about when a debater makes an argument with

a warrant. If a debater says the sky is blue so we win and the
other team doesnt respond, it
42
extending it. To kick out of an off-case argument with no

turns, you should announce youre doing so during your
speech. This way the judge knows he or she doesnt need that
piece of paper anymore.
Table 7 Kicking vs. Dropping Arguments
What it means
On purpose or by
accident
When to do it
How to do it
Dropping
Forgetting to
respond to an
argument
By accident
Kicking
Deciding not to
extend an argument
Never
Any time during

the debate so you
can focus on your
important
arguments
If there are no turns
on an off-case
argument, just
announce during
your speech that
you are kicking out
of it12
Try not to do it
On purpose
Good or bad
Bad
How it affects the

judges decision
If the dropped
argument is
warranted, the
judge gives it
100% probability
Usually good
because it allows
you to focus on
important
arguments
If there are no
turns, the argument
just goes away and
has no effect on the
decision
12
If there are turns, kicking out of an argument is more

complicated. You have to extend one of the other teams
defensive arguments to take out the turn. You will learn about
this later.
43

1. Assume you read the spending disad. Write down what
you would say to extend it in the neg block if the aff
made these arguments:
a. Non-unique the federal government is
spending lots of money now
b. No link the plan only spends a little because it
only applies to people in poverty
c. No impact economic decline doesnt cause
war otherwise we would have a war right now.
2. Assume you read the same disad but now you want to
kick out of it. Write down what you would say to kick
out of it.
3. Assume you read a spending disad and the aff made the
same arguments as in question 1. You also read a
political capital disad and the aff only responded by
saying, Political capital is totally, like, not important.
Which one should you kick out of?
4. Assume you are debating a plan that provides school
breakfast. You made an on-case argument that kids
wont eat the breakfast because its not cool. The aff
says theyll eat it because its tasty. Write down what
you would say to extend this argument.
5. Now you dont want to extend this on-case argument.
What would you do?
44
Chapter 3: The Basics of LincolnDouglas Debate

In this chapter you will learn about a specific type of
debate called Lincoln-Douglas (LD). You will learn the
specific elements of LD debate, including case writing and
debating values. The discussion of LD will focus on civil
disobedience, which is the novice topic for the beginning of the
year.
The essential questions that you should keep in mind during
this unit are:
1. What happens in a Lincoln-Douglas debate?
2. How do I debate competing values?
3. How do I write a strong LD case?
4. What are arguments in favor of and against civil
disobedience?
3.1 Introduction to Lincoln-Douglas Debate

So far, you have learned about public debates and
policy debates. LD is different from both of these. Its kind of
like a middle ground between the two. LD resolutions tend to
be philosophical. They are not about specific policies or
changes; they are about values and ideas.
Sample LD Resolutions:
Resolved: Military conscription is unjust (NFL
Nationals 2009)
Resolved: When in conflict, the preservation of
minority cultural values ought to be valued above the
preservation of a unified national culture (NCFL
Nationals 2009)
Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government
has failed to enforce the law (March/April 2009)
Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the
jurisdiction of an international court designed to
prosecute crimes against humanity (January/February
2009)
Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to
retain the right to vote (November/December 2008)
Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent
person to save the lives of more innocent people
(September/October 2008)
You should notice a couple of things about these
resolutions. First, each resolution is followed by a specific
timeframe. Like policy, there is one LD topic for the whole
country. The topic changes every two months, which is more
often than policy but less often than public debate.13
Second, there is a large variety of LD resolutions.
Some of them, like the September/October topic, are very
philosophical. Others, like the January/February topic, are a lot
like policy resolutions. All the resolutions tend to be shorter
and less specific than policy resolutions. They dont begin
with The United States federal government should.
13
There is also a separate resolution for each of two national

tournaments.
45
Some LD resolutions compare two values, like minority

cultural values and unified national culture. With resolutions
like this, the aff tries to prove minority cultural values are more
important and the neg tries to prove a unified national culture is
more important. Some resolutions question whether something
is just or moral, like military conscription.14 In this case, the
aff tries to prove military conscription is unjust and the neg
tries to prove its just. Finally some resolutions are about
whether something ought to or should be done, like felons
having voting rights. The aff tries to prove they should and the
neg tries to prove they shouldnt. Its a little different than
policy, because the neg is defending the argument that felons
shouldnt vote, which is different than the status quo where
some can and some cant.
Unlike policy, LD is always one-on-one, with one aff
debater and one neg debater. Because there are fewer people
involved, an LD debate tends to take about half as long as a
policy debate. Like other forms of debate, LD has
constructives, rebuttals, and cross-examinations but the debate
round is organized a little differently.
Table 8 Lincoln-Douglas Debate Structure

Aff Constructive (AC)
Neg Constructive (NC)
First Aff Rebuttal (1AR)
Neg Rebuttal (NR)
Second Aff Rebuttal (2AR)
6 min
3 min
7 min
3 min
4 min
6 min
3 min
Aff speaker
Neg questions aff
Neg speaker
Aff questions neg
Aff speaker
Neg speaker
Aff speaker
Each debater gets one constructive and gets to ask

questions in one cross-examination. However, the aff gets two
rebuttals and the neg gets only one. This may seem unfair, but
each debater gets the same amount of time to speak. The aff
rebuttal is just divided into two parts. The neg has one big
rebuttal, sort of like the neg block in policy.
Like in policy, each team gets prep time. The amount
of prep time varies from tournament to tournament but usually
ranges between 3 and 5 minutes.
Table 9 Differences Between Policy and LD
Resolutions
14
Military conscription means requiring people to fight in the

military. Its sometimes called a draft. The US had
conscription during most of its wars but the army is currently
made up of volunteers.
Length of
resolution
Debaters per side
Number of
speeches
Number of crossexaminations
Policy
Statements that the
USFG should make
a change
1 year
LD
Statements of value
(several different
kinds)
2 months
2
8
1
5
46

1. Write what the aff and neg are trying to prove for each
of the following LD resolutions:
a. Resolved: Juveniles charged with violent crimes
should be tried and punished as adults.
b. Resolved: That secondary education in America
should value the fine arts over athletics.
c. Resolved: On balance, violent revolution is a
just response to political oppression.
2. Write an LD resolution for a topic you are interested in
debating.
3. Why does the aff have two rebuttals while the neg only
gets one?
3.2 The Civil Disobedience Topic

The LD topic that we will be debating is civil
disobedience. The specific wording is below. This is more
abstract than other resolutions weve debated in class.
LD Resolution:
Resolved: In a democracy, civil disobedience is morally
justified.
The most important term in the resolution is civil
disobedience. One of the most common definitions is the one
used by the modern philosopher John Rawls. He identifies
several important characteristics. First, civil disobedience is
public. The goal is to have other people see your act of
disobedience so you raise awareness for your cause. This
means the government must be aware you are breaking the law.
When Rosa Parks refused to change seats, she wanted other
people to notice; she was engaging in civil disobedience.
Privately choosing to not pay your taxes is not civil
disobedience.
Second, Rawls defines civil disobedience as nonviolent. If you protest war by physically harming soldiers, you
are not engaging in civil disobedience. If you are protesting,
you are arrested, and you fight against the police, you are not
engaging in civil disobedience. In fact, Rawls argues that civil
disobedience requires accepting your punishment.
Third, Rawls defines civil disobedience as
conscientious. You do it because your conscience tells you the
law is wrong, not because you dont feel like following it. For
instance, you might pay taxes because you dont feel like
paying. This is not civil disobedience. If you dont pay
because you believe its immoral to have the government use
your money to fund a war, you are engaging in civil
disobedience.
Fourth, according to Rawls, civil disobedience is a
breach of law. This makes it different from regular protest.
Holding up signs or legally marching is not civil disobedience.
Finally, Rawls argues that civil disobedience has the
aim of bringing about change. This is related to publicity. The
goal of civil disobedience is changing the law. If you succeed,
theres no longer a reason for disobedience. If you were not
paying taxes to protest a war, you would start paying them
again when the war stopped.
47
Civil Disobedience According to Rawls15:

Public
Non-violent
Conscientious
Breach of law
Aim of bringing about change
The phrase in a democracy is also important.
Democracy can be defined as government by the people or as
political and social equality.16 Youre not debating about
civil disobedience in Nazi Germany. That would be much too
easy for the aff. You can even argue that Rosa Parks was not
in a democracy because she wasnt equal.
Finally, the phrase morally justified is important
because that tells you what the aff and neg have to prove. The
aff has to prove that civil disobedience is morally justified and
the neg has to prove it isnt.
Youve already learned about some flowing

abbreviations that will be useful in LD. You should also
develop abbreviations for words commonly used in LD.
Writing out all the letters in civil disobedience will take way
too long. Some suggestions are below. Remember, these are
only suggestions and youre free to use any abbreviations you
want.
Table 10 Common LD Flowing Abbreviations
CD Civil
disobedience
ROL Rule of law
Justified or
justice
Change17
1. Use Rawlss definition to explain whether each of the

following scenarios is civil disobedience and why:
a. Tom, an AITE student, hates the new DyKnow
software because he can no longer play Tetris
during math. He protests by blowing up the
DyKnow headquarters.
b. Joe, an AITE student, believes marijuana should
be legal. He protests drug laws by holding a
sign at that reads BONG HITS FOR JESUS
on High Ridge Road in front of the school. This
violates school drug policy.
c. Sara is mad because there is no pooper-scooper
law in her neighborhood so every time she visits
15
dem Democracy
Civil Disobedience in Brief:

Civil disobedience means disobeying a law because you
believe it is immoral.
For instance, when Rosa Parks refused to give up her
seat, she was engaging in civil disobedience.
When pharmacists refuse to give out birth control
because it is against their religion, they are also
engaging in civil disobedience.
Rawls, John (1971), A Theory of Justice. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.
16
Random House Dictionary (2009).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy
NV Non-violent
17
As you may have learned, this triangle is the Greek letter

delta, which is the mathematical symbol for change.
48
the local park her shoes get covered in smelly

poo. She makes a sign that says, Its your duty
to get rid of doodie! and carries it to the park,
singing, We shall overcome.
d. Luis drives down the same street every day to
get to work. The city of Stamford recently put a
stop sign on the street and it slows Luis down.
Because he doesnt believe in the stop sign, he
doesnt stop at it. He has never been in a car
accident.
e. Brenda doesnt believe in public education. She
knows that some of her tax money goes to
education, so instead of paying her taxes she
sends a letter to the IRS that explains, with a lot
of profanity, why shes not paying her taxes.
She also sends a copy of the letter to the local
newspaper.
2. Why is the phrase in a democracy important?
3. Why is the phrase morally justified important?
3.3 Values and Value Criteria

Because LD debates are very abstract, it can be hard for
judges to decide them. A judge probably has no idea what
morally justified means. Debaters help them out by
explaining how to decide the debate. To do this, each LD
debater usually includes a value premise and a value criterion
in his or her case.
The value premise, sometimes just called a value, is
how each debater tells the judge to evaluate the debate. For
instance, if you are debating the topic Resolved: Dairy Queen
is the best restaurant in Stamford, your value premise might
be tastiness. Value premise is often abbreviated as VP.
Value Premises for the Best Restaurant:

Tastiness
Cost
Healthiness
Presentation
Number of food choices
Service
By picking tastiness as your VP, you are basically
saying to the judge, When you decide what the best restaurant
in Stamford is, your goal should be to pick the tastiest. In
other words, youre saying, The best restaurant must be a tasty
one. Of course, thats just a claim. You also have to provide
a warrant. For instance, you could say, When people publish
restaurant ratings, they focus on taste, proving its most
important.
You should use a VP when debating civil disobedience.
When debating civil disobedience, your VP has to relate to the
phrase morally justified, not best restaurant.
A good VP should be something that pretty much
everyone agrees is good. It should also be closely related to
the resolution. Either morality or justice would probably be a
good VP. If you pick morality, for instance, you are saying to
the judge, In order for something to be morally justified, it has
to be moral.
49
Common Value Premises in LD:

Justice
Societal welfare
Human worth
Human dignity
Autonomy
Democracy
Because value premises are still broad and vague, they
are not enough to help the judge decide the debate. As a result,
each debater combines his or her value with a specific value
criterion. A value criterion is a way of measuring a value
premise. The value criterion is often abbreviated VC.
Returning to the best restaurant resolution, if your VP
was tastiness, you would want to pick a specific way of
measuring tastiness. For instance, you might want to pick a
particular category or menu item. You might have a VC of
tastiest dessert. By picking this VC, you are saying to the
judge, The restaurant with the tastiest desert is the tastiest.
In other words, We should figure out which restaurant is the
tastiest by looking at which has the tastiest dessert.
VP/VC Pairs for the Best Restaurant:
Cost/cost of one common dish
Cost/average price of an entre
Healthiness/average number of calories per entre
Healthiness/average fat per entre
Service/average tip
Service/average time before food is received
When debating civil disobedience, you will also want to
pick a VC. For instance, if you are neg with justice as your
VP, your VC could be the rule of law. You would then
argue that a just society must have a strong rule of law because
otherwise people can treat each other unfairly. Therefore, you
are saying the rule of law is a good way of measuring justice.
Like your VP, your VC should be supported with a warrant.
You want to pick a VC that fits well with your
contentions. While your VP should be something that either
side could debate, your VC should be slanted toward your side.
Rule of law is a good VC for the neg but probably not the
aff. Its easier to prove that civil disobedience hurts the rule of
law. Likewise, the neg should probably not pick something
like minority rights as a VC. The aff has a much stronger
case that civil disobedience supports minority rights.
To see how value premises and criteria fit together,
imagine youre debating, Resolved: A just society ought not
use the death penalty as a form of punishment. If youre aff,
you could use justice as your VP and equal treatment as your
VC. This is a good choice because minorities tend to receive
the death penalty more often than whites. The basic thesis of
your case would then be, We should not use the death penalty
because it undermines justice by treating people unequally.
If you are neg, you could also use justice as your VP
and retribution (which means punishment) as your VC. This is
a good choice because you could argue that its only fair that
killers get killed. The basic thesis of your case would then be,
We should use the death penalty because it increases justice
by punishing killers. You will know if your VP and VC make
sense if you can make a statement like this with them.
More VP/VC Pairs for the Death Penalty:
Aff VP: Human Dignity/VC: Non-Violence
Neg VP: Societal Welfare/VC: Minimizing Crime
50

1. What makes a good VP?
2. What makes a good VC?
3. Suppose you are debating Resolved: An adolescents
right to privacy ought to be valued above a parents
conflicting right to know.
a. What is a good VP and VC for the aff?
b. What is a good VP and VC for the neg?
3.4 Social Contract Theory

Now that you understand the basics of LD and civil
disobedience, you can start thinking up arguments for the
affirmative and negative. It helps to understand a little
philosophy that you can use to make your arguments.
Civil disobedience, by definition, breaks the law. As a
result, its a good idea to understand why laws are important
and whether its ever okay to break them. Social contract
theory is one way of understanding why laws are important.
Social contract theory says that people voluntarily give up
some rights to the government to maintain social order. For
example, people give up the right to drive as fast as they want
in order be protected from other crazy drivers. Speed limits are
one example of a social contract.
Think about what life would be like without
government. A world without government is called anarchy.
Under anarchy, you could do whatever you want. On the other
hand, people could do whatever they want to you. Anyone
could steal from you, hurt you, or kill you and the only thing
you could do would be fight back. While some people claim
anarchy would work, most agree it would be pretty terrible.
Most people would be willing to give up some rights to avoid
anarchy. This is why people are willing to have a government.

Social contract theory says the government exists because
people voluntarily agree to it to avoid anarchy.
Thomas Hobbes18 is basically the founder of social
contract theory. He described a world without a social contract
as a state of nature where life would be nasty, brutish, and
short. Hobbes argued that the only solution is a king that
imposes rules to prevent the state of nature. According to
Hobbes, civil disobedience is definitely bad. Hobbes thought
the government should have absolute power and shouldnt be
questioned. An act of civil disobedience might create a
slippery slope, leading to more illegal acts and causing
anarchy.
While Hobbes makes a clear argument against civil
disobedience, his actual version of a social contract is pretty
hard to defend. After all, Hobbes insists that a king must be in
charge. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, another important
philosopher, makes a more moderate argument. He argues that
society should be controlled by the general will of the
people. In other words, the government should do whats good
for people as a whole, not special interests. According to
Rousseau, people can be selfish, which gets in the way of the
general will. You might want to legalize drugs and ban school
but that might not be good for society. Workers wouldnt be
very productive.
You can use Rousseaus version of the social contract
to argue against civil disobedience. A democracy comes pretty
close to the general will because everyone gets to vote. Civil
disobedience breaks democratic laws. You can argue that civil
disobedience puts individual interests above the general will.
18
One character in the comic strip Calvin and Hobbes is

named after Thomas Hobbes.
51
If you dont pay your taxes because you dont support the war
on drugs, thats putting your own desire to use drugs over what
the majority of people want.
Both Hobbes and Rousseaus social contract theories
can be used to argue against civil disobedience. However, you
can actually use John Lockes version of social contract theory
to argue for civil disobedience.19 Like Hobbes and Rousseau,
Locke believed people would voluntarily come together and
form a social contract to avoid anarchy. However, Locke had a
little more faith in people and a little less faith in government.
Locke thought that people would be more civilized in the state
of nature, so there was less need for a powerful government.
Because Locke was less afraid of the state of nature, he was
less afraid of people breaking the law. Locke argued that
people have a right to rebel and that people might sometimes
reject one government in order to put a better one in its place.
You can argue that civil disobedience is part of this right to
challenge the government.
John Rawls is another philosopher who uses social
contract theory to support civil disobedience. You already
learned about his definition of civil disobedience. Rawls
argues that civil disobedience is a way that people can show
the majority that theyre not respecting justice.
As you can see, social contract theory can be useful for

both the aff and the neg. This is true for many LD topics. In
fact, social contract theory is a common VC. It can be
combined with a VP such as societal welfare. Because there
are so many different versions of the social contract, its wise
to specify which you are using as your VC. LD debaters often
say things like, My value criterion is Rousseaus Social
Contract.

