w 页码，1/2(W)

Introduction to Policy Debate

By
John R. Prager

Chapter 1: The Nature of Debate

Chapter 2: The Stock Issues

Chapter 3: The First Affirmative Constructive

Chapter 4: The First Negative Constructive

Chapter 5: The Second Affirmative Constructive

Chapter 6: The Second Negative Constructive

Chapter 7: The Early Rebuttals

Chapter 8: The Final Rebuttals

Chapter 9: Flowcharting

Chapter 10: Cross-examination

Chapter 11: Topicality

Chapter 12: The Counterplan

Chapter 13: Advanced Debate Theory

Chapter 14: The Kritik

Chapter 15: Tournament Procedures

Chapter 16: A Summary of Key Points

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/IPDindex.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，2/2(W)

INTRODUCTION
To the debater: This text developed in response to the needs of my own students during
my tenure as a coach of a small school in Michigan. The book has grown and developed
over the years as various fashions developed, flourished, and were succeeded in turn by
the "next new thing." You should keep in mind that the style of debate discussed here
may vary from what takes place in your locale. Your coach is the best guide to what
theory prevails in your debating area.

Nevertheless, I believe that everything in this book is reasonably accurate in depicting

contemporary debate theory. As you will become aware, certain theoretical issues are far
from settled among experts, and I have tried to note where serious disagreements exist.

In addition, modern debate theory is increasingly plastic and mutable. Experienced

debaters may wish to gather quotations from notable experts to justify the theoretical
positions they want to advance. But it is more desirable to understand theoretical issues
and argue their merits, rather than to rely on assertions from experts as to which theory
should be preferred. This textbook should not be quoted as a definitive source to "prove"
a particular element of debate theory, since there is no such thing as definitive debate
theory.

Copyright © 1990, 1993, 1996, 2002 John R. Prager

All rights reserved.

Permission is not granted to reproduce this document in whole or in part, in any medium.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/IPDindex.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，1/9(W)

Chapter 1

The Nature of Debate

What is debate?

In its essentials, debate is an extended argument. Two groups of people dispute whether a statement
is true or false. The Affirmative team in the round supports the statement, while the Negative team
opposes it.

Once all the arguments have been put forth, an impartial judge decides the matter in favor of one
team or the other. The decision is based only on the material presented during the debate...the
judge’s personal feelings do not enter into his decision. What’s really being decided is not whether
the statement — usually called the resolution, proposition, or topic — is true or false, but which
team is better able to sustain its arguments.

What sort of things are debated?

There are three types of statements that are suitable for argumentation. The simplest are propositions
of fact. Debates of this sort hinge on whether something is true or false; often they try to establish a
cause and effect relationship. Of course, some propositions of fact are so simple that there are no
grounds for argument among reasonable people: "The sun rose at 6:15 this morning" is such a
statement; it would not require great persuasive skill to prove this either true or false.

Other propositions of fact are less easily determined, and thus are more suitable for debate: "Lizzie
Borden killed her parents," for example, or the statement that "Rock music leads to devil worship."
Evidence is available for both sides in these matters.

The chief place where propositions of fact are disputed are in courts of law. There the defense and
the prosecution argue whether a certain person is guilty of disobeying a particular law.

The second type of statement is the proposition of value, which suggests the relative worth of one or
more things. "Governmental funding for abortion is immoral," is one example. Most such
propositions weigh two or more factors against each other: "Smith would make a better governor
than Jones," for instance, or "College academic work is more important than college sports." All
these propositions ask the judge to decide what is desirable or what we should believe.

As the governorship example shows, value propositions appear frequently in politics. A special form
of debate, called value debate or Lincoln-Douglas debate, is used in high schools to discuss value
propositions.

While value debate is beyond the scope of this work, it’s worthwhile to note that value propositions
usually have factual propositions buried within them. For example, the proposition "Art education is
more important than science education" will encourage the debaters to weigh the effectiveness of
each type of education and to define the boundaries of Art and Science. These factual issues will
then give support to the value arguments.