1. Assume you are debating civil disobedience.
a. What VP and VC could you use for the aff?
b. What VP and VC could you use for the neg?
2. Explain how you could use social contract theory:
a. To argue that civil disobedience is good
b. To argue that civil disobedience is bad
c. As a VC
3. Give an example of what might happen in the state of
nature according to Hobbes.
4. Identify whether each philosopher is more useful for the
aff or the neg with the civil disobedience topic:
a. Hobbes
b. Locke
c. Rawls
d. Rousseau
19
Locke argued the role of government was to protect life,

liberty, and property. This is the main influence behind the
Declaration of Independence.
52
3.5 The Affirmative Constructive

The first speech in an LD debate is the Affirmative
Constructive (AC). The AC is where the aff lays out, or
constructs, its case. Because the neg hasnt spoken yet, theres
no need to refute in the AC. All six minutes can be spent
building up your case, making it strong and less vulnerable to
attack. It is important to write your case well so you use your
time effectively.
You have already learned about values, value criteria,
and contentions. While not every LD case is the same, these
are all important components of most aff cases.
Typical Aff Case Structure:
Brief introduction (sometimes)
The resolution
Definitions
Value premise
Value criterion
Thesis (sometimes)
Contentions (with claims, warrants, and impacts)
Many aff cases start with a short introduction. You
might read a quote or make a brief statement or observation.
This can be a good way to grab the judges attention but is not
always necessary.
Next, you should clearly state the resolution. For
instance, you might say, I affirm Resolved: The death penalty
is immoral. Make sure you get all the words right. This tells
the judge clearly what you are debating and what side you are
on. After stating the resolution, you should define any
important terms. You will want to use briefer definitions than
those at the beginning of this chapter. You can use definitions

from the dictionary or from articles about the topic.
Examples of Terms You Should Define:
Resolved: The United States ought to submit to the
jurisdiction of an international court designed to
prosecute crimes against humanity.
Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the
government has failed to enforce the law.
Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought to
retain the right to vote.
After defining the terms in the resolution, you should
state your VP and explain why it fits with the resolution. For
instance, if you are debating Resolved: The death penalty is
immoral you might have a VP of human rights. To establish
this as a good VP, you need to explain why respecting human
rights is important for morality.
Next, you should state your VC and explain why it fits
well with your VP. For instance, you might have a VC of
international law for your VP of human rights. You should
explain that following international law is essential to having
strong human rights.
After discussing your VP and VC, many debaters find
it helpful to state a thesis. This is just like a thesis in an essay.
A thesis summarizes the main idea of your case in one
sentence, helping the judge understand the importance of your
contentions. It also helps prevent you from going off track. A
thesis should tie your VP and VC to the resolution. For
example, you could say My thesis is that the death penalty is
immoral because it undermines the protection of human rights
by violating a right established in international law.
53
Sample Theses:
Aff: The death penalty is immoral because it
undermines justice by treating people unequally.
Neg: The death penalty is moral because it increases
societal welfare by minimizing crime.
Finally, you should read one or more contentions.
Remember, aff contentions are specific reasons the resolution
is true or good. In LD, they should be reasons that support
your value criterion. If you are debating the death penalty and
your value criterion is minimizing crime, for instance, your
contentions should be reasons why the death penalty minimizes
crime.
The contentions are like longer versions of the
paragraphs in the body of an essay. In an essay, each
paragraph should begin with a topic sentence that summarizes
the paragraphs main point. In a debate case, each contention
should start with a quick summary of your main claim. You
should then support your claim with warrants. You can
support your claims with your own reasoning or with cards.
The more warrants you have, the better your case will be.
Depending on the contention, you may have several
different warrants. Cards are a little less important than in
policy debate but are still important. Most good debate cases
will include at least one card per contention. They might look
slightly different than cards in policy debate but its the same
idea. Unlike in the 1AC in policy debate, the AC in LD
usually includes a lot of the debaters own analysis.
Sample Card in LD:

Civil disobedience is essential for social change.
According to Gordon Clark, a Convener of the National
Campaign for Nonviolent Resistance, in 2007:
(9/1/07, Al Gore, James Hansen, and Civil
Disobedience. Znet.
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=
13675.)
Gore and Hansen must both know that nonviolent direct
action has been a significant catalyst in nearly every
major social change movement in U.S. (and world)
history, starting in this country with the Boston Tea
Party and extending through the anti-slavery, woman's
suffrage, labor rights, civil rights, environmental and
anti-war movements. Nonviolent direct action can
dramatize an injustice or danger to the general public as
few other actions can. It both provokes other people to
act and speak - often people who had previously been
silent - and it opens up political space for them to do so.
Nonviolent actions are acts of courage that inspire
others to follow. They are acts of leadership.
54
After reading one or more warrants to support your

claim, you should impact your contention. Remember, the
impact is why your contention is important. In LD, your
impact should clearly relate your contention to your VC.20 The
VP and VC are all about telling the judge how to evaluate the
debate, so you need to prove your arguments are relevant to the
framework for evaluation you established. For example, you
could have a contention about how civil disobedience is key to
social change and a VC about protecting minority rights. You
would need to explain how social change helps protect
minority rights.
After you finish writing one or more contentions your
case is done! Unlike an essay, your case doesnt need a
conclusion. You will want to edit your writing and make sure
your case is 6 minutes long.

1. Suppose you are debating Resolved: An adolescents
right to privacy ought be valued above a parents
conflicting right to know. You are aff.
a. What terms would you define?
b. What would your thesis be? (HINT:
Remember, you came up with a value premise
and criterion for this resolution earlier.)
c. What would your contentions be? You only
need to list the claims.
d. What kind of evidence would you use?
e. How would you impact each contention?
2. Suppose you are debating civil disobedience and you
are aff. Answer the questions above.
3. Make a flow of the civil disobedience case you outlined
in question 2.
20
Later in the debate, you can also impact your VC in terms of

your opponents VC. That way you might still win the debate
even if your opponent proves his or her VC is more important
than yours.
55
3.6 The Negative Constructive

The second speech in an LD debate is the Neg
Constructive (NC). Like the AC, the NC is a constructive
speech. However, there are some important differences.
Table 11 Differences Between the AC and the NC
Speech Time
Time Spent
Building Case
Time Spent
Refuting
Definitions
AC
6 minutes
6 minutes
NC
7 minutes
About 3.5 minutes
0 minutes
About 3.5 minutes
Yes
Only if theres
disagreement
Because the aff has already spoken, you cant devote

your whole NC to building your arguments. You have to spend
some time refuting. As a result, the neg case needs to be much
shorter than the aff case. Usually, it only takes up half of the
NC. Still, the important parts are the same.
Structure of a Neg Case:
Brief introduction (sometimes)
Value premise
Value criterion
Thesis (sometimes)
Contentions (with claims, warrants, and impacts)
Like some aff cases, some neg cases start with a brief
introduction. Others simply begin with I negate. There is no
need to restate the resolution because the judge has already
heard it once. The neg does not need to read definitions unless
its important that they disagree with the affs definitions. For
instance, if the aff defines civil disobedience as legal protest
the neg would want to read another definition since its too
hard to prove legal protest is bad.
Next, the neg reads a VP and VC. Like the aff, the neg
explains how the VP relates to the resolution and how the VC
relates to the value. Likewise, many but not all neg teams read
a thesis.
Finally, the neg reads contentions. Just like the aff, the
neg will include claims, warrants, and impacts. However, the
neg may have fewer contentions or they may be shorter
because they have less time. You should make sure that your
total neg case takes about 3.5 minutes to read.
The second half of the NC is very different from the
AC. After reading your case, you should move on to refuting
the aff case. Be sure to signpost so the judge knows to flip
over his or her flow.
You should try to refute all the important parts of the
aff case. Specifically, you need to refute their value
premise/criterion and each of their contentions. Remember the
football analogy for offense and defense? Only refuting one
contention is like only blocking the left side of their offense.
Theyll easily get around on the right. Refuting their VP/VC is
also important because it determines how the judge will
evaluate the whole debate. By refuting all the parts of their
case, you leave no holes for their offense to slip through.
56
Refuting Checklist:
Value premise relationship to resolution
Value criterion relationship to value
Contention 1 warrants and impacts
Contention 2 warrants and impacts
Any additional contentions
First, you should attack their value premise and
criterion. Your goal is to prove your value is a better way to
evaluate the resolution than theirs. Because values tend to be
vague, nice-sounding concepts like justice or societal welfare,
its nearly impossible to prove theyre bad. Instead, focus on
proving that a value premise doesnt fit well with the
resolution. If a VP doesnt relate very well to the resolution,
its not a good way for the judge to decide the debate. As you
learned at the very beginning of debate class, the whole point
of debate is to debate about the resolution.21
For instance, suppose youre debating Resolved: The
death penalty is immoral. If their VP is autonomy (individual
freedom) you might argue thats different than morality. You
could even say that the whole point of morality is that people
cant just be free to do whatever they want. This is an effective
VP attack.
You should also try to attack the relationship between
the affs VP and VC. For instance, if their VP is autonomy and
their VC is non-violence, you could easily prove that they are
unrelated. Not being violent might increase autonomy but it
might also decrease it by preventing things like self-defense.
Even if the VC is related to the VP, you can try to prove it is
not necessary or sufficient to achieve the VP. Using the same
example, even if non-violence helps increase autonomy, its

probably not enough. People could still control each other in
non-violent ways like blackmail. This means the VC is not
sufficient to achieve the VP. You could also try to prove the
VC is not necessary to achieve the VP by showing how there
are other ways to have autonomy that dont involve nonviolence.22
You can also attack the VC more directly. Remember,
a VC should be specific and measurable enough to be useful
for the judge. You can attack the affs VC by arguing that its
too vague or too hard to measure. You can also argue that its
circular with the VP. In other words, if the VP and the VC are
basically the same thing, the VC is not very useful.
Ways to Refute the VP/VC:
Prove the VP isnt related to the resolution
Prove the VC isnt related to the VP
Prove the VC isnt necessary to achieve the VP
Prove the VC isnt sufficient to achieve the VP
Prove the VC is not concrete or measurable
Prove the VP and VC are circular.
Sometimes, you might find it strategic not to attack the
VP. Instead, you might choose to accept it. When you accept
the other teams VP, youre willingly telling the judge that he
or she should use that VP to decide the debate. This can be a
good way to save time if you think you can win just as easily
with the other teams VP. In order to accept the other teams
VP effectively, you must explain how your VC relates to their
22
21
Policy is a little different, of course, because youre debating

the plan, which is an example of the resolution.
Understanding the difference between necessary and

sufficient is also a great way to refute contentions in all types
of debate.
57
VP. This is how you show the judge that your VC and
contentions are still relevant. Its also possible to accept the
other teams VC but its much less common since value criteria
are usually chosen to favor one side of the resolution.
After refuting the VP/VC, you should go on to attack
the contentions. You refute contentions in LD just like you
learned to refute in Chapter 1. You should try to disprove both
their warrants and their impacts. Arguments about the
relationship between the VC and the contentions should be
made when refuting the contentions, not the VC. Also,
remember to signpost so the judge knows which contention
you are refuting.

1. Why does the negative only read a 3-minute speech
when the NC is 7 minutes?
2. Suppose you are debating the civil disobedience
resolution and are negative. Come up with at least one
argument against each VP/VC pair.
a. VP: Justice, VC: Minority Rights
b. VP: Liberty, VC: Lockes Social Contract
3. Come up with at least three arguments against each
contention. Assume these contentions go with the VC
of Lockes Social Contract.
a. Civil disobedience is an inherent human right.
No one should have to obey laws they dont
agree with. Blocking civil disobedience leads to
too much government power.
b. Civil disobedience prevents violent revolution.
If people arent allowed to disobey some laws,
theyll try to get rid of all laws. This will cause
violent revolution.
3.7 Rebuttals in LD
After the AC and NC, there are three rebuttal speeches:
the 1AR, the NR, and the 2AR. All three rebuttals involve
extending arguments like you learned about in policy debate.
However, there are some differences, especially when it comes
to the 2AR. Although all three speeches are all rebuttals, they
involve different time limits and goals. The 1AR is 4 minutes
long, the NR is 6 minutes long, and the 2AR is 3 minutes long.
Understanding how these rebuttals are different will help you
debate them more effectively.
Table 12 Rebuttals in LD
Speech
Time
Goal
1AR
4 minutes
NR
6 minutes
2AR
3 minutes
Refute
negative case
and rebuild
your own
Continue refuting
affirmative case,
rebuild your own,
and give voting
issues
Anticipating the
2AR
Give voting
issues
What
Refuting and
Makes it rebuilding
Tricky
effectively in
only 4 minutes
Making
voting issues
strong enough
to overcome
the NR
The 1AR starts out a lot like the second part of the NC.
Both speeches involve refuting the other teams case for the
first time. Just like the NC, you should refute their VP/VC and
each contention. You can refute them in the same way you
58
learned to do for the NC. You have less time to do this than
the NC did, though. The NC was 7 minutes but the 1AR is
only 4 minutes. You have to make sure your arguments are
concise. Accepting the other teams VP can often be strategic
in the 1AR since it saves time.
You should use the second half of the 1AR to extend
the arguments you made in your AC. Remember to signpost
when you switch to this part of the 1AR. You can say
something like, Now lets examine the affirmative case or,
Now, onto the affirmative case. You should respond to the
arguments that the neg made in order, just like line-by-line in
policy debate. Its a good idea to point out any part of your
case they dropped. Just like in policy debate, if the other team
drops an argument, it means the judge has to give it a lot of
weight. When arguments arent dropped, you should answer
what the other team said. You can try to prove them wrong or
point out that their argument isnt relevant.
Any arguments dropped by the NC will help you win
the debate. Unfortunately, this also means that any arguments
you drop in the 1AR will help the neg win the debate.
Covering all the arguments in 4 minutes is hard and takes
practice. You cant afford to ramble and you have to choose
your best arguments.
The next rebuttal speech is the NR. When you are neg,
the NR is your last chance to speak. You have 6 minutes but
you have to make them count. Just like in the NC and the
1AR, in the NR you have to split your time between the aff and
neg cases. Its often a good idea to start with the aff case. You
refuted their VP/VC and contentions in the NC and they
responded in the 1AR. You now have to respond to their
responses. You want to prove that your original responses hold
up. You cannot make new arguments against their contentions.
Remember, rebuttals are not for brand new arguments. You
already had a chance to refute their contentions. In the NR,

you have to make due with what you already have. You can
only get away with new arguments if theyre responses to
something the other team said in the first time in the previous
speech.
After you refute the aff case, you should rebuild your
own case. You do this just like the 1AR did with their case.
When it comes to both refuting and rebuilding, you should be
sure that the judge understands your arguments and that they
can stand up to the 2AR. This is your last chance to speak
while the aff gets one more chance. A good 2AR will exploit
any weaknesses in the NR. The best NR will anticipate what
the 2AR is likely to say and make sure their argument will still
stand against it. This is called preempting the other teams
arguments.
Finally, the NR should give the judge voting issues. In
LD, voting issues are points that explain why you won.23 You
can either point out voting issues while you are going through
the line-by-line or do it at the end, but you need to do it. You
want to crystallize the round for the judge so its clear that
youre winning. For instance, you might explain why you are
winning that your VP and VC are best. You might also explain
why you win even if the judge uses the other teams VP and
VC. You should identify your strongest arguments that you
think youre winning and prove how they relate to the other
23
Voting issues in LD and policy are a little different. In LD,

voting issues are any issues that help explain why you won. In
policy, voting issues are specific arguments that make you
automatically win. Generally, a voting issue in policy debate
refers to something the other team did that was unfair or
uneducational, like being non-topical.
59
teams VC. Ideally, you should compare the arguments youre

winning to the ones the aff is winning.
The 2AR is only 3 minutes so you dont have time to
wade through the line-by-line. Hopefully you did a good job of
this in the 1AR. The 2AR should generally be spent entirely
on voting issues because these are the issues that are most
important in the debate. You should offer some voting issues
of your own and also refute the negs. You have the final word
and you should use that to your advantage. Exploit any of the
NRs weaknesses and be sure to explain your winning
arguments persuasively.

1. When can you make new arguments in your rebuttals?
2. How does having the last speech help the aff? How can
the NR limit the aff advantage?
3. How can the 1AR deal with the fact that its only 4
minutes long? What about the 2AR?
4. Why is it important to give voting issues in the last two
rebuttals?
60
Chapter 4: Clash
In this chapter you will learn how to clash with the
other team more effectively. As you read in Chapter 1, clash is
the most important part of a debate. Without clash, it wouldnt
even be a debate. The team that can clash more effectively
often wins even if their arguments are not as good.
1. Why is it important to clash with the other teams
arguments?
2. How can I refute more effectively?
3. How can I rebuild my own arguments?
4. How can I prove my arguments are better than the other
teams arguments?
4.1 Cross-Examination
Cross-examination is the most obvious example of
clash in a debate because it is the only time when debaters
directly interact with each other. At all other times, there is
only one person speaking. In cross-examination there are two.
The only way you can avoid clash during cross-examination is
by sticking your fingers in your ear and humming.
You have now learned about what to do during
constructive and rebuttal speeches in a lot of detail. You are
probably wondering what to do during cross-examination,
which is also part of the debate round. Cross-examination,
abbreviated as CX or cross-x, is not quite as important as the
speeches. Thats why you havent learned much about it yet.
However, as you get better at debate cross-x becomes more and
more important. Although the judge wont vote on cross-x
alone, it can be a powerful way to set up arguments to make in

your speech. If you are good at cross-x you can also seem
much more persuasive and credible than your opponent, which
will help the judge evaluate the debate in your favor.
In the first chapter, you briefly learned that cross-x can
be used to clarify or expose flaws in the other teams
arguments and set up your own arguments. These are the three
basic purposes of cross-x. There are more advanced purposes
too but you should learn these first.
Understanding and clarifying arguments is your first
priority. If you dont understand what they said or they mean,
you cant refute it effectively. While youre flowing, its a
good idea to circle any arguments you dont understand. You
should also make a circle when you miss an argument. Thats
an easy reminder to ask about the arguments in cross-x.
You should only ask this kind of question when
necessary. If you understand enough to refute, dont waste
your cross-x time. Otherwise, youre just giving the other team
more time to explain their case to the judge. When you do
need to understand, you should try to phrase your question as
specifically as possible. That prevents the other team from
rambling. For instance, suppose you are debating the poverty
topic and the aff reads a disease advantage. You dont
understand how the plan solves disease. Dont ask, Can you
explain the disease advantage? This is an invitation to
ramble. Ask, How does the plan solve disease?
The second purpose of cross-x is exposing flaws in the
other teams arguments. Often, advantages, disads, or
contentions will be missing steps in the chain of logic. They
might be missing warrants or evidence to prove a point or their
warrants might be weak. You can use cross-x to expose these
flaws. For instance, you might ask, Do you have any
evidence to support your claim that the plan solves disease?
61
You should be careful to only ask this if you think theyre

missing evidence. Otherwise, its an opportunity for them to
ramble about how great their evidence is.
When they do have evidence, you can attack its quality.
Start by looking at the author qualifications. If there are none
listed, the author is probably not qualified. If the qualifications
are something like, Joe Smith, high school graduate and
professional dog walker, the author is no more qualified than
any of the debaters. You can ask a question like, Why is Joe
the dog walker qualified to talk about disease pandemics?
You can also ask questions about the source, the date, the
warrants, or other evidence problems. Dont nitpick its
probably not important that their evidence says might not
will. However, attacking important evidence can greatly
improve your chance of winning.
Ways to Attack Evidence Quality:
Author do they have qualifications to speak on the
topic?
Source is it from a blog, message board, Wikipedia,
or another unreliable source?
Date have circumstances changed since it was
written?
Conclusiveness does it actually say what the tag
claims?
Warrants does the card offer reasoning or examples or
just assert its conclusion?
Consistency is there anything they didnt underline
that would undermine their claim?
Finally, you can use cross-x to set up your own

arguments. Be careful you dont want to give away anything
unexpected. Although this is a danger, in most cases cross-x is
a great time to lay the groundwork for your next speech. For
example, in the last chapter, you learned about how you can
use necessary and sufficient arguments to attack parts of
the other teams case. In cross-x, you can ask the other team
things like, Why is the plan necessary to solve disease?
Couldnt we just vaccinate people? This sets up an argument
that the plan is unnecessary because vaccines solve. Often, it
will be a good idea to ask a couple of follow-up questions to
make sure youve decisively proven your point. For instance,
if they answer, No, theres not enough vaccines, you should
follow up with, Wouldnt we just make more if there were a
global disease pandemic? That way you can really trap them.
Its important to recognize that cross-x is useful for
setting up arguments, not actually making arguments. Specific
things brought up in cross-x dont matter unless you bring them
up in a speech. For instance, if you attack the qualifications of
all of their solvency evidence, you would want to say
something like, All of their solvency evidence is unqualified
they dont have a single author with a PhD cross-x proves.
Of course, cross-x also affects the credibility of both
teams. Its important to give the judge the impression that you
are calm, knowledgeable, and in control. During cross-x, you
should stand next to your opponent and look at the judge. This
is similar to what lawyers do during cross-examination in the
courtroom. It allows you to make your point to the judge and
observe his or her reaction.
You should also maintain a balance between politeness
and control. Under no circumstances should you raise your
voice or yell. However, you also cant let the other debater
ramble for 3 minutes. When necessary, you can cut off the
62
other team by saying, Thank you or just asking your next

question.
When answering questions, you should also be polite
and reasonable. Dont raise your voice or try to keep talking if
they cut you off. The more you know about your own case, the
more effective you will be at cross-x. Also, remember that
honesty is the best policy. Dont lie about your evidence
quality or you will be embarrassed. If they ask a question and
you dont know the answer, its acceptable to consult your
evidence or, if necessary, say, I dont know. No one expects
you to answer, What was the population of Malaysia in 1992.
The more you know about and think about your arguments, the
better your answers will be.

1. The other team reads an advantage about education and
you dont understand what the impact is. How would
you ask a clarifying question?
2. The other team reads an important card about how
poverty is worse than war. Its their only impact card
for that advantage. The qualification is: Bob T.
Bobson, PhD in bird calling, 1990,
povertysuxxx.blogspot.com
a. Is it worth attacking?
b. What are two questions you could ask about this
card?
c. What would you say in your speech?
3. What should you do if the person you are crossexamining keeps rambling?
4.2 Refuting Revisited

You already learned the basics of refuting in the first
chapter. You have probably noticed that refuting keeps coming
up again and again in other chapters. Thats because refuting is
what debate is all about. Refutation happens in every speech
except the first. If you can learn to refute better than anyone
else, youll win a lot of debates.
There are many different ways of refuting an argument.
Often, debaters will attempt to refute by simply offering a
counter-claim. For instance, suppose the negative makes the
argument, The plan spends a lot of money, which hurts the
economy because it makes investors nervous. To refute this
argument, you could simply assert, Spending lots of money
doesnt hurt the economy. However, this argument, even if
dropped, would not be effective defense against the negative
contention because their contention is warranted and yours
isnt. Its no better than saying, Nuh-uhhhhhh!
A better way to refute an argument is to point out a flaw
in the negatives reasoning or evidence. In this example, you
could say, They havent proven that the plan spends enough
money to hurt the economy. Unless the other team has a
serious flaw in their reasoning, this argument is only slightly
better than an assertion because they can easily supply any
missing reasoning. As a result, this form of refutation is
usually only effective if the other team drops, or fails to
respond, to your argument. Sometimes this argument will be
effective because their reasoning is so flawed they cant fix it.
You will learn about logical fallacies as one example.
Arguments about evidence quality also fall in this
category. In the previous section, you learned how to set them
up in cross-x. The effectiveness of these arguments varies
based on how bad their evidence really is. It also varies from
judge to judge. Almost every judge will knock unqualified
63
evidence down so its no better than a debaters own reasoning.

Some judges will ignore the argument altogether and some will
still consider it in this knocked-down form. This doesnt mean
you shouldnt make these arguments, it just means you should
recognize they arent total defense. Theyll slow, but not stop,
the other teams play.
A third way to refute an argument is to mitigate it. To
mitigate an argument means to diminish or reduce its severity.
In other words, you are not disputing that an argument is true
but you are saying the probability or the impact is less than
they claimed. For instance, you could argue spending money
wont lead all the way to an economic depression. This type of
argument can sometimes be effective if you are clearly winning
your contentions. However, using the football analogy, it
doesnt stop the other team from gaining yards, it just means
they gain fewer than they would otherwise.
The most powerful defensive argument is a takeout. A
takeout, unlike a mitigating argument, can get rid of the other
teams whole contention if you win it. To be effective, a
takeout must be warranted. For instance, you could argue that
spending money doesnt hurt the economy at all because
investors expect it. Using the football analogy, this stops their
play entirely and they dont gain any yards.
A takeout can potentially get rid of a whole contention,
but that doesnt mean you should stake the round on one
takeout. Using the same example, its rare that you can win
that spending money doesnt hurt the economy at all. You can
probably win it doesnt undermine it in any serious way. But
that doesnt get rid of their whole contention, it just knocks it
down enough that your offense can trump theirs. Having a
couple of takeouts on each advantage, disad, or contention is
usually safer. Also, youre safer when you can rely on your
own advantage, disad, or contention as offense. Likewise, it
would be pretty crazy to play all defense in football with no

attempt at offense. In some cases, you can win enough defense
to make the debate essentially a tie. In that case, the negative
wins because there is a presumption against change.24
You can make any of these types of defensive
arguments against any part of an advantage, DA, or contention.
For instance, you can make a solvency counter-claim, you can
point out a logical flaw in their solvency argument, you can
attack the quality of their solvency evidence, you can mitigate
their solvency, or you can take out their solvency. The same is
true of harms, links, internal links, and impacts. This creates a
lot of possibilities for refuting. In general, you should try to
attack as many parts of their argument as you can and use the
strongest attacks that you can support. You should avoid
making counter-claims but should use any of the other types of
refutation when its strategic.
Defense Arguments, Weakest to Strongest:
Counter-claim
Point out a logical flaw
Attack evidence quality
Mitigate
Takeout
24
Its actually possible for presumption to shift to the

affirmative in some cases. Youll learn about this when you
learn about counterplans.
64

1. The other team reads the spending DA. Give an
example of each of the following types of arguments
you could make to refute it:
a. A uniqueness counter-claim
b. A link mitigator
c. An internal link takeout
d. An impact takeout
2. You are debating LD and the other team reads a
contention that civil disobedience prevents a violent
revolution. Identify 3 different defensive arguments
you could make, each one a different type.
3. Identify who wins if:
a. The aff wins a 100% takeout against the only
DA and the neg wins a 100% takeout against the
only advantage to the plan
b. The aff mitigates the DA but has no offense
4.3 Turns
All of the forms of refutation already discussed are
examples of defense. The last form of refutation, called a turn,
is an offensive argument. You briefly learned about turns to
disads. You can also turn advantages in policy and contentions
in LD or public debate. A turn is like an interception in
football; not only does it stop the other team from advancing, it
also helps you gain yards.
There are several different types of turns. Impact
turns argue that the other teams impact is actually good, not
bad. For instance, if you are debating the political capital
disadvantage with an impact of health care reform, you could
argue that Obamas health care reform is actually bad. You

can also turn the impact to an advantage or a contention in LD.
Link turns argue that the aff causes what they try to
prevent or vice versa. For instance, in LD you might argue that
civil disobedience actually increases respect for the rule of law
because people are more willing to abide by everyday laws if
they know theres a mechanism for challenging unjust ones.
Internal link turns argue that connection between the
link and the impact is the opposite of what the other team
claimed. For instance, if you are debating the political capital
DA you can argue that getting controversial items passed
actually increases Obamas political capital.
Three Types of Turns to the Spending DA:
Link turn plan saves money
Internal link turn spending money helps the economy
by stimulating it
Impact turn economic decline is good because it
prevents global warming
Its important to know the difference between these
types of turns because you never want to make two types at
once against the same argument. Making two types of turns
against the same argument is called a double turn and it helps
the other team. For example, if you argue that the plan saves
money and that spending money is good for the economy, you
are arguing that the plan is bad. A double turn is like turning
around 180 degrees, then turning 180 degrees again. You end
up facing the direction you started, which is the direction of the
other teams argument.
If the other team turns your argument, you can usually
still kick out of it but its more difficult. You have to be
careful because the other team can extend the turn along with
65
parts of your original argument to make a complete offensive

argument against you. For instance, if they read a turn that
spending money is good for the economy, they can extend the
arguments that spending is low now, the plan spends money,
spending money is good for the economy, and economic
decline causes war. This is a new advantage for the aff. It is
like a complete play in football.
To prevent this from happening, you have to kick out of
your spending DA by extending a defensive argument that the
aff made that takes out their new advantage. This is like
blocking their complete play in football. For instance, if they
said economic decline wouldnt cause war, you could kick out
of your DA by extending that. Occasionally, there will be no
arguments that you can extend to kick out of a turned
argument. This is called a straight turn. You are stuck
defending the argument that was straight turned.
How to Kick Out of Turns:
Link turn win your original uniqueness or extend an
internal link or impact takeout25
Internal link turn extend a non-unique or a link or
impact takeout
Impact turn extend a non-unique or a link or internal
link takeout
25
To win a link turn, the other team also has to win a nonunique argument. Otherwise, its defense against your link but
not offense. For instance, it doesnt matter if the plan increases
Obamas political capital if he has plenty of political capital
now. This is called a non-unique turn. If the other team makes
a non-unique link turn, you can kick out of the argument by
extending your original uniqueness that Obama has political
capital now.

1. The other team reads the political capital DA. Give an
example of each of the following types of arguments
you could make to refute it:
a. A link turn
b. An internal link turn
c. An impact turn
2. Identify who wins if:
a. The neg effectively takes out the affs
advantages. The aff wins an internal link turn
and an impact turn against the DA. The aff
doesnt have any defense against the DA.
b. The neg extends one DA in the 2NR but the aff
effectively takes it out. The neg kicks out of
another DA where theres an impact turn by
saying, Were not extending this DA.
c. The aff wins an impact turn against the DA but
is not winning any of their advantages
3. You are reading the spending DA and the other team
says: 1. Non-unique, spending is high now, 2. The plan
doesnt spend enough money to make a difference, 3.
Spending money is good for the economy
a. Explain how you could kick out of your DA
b. Explain what you would do if it if they only
made argument #3.
66
4.4 Extending Offense and Rebuilding

To win a debate, you not only have to refute the other
teams arguments, you also have to rebuild your own. In LD or
public debate this means refuting the other teams contentions
and rebuilding your contentions. In policy, this means the aff
has to refute DAs and rebuild their advantages while the neg
has to refute advantages and rebuild their DAs. Extending a
DA or advantage by going line-by-line is one example of
rebuilding. Rebuilding is the most important part of extending
an argument because it involves repairing holes the other team
made in your argument.
The first secret to effective rebuilding is knowing and
understanding your arguments. For instance, you should
understand the warrants of your link well enough that you can
explain your link when the other team says No Link. The
same thing applies to the uniqueness, internal link, and impact.
The more you know, the more you will be able to anticipate
what the other team will say and figure out how to respond
effectively.
The second secret to rebuilding is that just restating
your original argument is not enough. In fact, it never works if
the other team does more than make a counter-claim. When
the other team refuted your argument, they proved your
original argument was false. If you say the same thing again,
its still false. To rebuild effectively, you also need to clash
with the other teams arguments. This way you repair the
specific holes they made in your advantage, DA, or contention.
One way to rebuild is by proving their argument is
untrue. For instance, suppose you read the spending DA and
the other team says spending is good for the economy. You
can read additional evidence or provide more reasoning about
why spending is bad for the economy. If their warrant is that
spending injects more money into the economy, you can say
thats not true because it also raises taxes. You can prove their
argument is empirically denied by providing historical
examples of when the government spent money and it didnt
help the economy. You can attack their evidence quality like
youve already learned. You can also prove their argument is
based on a logical fallacy, which you will learn about in the
next section.
You can also rebuild by proving their argument is
irrelevant or unimportant. Sometimes this will be pretty
obvious. For instance, lets say you read a political capital DA
with an impact about health care. The neg might mistake it for
a political capital DA about foreign policy and refute the DA
they think you read. Its pretty easy to point out the fact that
they answered the wrong DA. Other times, this will be subtler.
For instance, you might read a disease advantage with an
impact about the spread of HIV/AIDS. The other team might
read evidence that vaccines will prevent disease from
spreading. You can point out that thats irrelevant because
there is no vaccine for HIV/AIDS.
Ways of Rebuilding:
Reading additional evidence
Using reasoning to supply additional warrants
Proving their warrants are untrue
Proving their warrants are empirically denied
(historically disproven)
Attacking their evidence quality
Proving their argument is based on a logical fallacy
Proving their argument doesnt apply to what youre
talking about
Proving their argument is unimportant
67
Remember, to refute effectively you should make

several different arguments. The same is true of rebuilding,
especially when it comes to the negative block. The negative
block is 13 minutes long so you have plenty of time to extend
and rebuild. In the block, your goal should be to make an
average of 3 responses to each 2AC argument. Bad 2AC
arguments need fewer responses and good 2AC responses,
especially turns, need more. Rebuilding with this much depth
makes the 1ARs life extremely difficult.
Signposting is essential to effective line-by-line
rebuilding. As youve learned, you should begin by saying,
They say and identifying the argument you are answering.
Then make your arguments, numbering each new one. This
way the judge wont miss anything. Your first argument
should usually restate your original warrant and extend your
original evidence. After that you need to rebuild in one or
more ways that you learned.
An Example of Rebuilding:
They say spending is good for the economy.
1. Spending kills the economy by raising interest rates
so companies cant make critical investments thats
our 1NC New York Times evidence.
2. Their evidence is biased its written by someone
who works for Obama so he has a political incentive to
exaggerate the benefits of spending to support Obamas
stimulus package.
3. Spending kills the economy by raising taxes <card>
4. Irrelevant their evidence is only about a temporary
short-term boost to the economy. Our impact is about
sustained economic decline, which theyll cause in the
long run.
They say (next argument the other team made)