Finally, we turn to propositions of policy, which concern what we as a society ought to do.
Propositions of this sort are often used in academic debate. Some examples of typical resolutions
would be the statements that "The federal government should finance all elementary education in the

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter01.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，2/9(W)

United States," and "The U.S. jury system should be significantly changed."

Issues of fact and of value are embedded in policy questions. Consider the resolution "The U.S.
should increase its military budget." The Affirmative and Negative will begin by disputing what is
included in the phrase "military budget" ... the Coast Guard staff? State police? The President’s
salary, since he is commander in chief? Issues that will develop later include the merits of military
increases versus the national debt, and national security weighed against an increased international
arms race — value questions.

Policy debate questions always contain the word "should." This word has a special sense in debate: it
means "ought to, but not necessarily will." It’s enough if the Affirmative team proves — in the
example above — that increasing the military budget would be beneficial; they don’t have to show
that Congress is likely to do it.

I’m confused about these words: "proposition," "topic," and "resolution."

The official debate topic is chosen in March of each year. That topic will be used for all high school
policy debates for the coming year. In some states, the debate program is year-long; in others, such
as Michigan, the season lasts only for one semester. Since the topic always involves a policy
proposal, it can also be called a proposition. And since the official wording of the topic always
begins, "Resolved: That...", it’s often called the debate resolution.

How does the resolution divide Affirmative and Negative positions?

The Affirmative team always favors the resolution; the Negative team always opposes it.

Policy questions are always worded to suggest a change from current practices. This means that
adopting the policy would automatically entail some risks, since we can’t know for sure beforehand
what the full effects of the change will be. Since the Affirmative team always favors the resolution,
they will take the position that the risks are minor.

Who gets to speak first in the debate?

In a criminal trial, the accused is considered innocent when the trial begins. That’s why the
prosecution gets to speak first — to establish a charge against the defendant.

The same idea carries over to debate: if the debate were never held, the Negative would win in
theory, because the present way of doing things is presumed to be reasonably good. This benefit of
the Negative team is know as presumption, since it’s equivalent to the legal presumption of
innocence before a criminal trial. At the start of the debate, we presume that the present way of doing
things — the status quo (STAT-uhs KWOH) — is reasonably effective, that its flaws are minor, and
that changing from the present system would be risky.

The Affirmative thus gets to speak first, in order to point out the severe problems in the status quo
and to suggest ways that these problems can be removed. This is the Affirmative burden of proof —
their duty to attack the present system. We will talk more about this later.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter01.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，3/9(W)

Which Affirmative speaks first? And who speaks next?

Each team in policy debate has two members—there are two Affirmatives and two Negatives.
Whichever Affirmative rises to make the first speech will be called the First Affirmative; his partner
is the Second Affirmative. Similarly, the first speaker on the Negative side will be the First Negative,
and his partner the Second Negative. These speakers are usually identified by a number and a letter:
1A, 2A, 1N, and 2N.

The first four speeches of the debate are used to introduce new arguments and to construct major
positions that will be defended later. Each of these constructive speeches is allowed eight minutes.

z First Affirmative Constructive (1AC) 8 minutes

z First Negative Constructive (1NC) 8 minutes
z Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC) 8 minutes
z Second Negative Constructive (2NC) 8 minutes

The last speeches of the debate are concerned with refuting the positions your opponents have taken
against your constructive arguments. These speeches are called rebuttals. Again, Affirmative and
Negative speeches will alternate, but the Negative team leads off the rebuttal period.

z First Negative Rebuttal (1NR) 5 minutes

z First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) 5 minutes
z Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR) 5 minutes
z Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) 5 minutes