1. Why is restating your original argument not enough?
2. Assume you read the spending DA. Write out what you
would say to rebuild against a 2AC with these
arguments:
a. The economy is already crashing so it doesnt
matter if we decrease it
b. The plan doesnt spend much money it just
gives school breakfast to students thats not
very expensive
c. Economic decline stops global warming because
we wont be able to afford to use fossil fuels.
d. Global warming causes extinction because it
causes the spread of drought and disease
3. Why should you rebuild with multiple arguments?
4.5 Necessary and Sufficient

One of the most powerful ways of refuting or
rebuilding is pointing out a flaw in the other teams logic. A
flaw in logic is called a logical fallacy. For instance if I say, I
like bananas and chimpanzees like bananas, therefore I am a
chimpanzee, I am committing a logical fallacy. I do like
bananas and chimpanzees do like bananas, but that doesnt
make me a chimpanzee.
Logical fallacies are about the logic, not the facts.
Youre saying that even if the other teams facts are right, the
conclusion they draw from the facts is wrong. Logical fallacies
are a lot more common than you might think. If you know
what youre looking for, you can find them all over the place,
especially in the other teams arguments.
68
You already learned (briefly) about the difference

between necessary and sufficient. One common logical fallacy
occurs when people mix these up. One example of the
difference relates to driving a car. In Connecticut, turning 16 is
necessary to get your license. You cant get a license before
youre sixteen no matter how much you want it or how good
you are at driving. However, turning 16 is not sufficient to get
your license. If you turn 16, go take your driving test, and
crash into another car, you probably wont get your license.
Just being 16 is not enough. It would be a logical fallacy to
say, I have to be 16 to get my license, so when Im 16 Ill get
my license. This mixes up necessary and sufficient.
You can also commit a logical fallacy if you assume
sufficient implies necessary. For instance, you might really
want a cool sports car for your 16th birthday. Assuming you
have your license and can pay for insurance and gas, owning a
cool sports car is sufficient to drive. If you have one, you can
definitely drive. That doesnt mean its necessary to drive.
Having a beat-up used minivan would also allow you to drive.
Once again, you are mixing up necessary and sufficient.
Sometimes the two do go together. For instance,
having a license, a car, and gas all together is both necessary
and sufficient to drive. Theyre necessary because you cant
drive without any one of those things. Theyre sufficient
because if you have all three, you can drive. However, you
cant just assume that one implies the other. You have to
specifically prove it.
Table 13 Necessary and Sufficient

Necessary
Turning 16 IS necessary to
drive
Owning a sports car IS NOT
necessary to drive
Eating food IS necessary to
live
Eating tasty food IS NOT
necessary to live
Sufficient
Turning 16 IS NOT
sufficient to drive
Owning a sports car IS
sufficient to drive
Eating food IS NOT
sufficient to live
Eating tasty food IS NOT
sufficient to live
Now that you understand the difference between

necessary and sufficient, you can start looking for times when
people mix them up in their debate cases. No matter what kind
of debate you do, you should look out for this logical fallacy.
You already learned about how in LD people might prove their
VC is necessary for their VP but not sufficient or vice versa. In
policy, people often mix up necessary and sufficient with both
advantages and disadvantages.
If you think about it, an advantage is really about
proving that the plan is both necessary and sufficient to solve
the harms. Inherency proves the plan is necessary because
nothing is solving the harm in the status quo. It proves the
harm wont go away without the plan. The aff doesnt have to
prove that nothing else can solve, they just have to prove that
nothing coming in the status quo will solve. Likewise,
solvency proves the plan is sufficient to solve the harm.
Otherwise, its not an effective solution.
Likewise, a DA is really about proving the plan is both
necessary and sufficient to cause the impact. The uniqueness
proves the plan is necessary because the DA is not occurring in
the status quo. In other words, the DA will not occur without
69
the plan. The link and internal link prove the plan is sufficient
to cause the impact.
If you can prove that the plan is either unnecessary or
insufficient, you can beat the advantage or DA. Often the other
team fails to even prove these things in the first place. People
often claim their evidence says these things when it really
doesnt. This gives you a great opportunity in CX and in your
speech to point out their logical fallacy.
For example, people will often read evidence that says
something like, If we do X, Y, and Z, it will solve this
problem. If their plan only does X, theyre not solving the
problem. Thats like turning 16 but not passing your drivers
test. Another thing to look out for is evidence that says,
Because were not doing X right now, theres a problem.
Thats great inherency evidence but its not enough to be
solvency evidence. That evidence doesnt prove that doing X
would actually solve the problem. Once again, thats like
saying, Because Im not 16, I cant drive. Turning 16
doesnt mean youll pass your drivers test.

1. Fill in each blank with necessary, sufficient, or
necessary and sufficient.
a. Being a cow is _____________ to be a
mammal.
b. Being a mammal is _____________ to be a
cow.
c. Knowing how to play the drums is
_____________ to be a musician.
d. Being a musician is _____________ to know
how to play the drums.
e. Taking 4 years of English is _____________ to

graduate from high school.
f. Meeting all of AITEs graduation requirements
is _____________ to graduate from high school.
g. Attending the University of Connecticut is
_____________ to attend college.
h. Graduating from high school is _____________
to attend the University of Connecticut.
2. Assume you are debating a plan that provides free
school breakfast to students in poverty. Identify
whether each argument is a logical fallacy. If so,
explain why.
a. Providing any food at school encourages obesity
because its not healthy food. Therefore, the
plan causes obesity.
b. The plan increases academic achievement
because more students will eat breakfast so
theyll be more awake and ready to learn.
c. Every time a policy is passed through Congress,
it raises taxes, crashing the economy.
d. Having a nutritious breakfast, lunch, and dinner
is necessary to good health. Therefore, the plan
promotes good health.
3. How is pointing out a logical fallacy different from
other types of refutation?
70
4.6 Blocks
Youve now learned many different ways to refute an
argument. You should have a lot of ideas but it can sometimes
be difficult to think of good arguments on the fly. The more
you know about your topic the easier this will be. However, it
will always be easier to come up with arguments when you
have time to think about them. As a result, experienced
debaters prepare blocks in advance to respond to arguments
that they anticipate the other team making. A block is simply a
list of arguments written out in advance.
In addition to helping you think of arguments, blocks
make your arguments better. One well-regarded debate judge
used to say, Readers beat talkers. One reason is that most
people can read much more quickly and articulately than they
can say something off the top of their head. Another reason is
that a block allows you to edit and revise your arguments so
they are clear, efficient, and persuasive. Think about writing a
second or third draft for a paper. Its always better than your
first draft.
Another advantage of blocks is that they allow you to
combine analytical arguments with cards to make the best
combination. You can decide in advance what evidence you
want to read and make sure its ready. Debaters with wellorganized blocks can save a significant amount of prep time
because they dont need to spend it looking through their own
evidence. You can use the prep time you save to think up
responses to unanticipated arguments, refine your other
arguments, or read the other teams evidence to find flaws.
You can see a good example of a block on the next two
pages. At the top of the page, you should put a title that tells
you how you would use the block. Because you use blocks to
answer, or respond to, arguments, block titles typically start
with the abbreviation AT. AT stands for Answers To

and is followed by the argument the block answers. For
instance, if your block refutes the spending DA, you would
label it, AT: Spending DA. That helps you stay organized
both during prep time and during your speech. Its also a good
idea to include some other identifying information in the top
corners, such as your school. That way you wont get your
blocks mixed up with those that belong to the other team.
Below your title, you should have the arguments you
would make. You should write them out in complete sentences
so you can be a reader instead of a talker. Some
arguments will have cards and others will just be analytical.
You should number your arguments on your block since that
makes it easier to signpost by including the numbers in your
speech.
The arguments on your block should be prioritized from
best to worst. You cant always make the same number of
arguments since youll be debating different teams with
different strengths and different strategies. Ask yourself what
you would say if you only had time to say one thing. That
should be #1 on your block. Ask what you would add if you
could only say two things. That should be #2 on your block,
and so on.
71
Sample 2AC Block (AT: Spending DA)

1. Case turns the DA we solve US-Mexico relations, which are key to trade and job
creation
2. Investor confidence is low now a comprehensive study proves their DA is non-unique
Jeff Benjamin, Investment News, 7/21/2009
(http://www.investmentnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090721/REG/907219990)
Hedge fund managers and corporate boards received low marks with regard to ethical behavior
in a recent survey of financial-industry professionals. The CFA Institute yesterday released the
Financial Market Integrity Index illustrating soured sentiment and shaken faith among
financial professionals regarding the ability of current U.S. investor protections to ensure an
orderly functioning of the equity markets. In the ethical-behavior category, the perception of
hedge fund managers was lowest overall, with pension fund managers earning the top-rated spot.
More than 2,000 investment professionals participated in the research by taking the survey either
online or via telephone interview in February and March. According to the report that
accompanied the survey findings, respondents generally consider corporate boards and corporate
executives to be most responsible for the current financial crisis. The Financial Market Integrity
Index is designed to gauge chartered financial analysts perceptions of the state of ethics and
integrity in different markets around the world. Based on their perception of market ethics and
integrity alone, only 49% (versus 68% a year ago) of U.S.-based respondents were likely to
recommend investing in U.S. markets. Those outside the United States also appear to have lost
faith in the U.S. market systems, according to the finding. In last years survey, those outside the
United States rated regulatory and investor protections higher than did those inside the country,
but this perspective was reversed in the 2009 survey findings. It is clear that CFA charter
holders have lost confidence in some financial professionals and market protections in the United
States over the last year, Matthew Orsagh, project manager for the FMI, said in a statement.
These findings mirror the results we see in other markets surveyed, although there are unique
concerns shown in each market, he added.
3. Turn Deficit spending is good it stimulates the economy

Buchanan 7-16 PhD Economics [Neil H. Buchanan Ph. D. (economics), is a Visiting Scholar at
Cornell Law School, an Associate Professor at The George Washington University Law School,
and a former economics professor. July 16, 2009 "Everyone Seems to Agree that Budget Deficits
are Harmful" http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20090716_buchanan.html]
Second, the deficit is also higher during a downturn than it would normally be because of the
government's attempts to stimulate the economy. More than a quarter of the projected deficits for
this year and next, for example, are due to the stimulus bill -- a law that is explicitly a two-year
commitment of federal borrowing as an attempt to reverse the slide. If the recession ends, the
need for stimulus will end. These explanations for the temporary rise in annual federal deficits
also explain why we should not respond to these deficits by trying to reduce them. Cutting
deficits during a downturn not only is the opposite of being stimulative (thus predictably
worsening the crisis), but it is also affirmatively counterproductive. That is because (as states like
California are demonstrating even as I write this) attempts to balance budgets by cutting
spending and raising taxes become a vicious cycle, since budget cuts throw people out of work
and discourage businesses from hiring. To return to the analogy to taking one's medicine, a
patient might respond to an illness by saying, "I hate that medicine. I'm just going to buck up and
do what I normally do. I'm going to the gym. That will make me feel better." The patient might
even feel virtuous about how "tough" he is being. As we know, however, refusing medication
and putting added stress on one's body can prevent healing and worsen symptoms. (There is also
an analogy here to the spreading of germs in the gym locker room, but I will leave the
interdependence of global economies aside for now.) In other words, even people who really,
truly do not think that borrowing is a good long-term strategy should not object to running
deficits in the current economic situation. Indeed, the sooner we get out of this recession, the
sooner deficits will go down as we move forward.
4. The DA is empirically denied the US spent a ton of money on the Iraq war, the bailout,
and the stimulus bill. None of these things crashed the economy.
5. We dont spend much money we just fund phones and lawyers for people in immigrant
detention centers. There arent very many people involved so it wouldnt cost very much.
You also want to make sure you have a variety of

arguments on your block. For instance, having 5 impact
arguments is not as helpful as answering all the parts of the
DA. The first reason is that you want to avoid putting all of
your eggs in one basket. Otherwise, you might find out that the
baskets not that strong. You can want to make several
different arguments so can choose the strongest in your
rebuttals. The second reason for variety is that you want to
avoid being redundant. Making the same warrant more than
once doesnt help you. Even if you have different warrants,
youll end up repeating yourself. The other team can usually
take advantage of your redundancy by grouping your identical
arguments and answering them all at once.
One way to increase your chance of winning these big

debates is to figure out what youre winning and tell the judge
why thats the most important part of the debate. The
affirmative usually tells the judge why their advantage impacts
(also known as harms) are bigger than the negative DA
impacts. The negative usually tells the judge why their DA
impacts are bigger than the advantage impacts. This process is
called impact calculus.
In Chapter 1, you learned a simple version of how the
judge decides the debate. Remember, the judge considers both
the probability and impact of each teams contentions. Most
refuting and rebuilding affects the probability of the
contentions, advantages, or DAs. Debating the impacts is also
important and can have a big effect on the winner of the
debate.

1. Write a block to respond to the spending DA. It should
have at least 5 arguments. You dont need cards just
note what your card would say if you had it.
2. Write a block to respond to a general poverty
advantage. It should have at least 5 arguments. You
dont need cards just note what your card would say if
you had it.
3. How should you decide what arguments to put on your
block?
4.7 Impact Calculus

By now, you should be pretty good at refuting and
rebuilding. When you and the other team both do this
effectively, it can make for great debates. On the other hand, it
can also make for very complicated debates.
The Basic Principles of Judging:

Strength of Aff Contentions = Probability x Impact
Strength of Neg Contentions = Probability x Impact
Strength of Aff Contentions > Strength of Neg
Contentions => Aff Win
Strength of Neg Contentions Strength of Aff
Contentions => Neg Win
There are four basic ways you can compare impacts.
The first is probability. Probability is a measure of how likely
the impact is to happen. This is very similar to the overall
probability of the contention, advantage, or DA, but it focuses
specifically on the impact. For instance, if you travel the same
number of miles by car or by train, you are five times more
74
likely to die in a car accident than in a train accident.26 The car

accident is the more probable impact. If you didnt care about
cost, convenience, comfort, you would always decide to take a
train because the negative impact of doing so is less probable.
Likewise, some impacts in debate are clearly more
likely than others. For instance, poverty is a more likely
impact than global nuclear war. We see poverty happening all
around us. There has never been a global nuclear war and
there hopefully never will be one because everyone has a
strong incentive to avoid starting one. If you were in a debate,
you would want to point that out.
The second basic way you can do impact calculus is by
comparing the magnitude of the impacts. The magnitude is a
measurement of how large the impact is. One way of
comparing the magnitude of impacts is talking about how
many people are affected. For instance, when a train does
crash, more people die than in a car crash because more people
are on board. This means a train crash has a higher magnitude.
Magnitude also includes comparing how bad the
impacts are. For instance, most people would agree that dying
in a crash is worse than just being injured. If train crashes
produced more injuries and car crashes produced more deaths,
you might say that the car crashes were worse.
You can similarly compare the magnitude of debate
impacts. More people would be affected by a global nuclear
war between the US and Russia than by a small regional war
between North and South Korea, assuming no other countries
got involved. You could also argue that war is worse than
26
Morris, Eric A. "The Danger of Safety." Freakonomics Blog.

2 July 2009
<http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/thedanger-of-safety/>.
poverty because it tends to cause more death. If you have a

war impact and the other team has a poverty impact, you would
want to point that out.
A third basic way to do impact calculus is to compare
the timeframe of the impacts. The timeframe is a
measurement of how soon in the future the impact will happen.
Almost everyone would prefer to live longer. If your impact
will happen very soon and the other teams will happen a long
time in the future, you should point that out.
The final basic way to compare impacts is by talking
about how they interact. For instance, say you are negative
with a war impact and the affirmative has a poverty impact.
You could argue that a war would cause a lot of poverty
because peoples homes would be destroyed and government
funding would be diverted away from services for the poor.
This is an argument that the disadvantage turns the case. In
other words, youre saying that the DA impacts cause the case
impacts. Likewise, the affirmative can argue that the case turns
the DA. This means that the case impacts cause the DA
impacts. This is extremely strategic because all of the
arguments the other team makes about the probability,
magnitude, and timeframe help your side too.
Basic Impact Calculus:
Probability How likely it is that an impact will happen
Magnitude How large the impact is (how many
people are affected and how bad it is)
Timeframe How soon an impact will happen
Turns the Other Impact How one impact causes
another
75
When you do impact calculus, you can make any of

these types of arguments, depending on what is appropriate for
your impacts. You might also think of other ways to compare
impacts. Like all arguments, impact calculus needs to be
supported with warrants. You can either make those warrants
analytically or support them with cards.
You should do impact calculus in every debate. It will
significantly increase your chance of winning. Ideally, impact
calculus should start in your second speech, as soon as you
know the other teams impacts. That way you have more time
to develop your arguments. If you forget, do impact calculus
in the rebuttals. Most judges will consider new impact calculus
in rebuttals because thats better than having to do it
themselves. Remember, impact calculus needs to be extended
like any other argument. You need to refute the other teams
impact calculus and rebuild your own.

1. You are affirmative and you have a disease impact.
The negative has a war impact. Write out what you
would say to prove that your impact is more important.
2. Using the same scenario, assume that you are now neg.
Write out what you would say to prove that your impact
is more important.
3. In which speech(es) should you ideally do impact
calculus in each of the following scenarios?
a. You are affirmative in a policy debate
b. You are negative in a policy debate
c. You are affirmative in LD
d. You are negative in LD
76
Chapter 5: Plans and Counterplans

In this chapter you will learn more about plans and
topicality. You will also learn about counterplans for the first
time. All of these concepts are primarily used in policy debate,
although they sometimes trickle into other types of debate.
1. What does it mean to have a topical plan?
2. How is a non-topical plan challenged and defended?
3. What is the role of the negative in policy debate?
4. How are counterplans debated?
5.1 Extra Topicality and Effects Topicality

As you should remember from Chapter 2, the
affirmative in policy debate must present a topical plan.
Focusing on a plan allows both teams to have a specific debate
about a policy proposal instead of making vague
generalizations about the resolution. However, its important
to have some limit on the plans that affirmative teams can read.
Otherwise, the negative could not reasonably prepare.
Topicality provides that limit.
A topical plan is an example of the resolution. To be
topical, the aff plan must meet the requirements set by all the
words in the resolution. If the affirmative does not meet even
one word, the negative can challenge their topicality. You will
learn more about how the negative does this in the next section.
Sometimes, the reason a plan isnt topical is
straightforward. For instance, as you learned about in Chapter
2, a plan might not be for persons in poverty. Other times, the
reason the affirmative is not topical might be more
complicated. Extra topicality and effects topicality are two

examples of when topicality is less straightforward.
Some plans are complicated because they have a part
thats topical and a part thats not. Plans like this are called
extra topical. An extra topical plan contains a topical part but
also something extra that is not topical. For instance, a plan
that increases social services and also invades Canada would
be extra topical.
Most of the time extra topicality is not this obvious. A
subtler example of extra topicality is a plan that establishes
universal health care. This provides social services for people
in poverty but it also provides health care for rich people since
it is universal. Providing health care to people who are not in
poverty is something extra, making the plan extra topical.
You can challenge extra topicality just like you can
challenge non-topicality. In policy debate, almost all judges
agree that the whole plan has to be topical. The affirmative
could add all sorts of things that the negative would be
unprepared to debate. While invading Canada would probably
not be strategic to add to the plan, there are plenty of other
things that would be. The affirmative could add anything from
legalizing gay marriage to legalizing drugs. They could also
add extra-topical provisions to try to get rid of DAs. For
instance, to get out of the spending DA, the aff could cut
funding to some other government program so their plan would
spend zero dollars overall.
Plans can also be tricky if they are effectually topical.
Effectually topical plans are not actually topical. Instead, the
plan has some result, or effect, that is topical. This is a tricky
distinction, but it makes a big difference. Imagine a plan that
gives tax cuts to small businesses. The plan is not a social
service and its not for people living in poverty. Therefore, the
plan itself is not topical. However, the affirmative might argue
77
that the plan results in more social services. They might say
that tax cuts stimulate the economy. When the economy is
high, people provide more social services because they can
afford it. Therefore the plan has a topical effect.
Types of Plans:
Topical A plan that is an example of the resolution
and meets all words in the resolution
Non-topical A plan that violates one or more words in
the resolution
Extra topical A plan with a topical part but also a nontopical part
Effectually topical A non-topical plan with a topical
result
The problem with effectually topical affs is that they
make topicality almost meaningless. There are many, many
policies that could improve the economy. There are many
other policies that would make Obama more popular so that he
would have the political capital to increase social services. All
of these policies are effectually topical but not on-face topical.
In other words, the plan is not topical even if it has some
topical result. To determine if something is topical, you have
to look at the text of the plan itself and ignore the possible
results.
Topical, Non-Topical, Extra Topical, and Effectually Topical

Plans
A nontopical
plan
A topical
plan
An extra
topical
plan
An
effectually
topical plan
Another
topical
plan
The
resolution
Its important to recognize that topicality is about the

plan, not the advantages or any other part of the case. The aff
advantages dont have to be about poverty. They can be about
war, disease, the environment, or anything else the aff chooses.
The advantages are about the results of the plan. Just like
topical results dont make up for a non-topical plan, nonpoverty related results dont cancel out a topical plan.
78

1. Identify whether each of the following has to be topical.
a. The plan
b. Everything in the plan
c. The advantages
d. The results of the plan
2. Remember, the poverty resolution is, Resolved: The
United States federal government should substantially
increase social services for persons living in poverty in
the United States. Using this resolution, classify each
plan as topical, non-topical, extra-topical, or effectually
topical. Explain why.
a. The United States federal government should
extend social services to include non-citizens in
poverty in the United States.
b. The United States federal government should
provide free breakfast to all children in public
schools in the United States.
c. The United States federal government should
give incentives for businesses to provide jobs to
people in poverty in the United States.
increase social services, including education and
health care, for prisoners in the United States.
3. Explain why each of the following is bad for debate. In
other words, write what you would say to tell the judge
why each one of these things should not be allowed.
a. A non-topical plan
b. An effectually topical plan
c. An extra-topical plan
5.2 Topicality Violations

Most policy debate judges try to be neutral and avoid
intervening too much in the debate round. They try to only
vote on arguments the debaters make themselves, not on their
personal opinions. As a result, judges wont vote against an aff
team just because they personally feel the plan is not topical.
Topicality has to be debated, like any other argument.
Therefore, if the neg believes the plan is not topical, its their
responsibility to tell the judge not only why the plan is not
topical but also why this means the aff should lose. This
argument is called a topicality violation.
Parts of a Topicality Violation:
Definition what the relevant part of the resolution
means
Violation why the affirmative does not meet the
definition you presented
Reasons to Prefer why your definition is best
Voting Issue why the aff should lose for being nontopical
An effective topicality violation contains several
components. First, it begins with a definition of one or more
words in the resolution. This helps establish the boundaries of
the topic. For instance, lets say youre debating the poverty
topic and the affirmative gives food to homeless dogs and cats.
You want to say this is a violation of the word persons in the
resolution. You would need to define the word person. The
American Heritage Dictionary (2009) defines a person as A
living human. This is a good place to start.
The second part of a topicality violation, is the violation
itself. This tells the judge why the affirmative falls outside the
79
bounds of the topic as you have established them. In this case,

your violation is pretty simple. You can just say, They
provide social service to dogs, who are not humans and
therefore not persons.
The third part of a topicality violation is the reasons to
prefer. This is where you tell your judge why they should
use your definition. The affirmative will probably have some
definition that allows animals. You have to explain to the
judge why their definition is untrue, unreliable, or bad for
debate.
Main Reasons to Prefer:
Ground they allow the aff to choose cases that are too
hard to beat or take away some of your important
arguments
Limits they allow too many cases to research
effectively (or occasionally too few cases so the topic is
boring and stagnant)
Predictability they make it hard to determine whats
topical and whats not, making it hard for teams to
prepare effectively
their definition allows the aff to choose cases that are too
difficult to beat. You can also argue that they take away some
of your critical negative arguments. For instance, you might
have a definition of social services that excludes health care.
You could argue that allowing health care would mean none of
your DAs would be unique since Obama is already reforming
health care.
You can also argue that a judge should prefer your
definition because of limits. Limits are about how many plans
the topic includes. A topicality interpretation that allows the
aff to choose from too many plans is called an underlimiting
interpretation. If there are too many plans, it makes it too
difficult for negative teams to research and prepare against
them, which is bad for clash. A topicality interpretation that
allows the aff to choose from too few plans is called an
overlimiting interpretation. If there are too few plans, the topic
tends to get boring and stagnant. You want to prove your
interpretation is not too overlimiting or underlimiting. Like
Goldilocks, it should be just right.
Reasons to prefer usually fall into one of three main

categories: ground, limits, or predictability. Ground is about
the arguments available to the aff and neg. Aff ground consists
of all the different cases (plans and advantages) that the aff can
choose from. Neg ground consists of all the neg arguments
they can choose from. Neg ground includes disads, which you
learned about in Chapter 2, and counterplans, which you will
learn about later in this chapter.
You can argue that the judge should prefer your
definition because the other teams definition sets up an unfair
division of ground. For instance, you can demonstrate that
80
Effective Limits
The last part of the topicality violation tells the judge

why the affirmative should lose if theyre non-topical or extratopical. In other words, you have to tell the judge why its an
issue they should use to decide their vote. Almost all judges
believe that topicality is a voting issue so its usually sufficient
to just say, Topicality is a voting issue for fairness and
education. You can see a good topicality violation with all of
these components on the next page.
Overlimiting too small

Underlimiting too big
Just right
A third reason to prefer is predictability. Predictability

is a measure of how easy it is to figure out the topical aff cases.
For instance, a definition that is widely used by experts who
study poverty is very predictable. You can get a good idea of
what the topical cases are by reading articles by those experts.
The federal poverty line is a predictable and widely used
measure of poverty. Defining poverty by what kind of car a
family owns is not predictable. Even if it sets up good ground
and limits, its not a clear or widely used standard.
1. Choose one of the plans from the homework on page

79. Write a complete topicality violation.
2. Explain why each of the following is bad for debate.
a. An overlimiting interpretation
b. An underlimiting interpretation
c. An interpretation with lots of affirmative ground
and little negative ground
d. An interpretation with lots of negative ground
and little affirmative ground
3. Why is topicality a voting issue?
81
Sample T Violation (Federal Poverty Line)

A. Definitions
Poverty is defined by the Federal Poverty Line
OCPP, Oregon Center for Public Policy, 09
OCPP, Oregon Center for Public Policy, Federal Government Issues New Poverty Line for
2009, January 23, 2009, http://www.ocpp.org/cgi-bin/display.cgi?page=nr20090123Povert
[Tom]
The 2009 Federal Poverty Income Guidelines, published in todays Federal Register, set the
definition of poverty that Oregon uses to determine eligibility for programs such as child care
subsidies, Head Start, food stamps, school lunches, energy assistance and some health care programs.
The poverty guidelines vary by family size. This year, for example, a family of three
with an annual income of $18,310 or under qualifies as poor, up from $17,600 in 2008.
A four-person family would be poor if their annual income is $22,050 or less.
For declares the targets of social services
Cambridge Dictionary, 2k
Cambridge University Press p.334
For prep. Intended to be given to; having to purpose of because of, as a result of (doing
something); instead of, to help; considering (something or someone with reference to things or people as
the usually are); in support or relation to (someone or something); in support of or agreement with
B. Violation the plan gives social services to people who are above the federal poverty line
as well as those who are below it. They are extra-topical
C. Reasons to Prefer
1. Limits the aff does not limit eligibility. They allow the aff to give social services to
anyone, which means there is no limit on the type of social services they allow.
2. Predictability the federal poverty line is most predictable because its the definition
that the U.S. federal government uses to determine who is in poverty.
D. Topicality is a voting issue for reasons of fairness and education.
5.3 Answering Topicality

When the negative reads a topicality violation, the aff
must respond or else they will lose. This is because the neg has
made topicality a voting issue. As a result, refuting topicality
is more important than refuting any other argument. In this
section, you will learn how to effectively refute topicality
violations.
The first way the affirmative can respond is by proving
they fall inside the negatives definition. This is called a we
meet argument because the aff tries to prove they meet the
neg definition. In other words, theres no violation.
Sometimes, you can prove you meet because the
negative has chosen a bad violation. Other times, you can
prove you meet because the negative has a bad definition. For
instance, suppose you read an aff that provides health care for
people living in poverty. The neg wants to argue that health
care is not a social service. They might read a definition that
says something like, Social services include housing,
education, and food stamps. The negs violation would be
that the plan increases health care, not housing, education, or
food stamps.
The problem with this T argument is that the neg has
not proven that the plan is not a social service. Their definition
merely lists examples of social services. That doesnt mean
health care is not a social service, it just means they didnt
choose it as an example. It proves that providing housing,
education, or food stamps is sufficient to be a social service,
not necessary to be a social service.
Another way of explaining this argument is saying you
meet because their definition is not exclusive. Its like reading
evidence that says, The fruit food group includes apples,
bananas, and cranberries and concluding that grapes are not a
fruit. This doesnt exclude grapes, just doesnt provide them as

an example. The same is true of their T definition and your
plan.
We meet arguments can be very effective and can beat
the whole T violation. On the other hand, its often risky to
rely on them alone. The neg can always read a better definition
in the 2NC. Its always safer to combine a we meet argument
with a counter-interpretation.
A counter-interpretation is a different definition that
you can use to counter the negs definition. Even if you dont
meet the negs definition you can provide your own definition
that you do meet and prove its better. For instance, you might
read a definition that says, Housing, education, food stamps,
and health care are all examples of social services. You meet
your own definition because you provide health care.
Simply reading a definition is not enough to make an
effective counter-interpretation. The neg already told the judge
why their definition was better. Given the choice of the two
interpretations, the negs reasons to prefer mean the judge
should prefer their definition.
You can counter this problem by providing your own
reasons to prefer for your definition. Just like the neg had to
prove their definition was best, you have to prove your
definition is best. The aff can use any of the same reasons as
the neg. They can prove they provide better ground or limits or
they are more predictable.
In addition to providing their own reasons to prefer, the
aff should refute the negs reasons to prefer. This is the same
principle you have been learning all along: you should always
combine your offense with defense against the other team. If
the neg says the aff is unpredictable, they should prove that
theyre not unpredictable or that being unpredictable is not a
problem. The same is true of limits or ground arguments.
83
Finally, its good for the affirmative to say something

about the voting issue. Most judges cannot be convinced that
topicality isnt a voting issue at all. Debate would simply be
too crazy if judges stopped voting on topicality. Instead, aff
teams try to make it harder for judges to vote on topicality.
The best way to do this is to make an argument that the judge
should evaluate topicality using the idea of reasonability.
Reasonability is the idea that if the aff is reasonably topical,
thats good enough. Even if the negs interpretation is a little
bit better, the aff shouldnt lose the whole debate. They should
only lose the whole debate if they are seriously bad for ground,
limits, or predictability. Winning this argument makes it easier
to win with a counter-interpretation, but is not a substitute for a
counter-interpretation.
To effectively answer topicality, the aff usually
combines all of these arguments. They try to prove they meet
if appropriate, provide a counter-interpretation with its own
reasons to prefer, and tell the judge why they should use
reasonability to decide the debate. You can see a good
example of an affirmative response to topicality on p. 85.

1. Write a set of affirmative answers to the topicality
violation on p. 82.
2. Answer each of the following questions about the
topicality block on p. 85 by identifying the number of
the correct argument.
a. Which argument is a we meet?
b. What is the counter-interpretation?
c. What is one reason the aff gives to prefer the
counter-interpretation?
d. What is one argument the aff makes to refute
the negs reasons to prefer?
3. The neg argues that persons living in poverty should
be defined by the international standard of people who
earn $1 per day or less. Your counter-interpretation is
that poverty should be defined by the federal poverty
line. Why is your counter-interpretation better?
4. Why shouldnt the aff just answer T by saying its not a
voting issue?
84
Sample Aff T Block (AT: Increase Doesnt Mean Removing a Barrier)

1. Plan requires an increase we give more funding to needle exchange. It is impossible for
the plan to not increase.
2. Increase means to make greater
Random House Dictionary 09, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/increase
in crease
/v. nkris; n. nkris/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [v. in-krees; n. in-krees] Show IPA verb, creased, -creas ing, noun
Use increase in a Sentence
verb (used with object)
1. to make greater, as in number, size, strength, or quality; augment; add to: to increase taxes.
3. That can include removing a barrier

Bikes Belong Coalition, Inc. 9/99, Guide to Bicycle Advocacy,
http://nmshtd.state.nm.us/upload/images/Safe_Routes_to_School/bbcguide.pdf
5 Points:
Project will increase bicycling by removing a barrier or solve a safety problem for bicyclists,
including those with special needs.
Project is in a neighborhood plan.
Project provides an important link to transit.
Project is supported by community/neighborhood group and/or special interest group.
4. Key to inherency and uniqueness they kills education because theres no meaningful
policy change to research or learn about.
5. They overlimit every plan has to remove some kind of barrier, whether attitudinal or
structural otherwise it would be the status quo.
6. We dont unlimit theres a limited number of barriers that the aff can change and
because they exist now theres literature about them, making them easy to research.
7. We dont allow effectually topical cases the plan has to directly increase. As part of
that process, theyre just allowed to remove a barrier that would prohibit the increase.
8. Reasonability competing interpretations creates too strong of an incentive to go for T
kills policy education and over-penalizes the aff
5.4 Counterplans
So far, you have learned about disads, topicality
violations, and on-case arguments. These are three of the
major argument types in the negative arsenal. However, these
arguments are often not enough to beat a good aff case. Many
plans are topical and overall very good ideas. As a result,
negative teams often read counterplans.
A counterplan is a policy option that the negative
advocates. Counterplans are very similar to plans but the
negative reads them instead of the affirmative. Both plans and
counterplans are changes from the status quo. When the neg
reads a counterplan, they are asking the judge to vote negative
because their counterplan is better than the plan.
You have probably encountered some counterplans in
your life without even realizing. For instance, suppose youre
talking with some of your friends, and one person says, We
should go to McDonalds. The plan is to go to McDonalds
and the status quo is to just stay where you are. Someone else
might say, No, lets go to Taco Bell instead. Thats a
counterplan. Theyre not advocating the status quo, but they
are still proving the plan is bad. Theyre saying that you
shouldnt go to McDonalds because you should go to Taco
Bell instead.
The neg usually proposes a counterplan as way of
solving the aff harms while avoiding a problem they cause.27
In the McDonalds vs. Taco Bell example, you can think of the
27
This is usually, but not always, the case. There are also
some very complicated counterplans that can actually help the
neg win uniqueness to DAs. You dont need to worry about
these yet.
aff harm as hunger. The neg could argue that Taco Bell would
fill you up just as effectively as McDonalds.
For a poverty topic example, suppose the affirmative
has a plan that helps people in poverty quit smoking by giving
them free nicotine patches and counseling. Their harms are
about how smoking causes health problems. The neg could
read a counterplan to tax cigarettes instead. They could argue
that taxing cigarettes would also solve the affirmative harms
because cigarettes would be so expensive that people couldnt
afford them anymore.
Proving that the counterplan solves the aff harms is not
enough for the neg to win. That doesnt mean that the
counterplan is any better than the plan. The neg also has to
prove that the counterplan avoids a problem that the aff causes.
In other words, they have to win that the plan links to a DA
while the counterplan does not. A DA that links to the plan
and not the counterplan is called a net benefit. A net benefit
helps the neg prove that the counterplan is better than the plan.
This means the judge should vote negative because their policy
is better.
In the McDonalds vs. Taco Bell example, the net
benefit could be vegetarian friendliness. Taco Bell has many
vegetarian options such as burritos and quesadillas.
McDonalds has very few. If any of your friends are
vegetarians, this is an important consideration. The lack of
vegetarian options is a problem with McDonalds that Taco
Bell avoids.
Returning to the poverty example, the net benefit could
be the spending DA. Giving away free nicotine patches and
counseling costs a lot of money. Taxing cigarettes doesnt
spend money. In fact, it would actually raise money. Spending
is a problem with the plan that the counterplan avoids.
86
You can see an example of a counterplan on p. 88.