Those are the major speeches of the debate. However, each constructive speech is followed by a
three-minute cross-examination (CX) period. The speaker who finishes his speech is asked questions
by a member of the opposing team for three minutes. Each speaker will participate in two CX
periods: one as questioner, one as witness. Putting this all together, then, we get the following chart
for a debate:

z First Affirmative Constructive (1AC) 8 minutes

z CROSS-EXAMINATION of 1A by either Negative, 3 minutes
z First Negative Constructive (1NC) 8 minutes
z CROSS-EXAMINATION of 1N by either Affirmative, 3 minutes
z Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC) 8 minutes
z CROSS-EXAMINATION of 2A by the other Negative, 3 minutes
z Second Negative Constructive (2NC) 8 minutes
z CROSS-EXAMINATION of 2N by the other Affirmative, 3 minutes
z First Negative Rebuttal (1NR) 5 minutes
z First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) 5 minutes
z Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR) 5 minutes
z Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) 5 minutes

The grand total is just over one hour of speaking time. Note that there is no cross-examination period
after the rebuttals.

The Affirmative gets to speak first and last in the debate. Counterbalancing this, the Negative gets a
13 minute period in the middle of the debate (2NC and 1NR, interrupted only by a cross-
examination), which they can use to great effect to weaken the Affirmative position. This Negative
block often is the turning point of a round; frequently, the Affirmative falls back to a purely
defensive position after this point.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter01.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，4/9(W)

What supplies will I need?

You will need to establish a file of evidence, and that will require a supply of 4" by 6" index cards, a
file box, and dividers. Blank dividers are best — there’s no easy way to use those labeled with letters
or months. Do not try to use 3" by 5" cards...they are much too small.

In the course of a round, you will need to take notes on the progress of the debate. This technique is
called flowcharting and is discussed more fully in Chapter 11. You will want to use a pad of legal
paper or large sheets of art paper for this. Of course, you will also need a supply of pens or pencils.

Why do I need evidence?

At the start of the debate season, you will be unfamiliar with much of the subject matter of the topic.
As the year progresses, you will grow more and more knowledgeable. But that doesn’t mean the
judge or your opponents will believe everything you assert.

In a courtroom, the opposing lawyers can call witnesses and experts to testify. You don’t have that
luxury in a debate round. Instead, you read brief quotations from experts to substantiate the points
you will to make. In order to be able to prove your arguments, you will build up a large file of
evidence on index cards.

The basic equation of debate is: REASONING + EVIDENCE = PROOF. Arguments by themselves don’t
have any weight, if they are not backed up by expert testimony. Evidence by itself cannot be
persuasive, since it lacks supportive reasoning that builds toward a conclusion. Only by giving sound
reasons for your position, and backing these reasons up with expert evidence, can you prove a point.

How do I make out an evidence card?

Print neatly or type...your partner may need to read this evidence, and he or she will have to be able
to understand what you have written. Use ink, not pencil. Near the top of the card, record the author
of the material, and his credentials (in parentheses). Follow that with the source: the title of the book,
or the article name and publication name for a magazine or newspaper. Finally, include the date and
the page number. The idea is to provide much of the same bibliographic material that you would give
in the references to a well-written term paper.

Below the bibliographical material, record the body of the text in quotation marks. Do not use any
ellipses (three dots) to indicate material has been cut. If you only want to use the first and last
sentences of a paragraph, either record the sentences separately on different index cards, or put the
whole paragraph on one card and use a highlighting marker to indicate the material preferred.

Only one quotation should ever be on each index card. Try to leave the very top line of the card
blank. Later, you will make notes at the top to assist you in filing this evidence.

What does an evidence card look like?

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter01.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，5/9(W)

Do I have to read all the bibliographical stuff in the debate?

No. It must be on the card for later verification, but you can omit a good deal of it during the round.
In a debate, you need to cite the author, his qualifications, the book or periodical title, and the date. If
you have previously quoted from this author already, it’s enough to give the author’s name and say
"previously cited."

Where do I find evidence?