Notice that the negative reads a counterplan text, which
describes exactly what the counterplan does. A counterplan
text is similar to a plan text. Also notice that the neg explicitly
states their net benefit. This lets the judge know what the net
benefit is and avoids any confusion.
Counterplans are very common in policy debate,
especially in varsity debates. The most common counterplan is
the states counterplan. The states counterplan says that the 50
states should do what the plan does instead of the federal
government. In other words, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New
York, and all the other states should be the ones to give out
nicotine patches and counseling.
The main net benefit to the states counterplan is the
politics DA. When the states act, it does not cost Obama any
political capital. He does not have to push for the plan to pass
through Congress. The state legislatures and governors have to
act instead.
Counterplans are extremely strategic because they
allow the negative to effectively capture most or all of the affs
offense. For instance, suppose the neg wants to win the
spending DA against the anti-smoking aff. Normally, to win
the debate, the neg has to win that the economic problems from
spending money are worse than the health problems from
smoking.
If theres a counterplan that solves just as well as the
plan, the negative only has to win that the economic problems
from spending money are greater than zero. Obviously, this is
much easier. Even if the counterplan only solves half as well
as the plan, the neg just has to win that the economic problems
from spending money are greater than half of the health
problems from smoking. As a result, reading a counterplan
makes it much easier to be negative.

1. Assume you are debating the poverty resolution,
Resolved: That the United States federal government
should substantially increase social services for persons
living in poverty in the United States. Identify one
counterplan that you could read against each of these
plans. It doesnt have to be a counterplan youve
already learned about. Feel free to be creative.
a. Plan: The United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development should double funding
for housing programs for people living in
poverty in the United States.
b. Plan: The United States Congress should
implement a universal health care program that
provides free health insurance for people living
in poverty in the United States.
c. The United States Supreme Court should rule
that denying Medicaid coverage of abortions is
a violation of the 14th Amendment right to
equal protection.
require schools to provide free breakfast to
students that qualify for free and reduced-price
lunch.
2. For each counterplan you identified in question 1,
identify one possible net benefit. Remember, a net
benefit should link to the plan but not the counterplan.
It doesnt have to be a DA youve already learned
about. Feel free to be creative.
3. Why do counterplans make it easier for the negative to
win?
87
Sample CP (States CP)

Text: The fifty states of the United States should fund abortion for women who qualify for
Medicaid
Seventeen states fund for all necessary abortions despite the Hyde Amendment-proves that
all fifty can do it
Hughes, 08 (Lisa M. Hughes. NINTH ANNUAL REVIEW OF GENDER AND SEXUALITY
LAW: HEALTH CARE LAW CHAPTER: HEALTH CARE ACCESS. The Georgetown
University. The Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law. 2008.
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T69974389
86&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T6997438989&cisb=22_T6997438
988&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=268552&docNo=4)
A Minority of the States Fund All or Most Medically Necessary Abortions. As of November 1, 2007,
seventeen states provide funding for all or most medically necessary abortions. n295 Four states do so
voluntarily n296 and twelve states are under court order. n297 The list of states that fund medically
necessary abortions has undergone recent changes in both directions. For example, Idaho has retreated from
funding medically necessary abortions. n298 Arizona, on the other hand, previously funded abortions
according to Hyde Amendment standards, but has expanded funding due to the 2002 state supreme court
decision in Simat Corporation v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment Systems. n299 The plaintiffs were
doctors who could not provide medically necessary treatment to their pregnant Medicaid patients because
such treatments were incompatible with pregnancy and the Hyde Amendment prevented the doctors from
being reimbursed for terminating the pregnancies before administering the treatments. n300 Women on
Medicaid with life-threatening cancer could get funding to abort, but women without immediately lifethreatening cancer could not get funding, risking "serious and permanent adverse effects on their health and
lessen[ing] their life span." n301 The Arizona supreme court applied a strict scrutiny standard because
women's [*1216] privacy and equal protection rights were invoked and held that, "[h]aving undertaken to
provide medically necessary health care for the indigent, the state must do so in a neutral manner" n302 and
without discriminating between women whose lives were threatened and those whose health was
threatened. "The state," the court held, "is not simply influencing a woman's choice but actually conferring
the privilege of treatment on one class [women with life-threatening pregnancy or pregnancy due to rape or
incest] and withholding it from another." n303 Moreover, the state's compelling interest in promoting
childbirth, while important, did not trump the interest of the mother in her own health. n304 As in
Arizona, court orders to fund medically necessary abortion in other states reflect a battle between state
courts and legislatures. In Alaska, Illinois, Minnesota, Montana, and New Jersey, the court decisions
have invalidated state statutes that funded abortions at or below federal Hyde Amendment
standards. n305
5.5 Permutations
In the last section, you learned how the negative can
use a counterplan to win the debate. A counterplan should give
the judge a reason to reject the plan. For instance, the fact that
Taco Bell is better for vegetarians is a reason not to go to
McDonalds.
Now suppose the affirmative read a plan to eat at
McDonalds and the negative read a counterplan to go see a
movie. Its less clear why this is a reason to reject the plan.
After all, you could probably both see a movie and eat at
McDonalds. In fact, you would probably have the most fun
by doing both of these things.
For another example, suppose the aff reads a plan that
provides free school breakfast. Suppose the negative reads a
counterplan to fund renewable energy. That counterplan is
totally unrelated to the plan. Renewable energy might be a
great idea and might even be more beneficial than school
breakfast. That doesnt mean its a bad idea. Both the plan
and the counterplan are good ideas that the government should
do.
In both of these examples, the counterplan is a good
idea. However, neither counterplan proves that the plan is a
bad idea. In both cases, you would be better off doing both the
plan and the counterplan. As a result, theres no reason for the
judge to vote negative.
The question of whether the counterplan provides a
reason to reject the plan is called counterplan competition. A
competitive counterplan provides an idea that actually
competes with the affs idea. A non-competitive counterplan is
just another good idea that in no way competes with the affs
idea.
To test whether counterplans are competitive, aff

debaters make an argument called a permutation.28 A
permutation is a combination of the plan and the counterplan.
For instance, a permutation could be to eat at McDonalds and
then go to the movies. In the other example, a permutation
could be to fund school breakfast and renewable energy.
A counterplan changes the judging formula in a way
that makes it much easier for the neg to win. A permutation
helps the aff by getting rid of counterplans that arent relevant
to the plan. The neg cant just win that renewable energy is
better than school breakfast. They have to win that renewable
energy by itself is better than the combination of the two.
Likewise, with the states counterplan, they cant just win that
the states do a better job than the federal government. They
have to win that the states do a better job than the states and
federal government both working at the same time.
The negative can beat a permutation in one of two
ways. First, they can win that its impossible to do both the
plan and the counterplan. For instance, if you only have two
hours of time, its impossible to both see a movie and eat
McDonalds. This means you have to choose between one or
the other. If the movie is the better choice, the neg wins.
When it is impossible to do both the plan and the counterplan,
theyre called mutually exclusive.
Mutually exclusive counterplans are rare. Almost all of
the time, theres a way to do both. For instance, you might
think that school breakfast and renewable energy are mutually
exclusive because the government only has a limited amount of
money. In reality, the government spends more money than
28
You may have learned in math class that a permutation is a

combination where order is important. The meaning is similar
in debate.
89
they have all the time. They can raise taxes, get the money
from another program, or even borrow the money.
The second way the neg can beat a permutation is by
proving that its a bad idea to do both the plan and the
counterplan. The neg can do this by winning a good net
benefit. As you learned in the last section, a net benefit is a
DA that links to the plan but not the counterplan. For instance,
a politics DA generally links to the plans federal action, not to
the states counterplan. To be effective, a net benefit needs to
link to the permutation as well. For instance, the neg can argue
that the permutation of state and federal action would still cost
Obama his political capital because he would still have to
convince Congress to pass the federal part.
Two Ways of Beating Permutations:
Mutually exclusive cant do both
Net benefit shouldnt do both
If the neg wins either that the judge cant do both or
that the judge shouldnt do both, they beat the permutation.
Conversely, the aff can win a permutation by proving that its
possible to do both and that its a good idea to do both. If the
permutation is better than the counterplan, the aff wins.

1. Assume that you are aff and your plan has the Supreme
Court rule that Medicaid has to provide funding for
abortion. Identify one permutation that you could read
against each counterplan.
a. States should provide funding for abortions for
women in poverty.
b. The federal government should fund free birth
control.
c. The Supreme Court should rule that the
government has to provide free abortion
services for all women.
2. For each counterplan in question 1, explain what the
neg could say to answer the permutation. If the
permutation is neither mutually exclusive nor net
beneficial, explain why.
3. Are any of the counterplans in question 1 mutually
exclusive? Why or why not?
4. What is an example of a counterplan that would be
mutually exclusive with the plan in question 1?
5. Which side of the debate (aff or neg) benefits more
from permutations? Why?
90
5.6 Answering Counterplans

As you learned in the last section, the aff can
sometimes beat a counterplan with a permutation. In fact, the
aff should basically always make a permutation against the
counterplan in the 2AC. Unfortunately, a permutation is not
always enough to beat a counterplan. Sometimes its
impossible to do both and sometimes its a bad idea to do both.
As a result, the aff needs to make more arguments against a
counterplan than just a permutation.
The most common way the aff beats a counterplan is by
proving that theres a solvency deficit. A solvency deficit29 is
an argument about how the counterplan solves less than the
plan or the permutation. Sometimes solvency deficits can be
very large and obvious. For instance, suppose the aff provides
legal services to people detained in Guantanamo. If the neg
read the states counterplan, the counterplan would not solve at
all because states dont have access to Guantanamo. This is a
complete solvency deficit.
Other times, solvency deficits might be more subtle and
difficult to prove. For instance, suppose the aff has the
Supreme Court rule that Medicaid has to pay for abortion.
Against the states counterplan, the aff could argue that federal
action on abortion is essential to send a strong signal for
womens rights. They could say that states are less visible so
they dont have the same beneficial effect on womens rights.
Also, when the Supreme Court rules, it creates a legal
precedent that affects how it decides future cases. If the
Supreme Court protects women in one area, it might be more
likely to protect women in other areas. The aff could argue
both of these arguments as solvency deficits to the states

counterplan.
The aff can also read a DA to the counterplan, just like
the neg can read a DA to the plan. A DA to the plan is a reason
the plan is a bad idea. A DA to the counterplan is a reason the
counterplan is a bad idea. For instance, suppose the plan has
the Supreme Court rule about Medicaid funding of abortion.
The neg can counterplan to have Congress fund abortion
instead. The aff can read the politics DA against this
counterplan. The counterplan uses the Congress, requiring
Obama to spend his political capital, while the plan does not.
If the negative reads the states counterplan, the aff can read a
DA about why state spending is bad. The aff has to be careful
that the DA links just to the counterplan, not to the plan.
The aff can also refute a counterplan by attacking the
net benefit. One way of doing this is proving the counterplan
links to DA that is the net benefit. If both the plan and the
counterplan link to the DA, it is not a net benefit, it is just a
problem with both.
The aff can also turn or take out the net benefit. If the
aff turns the net benefit, it is no longer a reason to prefer the
counterplan and instead a reason to prefer the plan. If the aff
takes out the net benefit and reduces the probability to zero,
there is zero reason to do the counterplan instead of the plan.
29
A deficit means a shortfall. A solvency deficit is an

argument about how the counterplan falls short.
91
Refuting Counterplans:
Permutation the plan and the counterplan should be
done together
Solvency deficit the counterplan is less effective than
the plan
DA to the CP the counterplan causes a problem
CP links to the net benefit the counterplan links to the
neg DA that is the net benefit
Net benefit turns/takeouts there is no reason to do the
counterplan instead of the plan
Counterplan theory the counterplan is unfair30
The Judging Formula with Counterplans:

Strength of Net Benefit = (Link to plan or permutation
link to counterplan) x Impact
Strength of Solvency Deficit = (Solvency for plan or
permutation solvency for counterplan) x Impact
Strength of DA to the Counterplan = (Link to
counterplan link to plan or permutation) x Impact
Strength of Solvency Deficit + Strength of DA to the
Counterplan Strength of Net Benefit => Aff Win
Strength of Net Benefit > Strength of Solvency Deficit
+ Strength of DA to the Counterplan => Neg Win
All of these arguments are effective attacks against a

counterplan. However, the most effective approach is to use
more than one attack. It is hard to win that there is zero net
benefit or that the counterplan doesnt solve at all. It is much
easier to win that the net benefit is small and that the
counterplan is less effective than the plan. If both of these
things are true, the plan is probably a better idea.
When a counterplan is involved, the judging formula
becomes much more complicated. Instead of just the plan, the
judge now has to consider the advantages and disadvantages of
the counterplan and permutation.
30
You will learn more about counterplan theory in the next

section.
92

1. Assume that you are aff and your plan has the Supreme
Court rule that Medicaid has to provide funding for
abortion. Identify one solvency deficit you could make
against each counterplan.
a. States should provide funding for abortions for
women in poverty.
b. The federal government should fund free birth
control.
c. The federal government should give tax breaks
to clinics that provide poor women with access
to abortion services.
2. Pick one of the counterplans from question 1. Assume
the net benefit is the political capital DA. What is one
argument you could make about why the counterplan
links to the political capital DA?
3. Use the judging formula to explain how each of the
following helps the aff win the debate.
a. A solvency deficit
b. An argument why the net benefit links to the
counterplan
c. A turn to the net benefit
d. A permutation
5.7 Counterplan Theory

As you learned in the last few sections, counterplans
make it much easier for the neg to win debates. In fact,
without some restrictions on counterplans, the neg could win
almost every debate. They could read a counterplan to
establish world peace. The aff could probably never beat this
counterplan.
As a result, there are limits on what counterplans can
do. For the aff, there is a resolution that guides what they can
and cant do. They have to choose one of many plans that falls
within the resolution.31 For the neg, there is no resolution to
establish a clear guideline. As a result, the question of what
counterplans are okay is up for debate. Counterplan theory
refers to a set of arguments about what kind of counterplans the
neg should be allowed to read.
Counterplan Theory Questions:
Can the counterplan be topical?
Can the counterplan use all 50 states?
Can the counterplan include something that the plan
also does?
If the negative loses the counterplan, can they still win
with the status quo?
31
In policy debate, even the rules are debatable. As a result,

some teams have successfully challenged the idea that they
have to be topical. Nonetheless, the vast majority of judges
and competitors believe that plans have to be topical.
93
Most debaters and judges agree that counterplans cant

just magically establish world peace. However, there are many
other counterplans that are more controversial. The states
counterplan is a good example. The states argue that the
federal government should not act because the fifty states
should act instead. However, saying that the fifty states should
all act is unrealistic and even utopian. As a result, some
debaters and judges think the states counterplan is not fair or
educational. Others argue that its an important way to
question whether the federal government should act and that
getting rid of the states counterplan would be unfair for the
negative.
There is no rule about the states counterplan or about
any other counterplan. Instead, the aff is free to challenge the
states counterplan any time the neg reads it. This is not the
same as accusing the neg of cheating. It is a routine argument
about whether the counterplan is a realistic reason to reject the
plan. Most of the time, a 2AC against the counterplan will
include a theory argument along with a permutation and
several solvency deficit arguments. Like topicality arguments,
most counterplan theory arguments explain why the
counterplan is bad for debate and include a voting issue.
Sample Counterplan Theory Argument:
The states counterplan is bad:
A. Its utopian. The 50 states have never acted at the
same time and we dont learn anything by considering
such an unrealistic possibility
B. Its infinitely regressive. If the neg can use 50
governments, they can use all the governments in the
world and the aff can never win
C. Voting issue Reject the neg because their
counterplan is unfair and uneducational
Another controversial question of counterplan theory is

what happens if the neg loses the counterplan. Some neg teams
argue that if they lose the counterplan, the judge should still
compare the plan to the status quo. If counterplan and the plan
both have problems and the status quo is better, these neg
teams argue that they should still win. If the neg says they can
still win with the status quo, the counterplan is conditional.
Conditionality means that the neg is only stuck with the
counterplan on the condition that its a good idea. If its a bad
idea, they can get rid of the counterplan and just argue for the
status quo.
Alternately, some neg teams decide that their
counterplan is unconditional. If the counterplan is
unconditional, the neg is stuck with the counterplan no matter
what, under all conditions. If the counterplan is unconditional,
the judge does not have to consider the status quo at all. He or
she just has to compare the counterplan to the plan. If the
counterplan is worse, the neg automatically loses.
Obviously, conditionality helps the negative and
unconditionality helps the affirmative. If a counterplan is
conditional, the aff will often challenge the counterplan with a
theory argument.
Now that you know about counterplans, permutations,
solvency deficits, and counterplan theory, you should be able
to read and refute counterplans in your debates. To do this
effectively, you will need to use flowing abbreviations for
many of the common counterplan-related terms.
94
Table 14 Counterplan Flowing Abbreviations

CP Counterplan
Permutation
NB Net benefit
Solvency
deficit32
Decrease
Increase
ME Mutually
exclusive
Conditionality
Cause

1. Assume you read the states counterplan and the aff read
the theory argument on p. 94. How would you refute
it?
2. Assume you are aff and the neg reads a counterplan that
argues that all rich people should just give money to
people in poverty so there wouldnt be poverty
anymore. Write a theory argument that you could read
in the 2AC.
3. What is one reason why conditionality is bad?
4. What is one reason why conditionality might be okay or
good?
32
The circle with a slash through it is the mathematical symbol

for not. The flowing abbreviation for solvency deficit
technically means not solve. You can use the not symbol
with many of the other flowing abbreviations youve already
learned.
95
Chapter 6: Introduction to Philosophy

In this chapter you will learn about some important
philosophical ideas. In particular, this chapter will focus on
political philosophy, which is philosophy applied to politics.
This chapter is mainly useful for Lincoln-Douglas debate,
which focuses on philosophy. However, many of these ideas,
especially the conflict between utilitarianism and other ideas of
morality, will be useful for other types of debate because they
influence how the judge weighs impacts.
The essential questions that you should keep in mind during
this unit are:
1. What is political philosophy?
2. How should we decide what is right and wrong?
3. What are different concepts of justice and morality?
4. Who are important political philosophers and what are
their major ideas?
6.1 Rights
One of the most important questions in political
philosophy is what rights people have and how they should be
protected. The idea of rights is an important part of our
Constitution. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain
actions or be in certain states, or entitlements that others (not)
perform certain actions or be in certain states. This sounds
more complicated than it actually is.
You can have a right to do something. For instance, the
First Amendment in the Constitution gives you the right to free
speech, along with some other rights. You have the right to say
what you want to say. You can also have a right to not do
something. For instance, the Fifth Amendment gives you the

right to not have to incriminate yourself in court. When people
choose not to answer questions, they often say theyre
pleading the Fifth.
You can also have rights that relate to other people.
You can have a right to have someone else do something. For
instance, the Fourth Amendment gives you the right to make
police officers get a warrant in most cases before they search
you. Finally, you can have a right to have someone else not do
something. For example, the Third Amendment gives you the
right to not have soldiers stay in your house.
Examples of Rights:
Right to do something: First Amendment (right to free
speech)
Right to not do something; Fifth Amendment (right to
not incriminate oneself)
Right to have someone else do something: Fourth
Amendment (right to make police officers get a
warrant)
Right to have someone else not do something: Third
Amendment (right to not have soldiers stay in your
house)
All of these rights sound like very good ideas. The
Declaration of Independence states that all people have the
rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. Most
people would agree. Thomas Jefferson even calls these rights
inalienable.
Unfortunately, the problem is that these rights
sometimes conflict with one another. Torture is a good
example. Torturing people might help protect peoples lives
but it is definitely bad for liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
96
Likewise, the right to privacy protects liberty but might

sometimes endanger lives by interfering with police
investigations.
Most of LD debate is about what to do when rights are
in conflict with one another. A good example is the resolution,
Resolved: An adolescents right to privacy ought to be valued
above a parents conflicting right to know. Here the
resolution explicitly lays out the conflicting rights. The aff
argues that the right to privacy is more important in this
context, while the neg argues that the right to know is more
important.
Other times, the conflicting rights in the resolution are
subtler. For instance, one LD resolution is, Resolved:
Military conscription is unjust. Military conscription is the
practice of making people fight in the military, such as the draft
during the Vietnam War and many other wars in U.S. history.
Conscription protects national security, which is important for
the right to life. On the other hand, conscription violates the
right of individuals to choose their work.
Conflicting Rights:
Resolved: Public health concerns warrant government
violation of pharmaceutical patents.
Aff right: Right to health
Neg right: Right to property (patents)
Resolved: It is just for highly indebted poor countries to
repudiate their debt.
Aff right: Right to life (in poor countries)
Neg right: Right to property (payment of debt)
Resolved: A just government ought to guarantee
adequate housing for all of its citizens.
Aff right: Right to shelter
Neg right: Right to property (taxes)
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.
Aff right: Right to security (the state with the weapons)
Neg right: Right to security (the state without the
weapons)
Rights are such an important concept in LD that they
will come up in almost every debate. Debaters will frequently
talk about rights when explaining the impacts to their
arguments. However, just saying something is a right isnt that
helpful because rights are almost always in conflict with one
another. Additionally, some philosophers dont even believe in
rights. You cant just say something is a right; you need to
prove that specific right is important.
97

1. For each type of right in the box on p. 96, give another
example. Your example does not have to be from the
Constitution
2. For each resolution, identify a pair of conflicting rights.
Identify which right the aff would defend and which
right the neg would defend.
a. Resolved: When in conflict, the preservation of
minority cultural values ought to be valued
above the preservation of a unified national
culture.
b. Resolved: Limiting economic inequality ought
to be a more important social goal than
maximizing economic freedom.
c. Resolved: That secondary education in America
should value the fine arts over athletics.
d. Resolved: A just society ought not use the death
penalty as a form of punishment.
e. Resolved: In a democratic society, felons ought
to retain the right to vote.
f. Resolved: A just government should provide
health care to its citizens.
3. Why is just saying something is a right not enough to
prove an impact?
6.2 Justice
Justice comes up almost as often in LD as rights. Many
resolutions explicitly use words like justice, just society, or
just government. With resolutions like this, both teams try to
prove their side of the resolution is better for justice. Even
when the resolution doesnt explicitly talk about justice, many
debaters write cases that rely on the idea. Justice is probably
the most common VP. As a result, its important to understand
what justice means.
Resolutions About Justice:
Resolved: Military conscription is unjust. (1)
Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government
has failed to enforce the law. (2)
Resolved: Hate crime enhancements are unjust in the
United States. (3)
Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military
force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by
nations that pose a military threat. (4)
Resolved: A just society ought not use the death penalty
as a form of punishment. (5)
Resolved: The use of the states power of eminent
domain to promote private enterprise is unjust. (6)
The meaning of justice is complicated because
philosophers disagree about what it means to be just. You
probably cant define justice but you can probably think of
things that are just and unjust. Justice is vague and fuzzy but
its definitely good. Almost everyone agrees that we should
strive to make society more just.
Philosophies of justice fail in two main categories. The
first is retributive justice. Retributive justice is about how to
98
respond to crimes. Some people define retributive justice as

giving people their due or giving people what they
deserve. This is related to the principle that the punishment
should fit the crime. In other words, retributive justice is
about when its okay to punish people, who should punish
them, and how they should be punished.
Retributive justice is obviously important for the death
penalty resolution (5) on p. 98. It also relates to resolutions (2)
and (3) because vigilantism and hate crime enhancements are
both forms of punishment. Additionally, resolution (4) is about
retributive justice because it is about whether the US should
use military force to punish other nations for getting nuclear
weapons.
Different philosophers have different theories of
retributive justice. Depending on the resolution, debaters may
use any of these ideas as a VP. Some argue that society should
use eye-for-an-eye punishment where the punishment is just
like the crime. This was common in many ancient societies.
The death penalty is an eye-for-an-eye punishment because it
kills killers.
A less extreme version of retributive justice is
proportionality. According to the theory of proportionality,
punishment should not equal the crime but instead should be
proportional to how severe it is. If stealing is twice as bad as
lying, for instance, you should spend twice as long in jail for
stealing. The punishment should also be proportional to how
much you steal.
The theory of deterrence33 says that the main goal of
punishment is to deter, or discourage and prevent, future
33
Deterrence is often part of a larger theory of utilitarianism

applied to punishment. This theory might also consider the
ability of punishment to prevent future crimes by locking up
crimes. For instance, some people argue the death penalty is

justified because it deters criminals from committing violent
crimes. Others argue that the death penalty should not be used
because it is not an effective deterrent.
Finally, the theory of restorative justice says that the
goal of punishment should focus on the victim rather than the
criminal. According to advocates of restorative justice,
punishment should repair the harm to the victim. The ideal is
to restore the victim to his or her level of well being before the
crime. For instance, the criminal might issue an apology or
repay the victim with money.
Theories of Punishment:
Eye for an eye the punishment should equal the
crime
Proportionality the punishment should be based on
the severity of the crime
Deterrence the punishment should minimize future
crimes
Restorative justice the punishment should repair the
harm done to the victim
All four theories of punishment relate to retributive
justice. The second major philosophy of justice is
34
and rehabilitating criminals. The important idea is the focus on

preventing future crimes rather than punishing criminals
because they deserve it.
34
Technically, only eye for an eye and proportionality are
retributive. The other two theories are conflicting theories.
Theyre in the same category as retributive justice because they
all relate to punishment. Distributive justice is an entirely
different question.
99
distributive justice. Distributive justice is about how good

things such as money, objects, power, or popularity, should be
distributed in society. Think of a giant pie that represents
everything good in the world. Distributive justice is about how
that pie should be sliced and who should get what slice. Just as
there are different theories of retributive justice, there are
different theories of retributive justice.
One theory of distributive justice is egalitarianism.
According to this idea, everything should be distributed
equally. No one should get more than anyone else, no matter
what. Advocates argue this is the most just distribution
because no one is treated differently from anyone else.
A second theory of distributive justice is needs-based.

According to this theory, good things should be distributed
based on who needs them most. This makes the most sense
with basic needs just as food, water, shelter, and medicine.
Advocates argue that this is the most just distribution because
resources go where they make the biggest difference.
Needs-Based
Least in
need
Egalitarianism
Most in
need
A third major theory of distributive justice is
meritocracy. According to this theory, things should be
distributed based on merit. Merit is usually based on a
combination of natural talent (like being born smart) and hard
work (like doing all of your homework). The theory of
meritocracy says those with more merit deserve to have a
bigger slice of the pie. A very similar theory of distributive
100
justice is contribution-based. According to this theory, what

people should get out of society is proportional to what they
put into it. Advocates argue this is most fair because people
who contribute more have a greater claim to societys
resources.
Meritocracy/Contribution-Based
Smallest
contribution
Theories of Distributive Justice:

Egalitarianism good things should be distributed so
everyone gets the same amount
Needs-Based good things should be distributed so that
whoever needs the most gets the most
Meritocracy good things should be distributed so that
whoever has the most merit gets the most
Contribution-Based good things should be distributed
so that whoever contributes the most to society gets the
most
Rawlsian good things should be distributed fairly
according to the veil of ignorance.
Biggest
contribution
A final, highly influential, theory of justice is
articulated by John Rawls. You will learn about his theory
later in this chapter. Many of these different theories of justice
are commonly used as value criteria in LD debates.
1. How does retributive justice relate to the civil

disobedience resolution?
2. How does distributive justice relate to the civil
disobedience resolution?
3. Pick one theory of retributive justice and explain why
you think its the best one.
4. Pick one theory of distributive justice and explain why
you think its the best one.
5. For each resolution, pick one theory of retributive or
distributive justice and explain how you could use it to
argue for the aff or the neg.
a. Resolved: Limiting economic inequality ought
b. Resolved: Military conscription is unjust.
c. Resolved: A just government should provide
101
6.3 Morality: Means and Ends

Morality is another concept that comes up frequently in
LD resolutions. Morality and justice are closely related but
that does not mean that they are the same. Morality is about
whether something is right or wrong. People use morality to
decide what action they should take or whether they should not
take any action at all. You can decide whether something is
moral based on whether it is just but you can also consider
other issues.
Resolutions About Morality:
Resolved: It is morally unjustifiable to require an
individual to join a labor organization as a condition of
employment.
Resolved: The right to die takes precedence over other
ethical and moral considerations.
Resolved: Nothing is politically right that is morally
wrong.
Resolved: The use of sanctions to achieve U.S. foreign
policy goals ought to be immoral.
Resolved: The possession of nuclear weapons is
immoral.
Resolved: Human genetic engineering is morally
justified.
Just as there are different theories of justice, there are
different theories of morality. Most of them fall into one of
two major categories: deontology or consequentialism. These
are very long words but the ideas are less complicated than
they seem.
The difference between the two is based on the
distinction between the means and the ends. The means
are how you do something. Suppose you steal a car to drive

your sick friend to the hospital. The means are stealing the car.
The ends are the result of your action. In the analogy, you end
up with your friend at the hospital but also with a stolen car.
Deontology35 says that some actions are morally right
and others are morally wrong no matter whether they produce
good consequences, or ends. For instance, a deontological
theory might say that murder is wrong no matter what. For
instance, imagine a terrorist captures you and another hostage.
Suppose the terrorist tells you that you must kill the other
hostage or else he will set off a bomb in New York City.
Deontology would say this is definitely wrong even if it would
save more people. Advocates of deontology believe it is more
important to have a general principle that prevents murder.
Intent is important in most deontological theories. In
other words, it matters why you do something. In the terrorism
example, it is morally right to not kill the other hostage because
your intent is to save that specific life. Even if that means the
terrorists set off a bomb, youre not responsible for that
because it wasnt your intent for that to happen. In other
words, deontology says its the thought that counts.
By contrast, consequentialist theories36 say that actions
are not inherently right or wrong. Instead, the morality of an
action depends on the consequences. Consequentialists believe
that the ends can justify the means. Going back to the stolen
car example, consequentialists would probably say that saving
your dying friend justifies stealing a car. On the other hand,
consequentialists would probably not support stealing a car to
35
One of the most well known deontological theories is the

philosophy of Emmanuel Kant.
36
Utilitarianism is one of the most widely-used but also
widely-criticized consequentialist theories.
102
go for a joyride. The end, a joyride, is not enough to justify

stealing the car.
For consequentialists, intent is irrelevant.
Consequentialists live by the maxim, the road to hell is paved
with good intentions. A consequentialist would say it doesnt
matter if you didnt intend for the terrorists to kill all the people
in New York. If you knew that would probably happen and
you made your choice anyway, youre responsible for that
choice.
Table 15 Sample Mini Debate Structure
Means and Ends
Consequences
Intent
Importance of
circumstances
Deontology
Means determine
morality the ends
cant justify the
means
Not important
Important
Some actions are
inherently right or
wrong, regardless
of the particular
circumstances
Consequentialism
Ends determine
morality the ends
can justify the
means
Important
Not important
Actions are not
inherently right or
wrong; their
morality depends
on the
circumstances

1. For each of the following resolutions, say whether
deontology supports the aff or neg more and explain
why.
a. Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one
innocent person to save the lives of more
innocent people.
b. Resolved: In matters of collecting military
intelligence, the ends justify the means.
c. Resolved: A just society ought not use the death
d. Resolved: Military conscription is unjust.
2. Assume you are debating the resolution, Resolved:
Torture is morally justified.
a. If you are affirmative, what consequentialist
argument could you make?
b. If you are negative, what consequentialist
argument could you make?
3. Assume you are doing policy debate and youre
debating the poverty topic. The aff says we have a
moral obligation to help people living in poverty. The
neg says spending money to fight poverty kills the
economy, causing a war. Who is making a
consequentialist argument and who is making a
deontological argument? How do you know?
4. Which is a better theory of morality: deontology or
consequentialism or deontology? Why? Give an
example of where the other theory could cause you to
make a bad choice.
103
6.4 Kant and the Categorical Imperative

One of the most well known deontological philosophers
is Emmanuel Kant. According to Kant, all morally right
actions follow from principles of what is right and wrong. The
central idea of Kants philosophy is an idea called the
categorical imperative.
The categorical imperative is similar to the golden
rule that you probably learned as a child. The golden rule is
the principle that you should treat others like you want to be
treated. In other words, you should only do something if you
would want someone else to do the same thing in the same
circumstances. The categorical imperative is the principle that
morality should be based on universal rules (or imperatives)
that are always (or categorically) true.
The way you decide whether something should be a
universal rule is by imagining what would happen if everyone
followed that rule. In other words, what would happen if
everyone followed this rule? This is the part of the categorical
imperative thats like the golden rule. For instance, its
probably good to have a universal rule against murder. If
everyone acted this way there would never be any murder and
that would be a good thing.
This idea of universality is very important to Kants
philosophy. Kant doesnt believe that it is ever okay to break
the categorical imperative. For instance, one of Kants rules is
that lying is immoral. According to Kant, that means lying is
always immoral, no matter what. Even if a murderer came and
asked you where your friend was hiding, you would have to
answer truthfully.
The second important idea that Kant articulates is that
you should never treat people as a means to an end. Basically,
you should respect other people and not use them. Lets say
you want to have a lot of money. Thats your end. If you use
someone else to get money by enslaving them, cheating them,
or stealing from them, youre using that person as a means.
Kant says thats never okay. Kant derives this idea from the
categorical imperative. If everyone used everyone else as a
means to an end, the world would be a very bad place.
Kants Principles in His Own Words:
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at
the same time will that it should become a universal
law."
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in
your own person or in the person of any other, always
at the same time as an end and never merely as a means
to an end."
The categorical imperative is a common VC in LD
cases. Kants philosophy is appealing because it is simple to
explain and seems to make a lot of sense. Who would disagree
with the golden rule? On the other hand, there are some
problems with the idea that morality should be based on
universal rules. The inability to lie to a murderer is a good
illustration. The categorical imperative also means that killing
is always wrong, even if youre killing Hitler.
Kants philosophy highlights an important question that
all theories of morality have to answer: how much should
morality depend on the situation? Is stealing okay if its to feed
your family? Is killing always wrong or can it sometimes be
right? Can I kill Hitler? Can I kill people if its part of my
culture or my beliefs?
Answers to these question fall along a spectrum. At
one extreme is moral absolutism. Moral absolutism says that
104
actions are either right or wrong no matter the situation. For

instance, killing is always wrong. Kant is a moral absolutist.
At the other end is moral relativism. Moral relativism
says that there are no universal moral principles. Instead, they
all depend on social, cultural, or historical circumstances.
Killing may be okay in some cultures or in some periods in
history.
Value pluralism is somewhere in between. It states that
different groups have different values but that we should agree
on some things. In other words, killing innocent people may
always be wrong but killing criminals might be okay in some
circumstances.
There is no right answer to the question of morality.
Understanding the different theories of morality is important
because they are frequently applied as value criteria. However,
you should also remember that LD debates are about specific
resolutions, not general philosophical principles. Its important
to pick a theory of morality that works well with your side of
the resolution and explain how it applies.