There are a number of sources. You will first want to consult the school and public libraries:
remember to check the bookshelves, magazine and newspaper rack, and the vertical file of pamphlets
and newsletters. Later, as your sophistication increases, you will want to consult the library of a
college or university for more technical material.

Books are very good for your initial research, and they can provide in-depth coverage of a subtopic
better than any other source. The disadvantage is that book material is not very current: a book
published in 2001 may have been written in 1999 or earlier.

Newspapers are excellent sources for the most recent statistics and developments in the topic area.
The three mainstays are the NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, and THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
MONITOR. Major regional papers like the DETROIT NEWS are acceptable; avoid local papers. Indexes
for these papers are available at the library. While newspapers are good sources of recent data, they
don’t provide much in the way of analysis.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter01.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，6/9(W)

Magazines are the most commonly cited sources of evidence. Newsmagazines such as TIME,
NEWSWEEK, and BUSINESS WEEK have current statistics but limited reliable analysis. Academic
magazines and technical journals, written by and for professionals in the field, often provide expert
opinions. The precise list of important academic journals will vary from year to year as the topic
changes. These magazines are often unavailable outside a college library. Popular magazines such as
READERS DIGEST are unsuitable for debate — the material often has been recycled from other
sources, and it is preferable that you quote the primary source. The READERS GUIDE TO PERIODICAL
LITERATURE provides a thorough and timely index of most magazines your public library is likely to
carry; college libraries also have special indexes for academic journals.

One special magazine deserves mention all by itself: FORENSIC QUARTERLY. The issues of this
magazine are devoted to analysis of the debate resolution, and each issue gives a good bibliography
of primary sources worth consulting.

Government documents include Congressional committee hearings and reports of presidential

commissions. These documents are among the most authoritative, but they are hard to find outside a
college library. Sometimes you can find the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD at the local library, but it is
a long and tedious task to scan it for useful material.

Special interest groups will sometimes send brochures and publications to those who are interested.
For instance, the NRA would potentially be a source for evidence on a topic dealing with gun
control. Much of this material will show an obvious bias and will be discounted in a debate round,
but many special interest groups are known for fair and evenhanded treatment.

Finally, we come to the category of debate handbooks...collections of precut evidence and analysis,
mass-produced for the debater. Avoid relying too heavily on handbook sources. The evidence is
often irrelevant and occasionally distorted. Usually, it is poorly cited, with incomplete dates,
unnamed authors, or authors without qualifications. The chief value of handbook material is to show
you some issues you may have overlooked and to suggest other primary publications worth looking
up.

What about the Internet?

Yes, absolutely. The growth of online material has made the Internet a treasure-trove of material for
debate. Unfortunately, along with material of the highest quality, there is a lot of nonsense available
on websites. You will need to be careful in selecting quotations from people who have expertise in
the field they are writing about.

Citing online evidence requires taking a few special steps. The citation should have the author’s
name and credentials; the title of the web-page (which may require both an article and a publication
title); the date the information was placed online or revised, if that can be discovered; the phrase
"Online: Internet"; the URL or website address where you found the material; and the date you
accessed the information. So a complete Internet citation might look like this: Dahlia Lithwick
(senior staff editor), "What War Powers Does the President Have?" Slate, September 13, 2001,
Online: Internet, http://slate.msn.com/code/explainer/explainer.asp?
Show=9/13/2001&idMessage=8290; Accessed September 17, 2001.

When you present the evidence in a round of competition, you would not have to read all the citation
material. You would say something like, "Dahlia Lithwick, senior staff editor, writing in Slate,
online, September 13, 2001."

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter01.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，7/9(W)

For what sort of evidence should I be looking?

There are three main types of evidence. Factual data is pure reporting: it consists of true anecdotes
and reports. Most newspapers and magazines, especially technical journals, concentrate on factual
reporting. Statistics — a type of factual data — give concrete numbers of people or incidents. Facts
can also be divided into empirical data — that produced from scientific studies, laboratory
experiments, and surveys — as opposed to anecdotal data, which consists of individual reports.
Many debaters favor empirical evidence, since anecdotes may indicate only isolated events.