1. For each of the following resolutions, explain how you
could use the categorical imperative as a VC for the aff
or the neg.
innocent people.
2. Assume the other team uses morality as their VP and
the categorical imperative for their VC. Make two
arguments against their VC.
3. Now assume you are aff and the categorical imperative
is your VC. Rebuild your VC by answering the
arguments you made in question 2.
4. Assume you are doing policy debate and you are
debating the poverty topic. How could you use the
categorical imperative to make an argument for the aff
or neg?
105
6.5 Utilitarianism
Another common theory of morality is utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is the complete opposite of Kants categorical
imperative. It is a consequentialist moral theory rather than a
deontological one. In other words, utilitarianism does not say
certain acts are inherently good or bad. Instead, it judges
morality based on consequences.
Utilitarianism is the theory that actions are moral when
they increase overall utility. Utility is a concept that is hard to
define or measure and utilitarian philosophers have different
ideas of what exactly it means. Basically, utility means
maximizing happiness or pleasure and minimizing unhappiness
or pain. Everyone has some amount of utility that can increase
or decrease as a result of decisions people make.
According to utilitarianism, the good or utility of
society can be measured by adding up the good or utility of
all the people. The overall good of society is often called
social welfare or societal welfare, which is a common VP
in LD.37
Social Welfare in Utilitarianism:
Social welfare = sum of all individuals utility
For example, in a society with 3 people
Abes utility: 6
Balams utility: 3
Cassandras utility: 7
Social welfare = 6 + 3 + 7 = 16
37
Having a VP of societal welfare doesnt necessarily mean a

case is based on utilitarianism. There can be other ways of
measuring social welfare than just adding up everyones utility.
However, social welfare is definitely a consequentialist idea.
The basic goal of utilitarianism is to achieve the

greatest good for the greatest number of people. If you ask a
utilitarian whether its right or wrong to do something, he or
she will say, its right if it increases overall utility.
Utilitarianism is an attractive moral theory because it is simple
to understand and use. If youre a utilitarian, you dont have to
deal with all the problems of universal moral rules.38
Utilitarian decisions are better adapted to specific situations
because they dont involve inflexible rules. Many people say
that the greatest good for the greatest number is the best way
to make political decisions in a democracy. Supporters argue
that its the best moral theory because its the fairest. Every
persons utility is treated equally.
However, there are some problems with utilitarianism.
John Rawls, who you will learn about in the next section,
argues that it doesnt make sense to treat social welfare as the
simple sum of everyones individual utility. This completely
ignores distributional justice. For instance, in a hypothetical
society of two people it might be better if each person has a
utility of 50 than if one person has 101 and the other has 0. A
utilitarian would disagree.
Another criticism of utilitarianism is that it relies on a
perfect ability to predict and calculate costs and benefits. This
38
Technically, there are two branches of utilitarianism: rule

utilitarianism and act utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism argues
that morality should be based on rules but that we should
choose rules based on whether they produce the greatest good
for the greatest number of people. This section mainly focuses
on act utilitarianism, which is the most different from
deontology.
106
is partially a critique of consequentialism in general.

Remember the example of the terrorists holding you hostage?
The terrorists promise that if you kill the other hostage, they
wont set off a bomb in New York City. The problem is that
theres no way to know if theyre telling the truth. You could
kill the hostage and they could set off the bomb anyway.
A final problem with utilitarianism is that it can lead to
some absurd decisions. For instance, it might justify killing
five people to save six since the total utility for six people is
greater than the total utility for five people. Utilitarianism
might also justify slavery. The utility gained by the slave
owners might be greater than the utility lost by the slave.
These are all big problems with a simplistic version of
utilitarianism. Many philosophers attempt to deal with these
problems with a more complex version of the moral theory.
For instance, it might be a bad idea to kill five people to save
six because it makes other people think killing is okay. This
might result in more loss of utility so overall its better not to
kill the five people.
Despite these problems, utilitarianism is a widely used
moral theory. Utilitarianism is sometimes used as a VC in LD.
For instance, a LD debater might use utilitarianism as a VC to
defend torture because it might make society safer overall.
Utilitarianism is also very important in policy debate. Judges
tend to use it as the default way of weighing impacts. In fact,
the judging formula you learned is based on utilitarianism.
Notice theres nothing in the judging formula to account for
morality. Multiplying probability and magnitude is essentially
a utilitarian social welfare calculation.

1. Suppose your VC is utilitarianism. Write what you
would say to rebuild your VC if the other team made
each of the following criticisms:
a. Utility is too vague of a concept. Theres no
way of measuring utility. Even if you ask
people they might not know or they might lie.
b. Utilitarianism ignores distributional justice. It
justifies giving all the goods in society to
materialistic people because they enjoy them
more.
c. Utilitarianism fails because we cant predict the
consequences of our actions.
d. Utilitarianism justifies slavery.
could use utilitarianism as a VC for the aff or the neg.
innocent people.
3. Overall, do you think utilitarianism is a good moral
theory? Why or why not?
107
6.6 John Rawls

As you have learned, there are many different theories
of justice and morality. Although theories can be classified
into basic categories, many different philosophers have their
own specific theories. Probably the most widely cited
philosopher in LD is John Rawls. You already learned about
his definition of civil disobedience. His most important work,
however, is his theory of justice as fairness. Rawls uses social
contract theory to find the best way of achieving distributive
justice.
Rawls uses a thought experiment called the original
position to develop his philosophy. The original position is a
hypothetical situation where some people sit down together to
write a social contract for a society they want to make. Of
course, this is not how social contracts actually work, but its
interesting to think of what would happen if they worked that
way.
In Rawlss original position, the people writing the
social contract are under a veil of ignorance. This doesnt
mean theyre stupid. It means they dont know any of the
specific things that distinguish them from other people in
society. For instance, if you knew that you were a man, you
would want a social contract that favored men. If you knew
you were rich, you would want a social contract that favored
the rich. Same thing if you knew you were poor. For the
original position to work, you cant know any of that. This
idea is important because its the only way people can be truly
fair.
When you were a kid, you probably confronted
distributive justice at some point. For instance, maybe there
was only one piece of cake left and you had to split it with your
brother or sister. A common solution is to have one person cut
the cake and the other person chooses his or her slice. This is
an example of a veil of ignorance. You dont know which half
of the cake youll get. As a result, youre likely to be fair and
cut two equal slices. If you thought you were going to get the
left slice, you would make it much larger.
Rawls argued that the original position would lead
people to choose two principles of justice. Rawlss first
principle of justice says, each person is to have an equal right
to the most extensive scheme of equal basic liberties
compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for others. In
other words, Rawls argues that everyone should have the right
to free speech, the right to vote, and freedom from unjustified
arrest.
Rawls specifies that everyone should have these rights
as long as they are compatible with the rights of others. This is
important because, as you learned earlier, rights often conflict
with one another. As Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell
Holmes once famously said, The right to swing my fist ends
where the other mans nose begins. For example, people have
a right to free speech as long as that doesnt endanger the rights
of others.
Rawls argues that the original position would also lead
to a second principle of justice. Rawlss second principle of
justice is about when inequality is okay. Having total equality
is impossible; even the most communist nations didnt come
close. Its also probably a bad thing. The president should
probably not be equal to everyone else. However, just because
we cant or shouldnt have perfect equality doesnt mean we
shouldnt try to make most things equal. Rawlss second
principle is about when we should and shouldnt try to have
equality.
According to Rawls, there are two times when
inequality is permissible. The first principle states that
108
inequality is permissible as long as there is equality of

opportunity. In other words, its okay for some people to be
doctors and lawyers and for other people to be teachers as long
as everyone, rich or poor, male or female, black or white, has
an equal chance of getting those jobs if they want them. In
Rawlss perfect society, everyone could be a doctor or lawyer
or teacher and would choose what job they like best.
Unfortunately, the reality is that most high-paying jobs
require a lot of education and that education is more difficult to
get if you dont have much money. Also, society is more likely
to tell women they should be teachers than doctors even if they
would rather be doctors. Its very, very difficult to create
perfect equality of opportunity.
The time when inequality is justified according to
Rawls is when it benefits members of society who are worse
off. For instance, if someone is born with a birth defect, its
just for him or her to receive better medical care. If being a
teacher is a worse job because you have to deal with bratty kids
all day, its okay for that job to pay more (it doesnt).
Rawlss Two Principles of Justice:

First Principle: Each person has the same indefeasible
claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic
liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same
scheme of liberties for all;
Second Principle: Social and economic inequalities are
to satisfy two conditions:
1. They are to be attached to offices and positions open
to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity;
2. They are to be to the greatest benefit of the leastadvantaged members of society (the difference
principle).39
This last idea from John Rawls, called the difference
principle, is an important contribution. It means societies
should focus on improving the lives of the least-well-off, even
if that is bad for everyone else. This is obviously a powerful
argument to make in LD.
Now that you have learned about rights, justice, and
morality, you should use some of these ideas to write your LD
cases. You should also develop flowing abbreviations because
theres no way you can write utilitarianism or deontology
on your flow. There are some suggested flowing abbreviations
on the next page.
39
Wenar, L. John Rawls. Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/#JusFaiJusWitLibSoc
109
Table 16 Flowing Abbreviations for Philosophical Ideas

rt Right
Morality
JG Just
government
MO Moral
obligation
Deon Deontology CI Categorical

imperative
Util
SW Societal
Utilitarianism or
welfare
utility
F Fairness
Cons
Consequentialism
or consequences
M to E Means to
an end
RSC Rawlsian
social contract

1. Suppose the other teams VC is Rawlsian social
contract. What are two arguments you could make
against it?
2. Now assume your VC is Rawlsian social contract.
Rebuild your VC by refuting each of the arguments you
came up with in question 1.
could use a Rawlsian argument.
a. Resolved: Limiting economic inequality ought
b. Resolved: A just government should provide
c. Resolved: When in conflict, the preservation of
minority cultural values ought to be valued
above the preservation of a unified national
culture
Copy table to appendix
Chapter 7: Research and Case Writing
110
7.1 Key Words and Searching

7.2 Cutting and Citing Cards
7.3 Footnotes and Following Up
7.4 Tagging and Underlining
7.5 Case Writing
7.6 Frontlines and Extensions
7.7 Blocks Revisited

Using a template?
111
Appendix A: Flowing Abbreviations

This is a comprehensive list of all flowing abbreviations
recommended in this book. Remember, you are free to use any
flowing abbreviations you want as long as you can read and
understand them.
Flowing Abbreviations for All Types of Debate
Resolution
Warrant
Increase
Affirmative
! Impact
Decrease
Negative
bc Because
Cause
Flowing Abbreviations for Policy Debate

Topicality
SQ Status quo
NT Non-topical
sbs Substantial
ss Social
Services
CP Counterplan
pov Poverty
NB Net benefit
Solvency
deficit40
Decrease
Increase
Permutation
pl Plan
USFG United
States federal
government
PLIP Persons
living in poverty
ME Mutually
exclusive
Conditionality
Cause
40
The circle with a slash through it is the mathematical symbol

for not. The flowing abbreviation for solvency deficit
technically means not solve. You can use the not symbol
with many of the other flowing abbreviations youve already
learned.
112
Flowing Abbreviations for Lincoln-Douglas Debate

CD Civil
disobedience
ROL Rule of law
rt Right
Morality
NV Non-violent
dem Democracy
Justified or
justice
JG Just
government
MO Moral
obligation
Change41
Deon Deontology CI Categorical

imperative
Util
SW Societal
Utilitarianism or
welfare
utility
F Fairness
Cons
Consequentialism
or consequences
M to E Means to
an end
RSC Rawlsian
social contract
41
As you may have learned, this triangle is the Greek letter

delta, which is the mathematical symbol for change.
113
Appendix B: Glossary of Debate Terms

This is a list of all the major debate terms used in this
book. Each term lists a definition and some page numbers
where you can look if you would like to find out more.
This glossary is currently unfinished but will be finished for
the next edition check echalk for a revised copy!.
Affirmative The affirmative is one of the teams in the
debate. The affirmative agrees with the resolution and tries to
prove its true or good.
Constructive A constructive or constructive speech is a
speech that takes place in the first half of the debate.
Constructive speeches are where teams build their cases.
Negative The negative is one of the teams in the debate. The

negative disagrees with the resolution and tries to prove its
wrong or bad.
Offense Arguments are offense if they are reasons the plan or
resolution is good or bad. They are distinct from defensive
arguments, which are simply reasons not to vote for the other
team. For instance, a reason the resolution stops a war is
affirmative offense.
Preparation time Preparation time is time teams can use to
prepare for their upcoming speech. Each time has a certain
amount of prep time per debate and gets to choose how to use
it.
Contentions Contentions are the building blocks of a case.

They are reasons to affirm or negate the resolution. They
include claims, warrants, and impacts.
Rebuttal Rebuttals are speeches in the second half of the

debate. They cant be used to introduce new arguments. The
focus is on rebutting the other teams arguments, rebuilding
your own, and proving to the judge why you win.
Cross-examination Cross-examination is a period where

debaters ask and answer questions. There is a period of crossexamination after each constructive speech.
Resolution The resolution is the topic for debate. The

affirmative agrees with the resolution and the negative
disagrees.
Defense Arguments are defense if they are reasons not to

vote for the other team. Defensive arguments arent reasons
why the resolution is good or bad, theyre arguments why its
not as good or bad as the other team claims.
Judge The judge is the person who decides who wins or
loses a debate. At the end of a debate round, he or she votes
for one team, assigns points, and gives comments.
114

Clash!

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Clash!

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Clash!

A Guide to Effective Debating

2.6 On- and Off-Case Arguments ....................................... 39

4.7 Impact Calculus ............................................................ 74

Copyright 2009 Kathryn Kernoff

6.7 John Locke Revisited.....Error! Bookmark not defined.

Introduction: Why Debate?

Copyright 2009 Kathryn Kernoff

Debate can also be very challenging. There are several

"| British Debate | Why do people debate?" | British Debate |

to issues instead of accepting one viewpoint as true. Debaters

Communication Education; Annandale; Vol. 48, pp: 18-30, Jan

Chapter 1: Introduction to Debate

1.1 The Resolution

engineering is morally justified. You are not debating about a

Examples of Aff and Neg:

Copyright 2009 Kathryn Kernoff

Questions for Section 1.1

different contention that says, Uniforms violate the right to

In policy debate, the negs cons are usually called

Sample Contention for an In-Class Mini Debate:

Offense and Defense:

Questions for Section 1.2

1.3 Speeches and Cross-Examination

Examples of Cross-Examination Questions:

Copyright 2009 Kathryn Kernoff

Table 1 Differences Between Constructives and Rebuttals

The rest of the time in a debate is called preparation

1st aff speaker

2nd neg questions

2nd aff questions 1st

Questions for Section 1.3

1.4 Claims, Warrants, and Impacts

Copyright 2009 Kathryn Kernoff

Example of Claim, Warrant, and Impact:

likely you are to win. Likewise, in debate the probability of

Questions for Section 1.4

To be a good debater, you need to refute all of the other

Questions for Section 1.5

Copyright 2009 Kathryn Kernoff

Copyright 2009 Kathryn Kernoff

Copyright 2009 Kathryn Kernoff

1. Separate aff and neg offense. In policy, you will use a

4. Paraphrase and abbreviate. If the other team is long-winded,

Flowing is one time when its okay to write like youre

3. Write small. In order to keep arguments lined up next to

Paraphrasing and Abbreviating:

Using Your Flow to Plan Arguments:

5. Flow everything you can and dont stop. Sometimes youll

Copyright 2009 Kathryn Kernoff

Questions for Section 1.6

Copyright 2009 Kathryn Kernoff

Signposting continues when you refute and rebuild.

Copyright 2009 Kathryn Kernoff

Questions for Section 1.7

Chapter 2: The Basics of Policy Debate

2.1 Introduction to Policy Debate

includes President Obama, federal agencies like the

You can find the current resolution as well as a list of past

go to a tournament in Texas, California, or even Hawaii and

First Neg Constructive (1NC)

Second Aff Constructive