The most important category of evidence may be authoritative opinion: comments by experts. These
opinions serve to establish cause and effect relationships. For example, a judge’s testimony that
medical malpractice cases are the chief cause of delayed jury trials would be excellent support of a
resolution to reform our legal system. Similarly, opinions as to the worth of proposed reforms are
vital to debate.

Avoid the third type of evidence — conclusionary evidence, which looks very similar to expert
opinion but does not establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship. A missile systems expert
claiming that "decreasing the U.S. nuclear arsenal would lead to nuclear war within five years,"
seems at first glance to be providing a important opinion. But since the expert just reports his
conclusion and not the reasons behind it, there is little reason to accept his report.

How do I know if the evidence I’m gathering is any good?

There are seven tests for good expert opinion. The best evidence will evoke a "yes" answer for each
of these questions.

1. Is the material timely? Anything more than five years old is suspect — and statistical evidence
should be more recent than that. Some exceptions are allowed, especially for economic or
political theories, but the five year marker is fairly widely accepted.
2. Is the author qualified? Opinions by people who are not authorities are not worth much. Note
that the credentials should be relevant to the testimony provided. A research chemist
commenting on the effects of pesticides in drinking water is probably a competent source; he
would not be reliable when commenting on the economic effects of increased federal debts.
3. Is the author unbiased? Expert opinion should be based on facts, not personal prejudices.
4. Is the conclusion broad enough to be useful? A conclusion hedged with too many words like
"may," "sometimes," and "could be" is too limited for most rounds of debate.
5. Is the conclusion based on valid research? Statistical studies of limited geographical regions,
small populations, or foreign countries may not be broadly applicable to a national topic.
6. Does the evidence provide both reasons and conclusions? See the discussion above about
conclusionary evidence. The best opinion provides solid connections between causes and
effects: a causal link.
7. Is the evidence relevant? Even if the material passes all the other tests, you don’t want to
bother collecting it if you’ll never use it.

How do I file my evidence?

You will develop your own filing system as the season progresses. You have to develop a system
that your debate partner understands: one that will allow either of you to find a particular piece of
evidence at a moment’s notice

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter01.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，8/9(W)

One of the easiest ways to begin is by developing blocks of related evidence. Start with a major
division of your file: perhaps FINANCE, which will deal with all possible ways of financing a major
change in the status quo. You will then sort the evidence you have acquired into blocks: those in
favor of increased income taxes, those opposed to increased income taxes, those in favor of a
national lottery, those opposed, and so forth. Perhaps you will have enough evidence to break this
down still further — perhaps you have several cards, each giving a different reason why a national
lottery is undesirable.

At the top of each evidence card, write a line to identify the block to which the card belongs. Use
whatever code seems best for you. FIN/INC TX BAD might be enough to identify a card that says the
income tax is bad for financing government programs. But FIN/INC TX BAD/BSNS HURT would be
more specific — the label (also called a tag or a slug) translates to mean that increases in the income
tax are bad because they depress business activity. Write these codes in pencil, because you may
wish to reclassify cards later.

Sort evidence cards into sets that belong to the same block...all the INCOME TAX BAD cards, then all
the INCOME TAX GOOD cards. Then put them into your file as part of the FINANCE section. The idea
is to be able to find any specific piece of evidence as quickly as possible — and to be able to refile it
all quickly at the end of the round. A secondary consideration is to have a filing system that your
partner will be able to understand, so that he too can find evidence if necessary.

Isn’t there a more efficient way to classify evidence?

Later in the season, you will want to develop briefs — prepared lists of analysis and evidence, which
can pulled out of your files to be presented against opposing arguments you encounter frequently.
Why not start off this way? Well, briefs are used to respond to common arguments presented by your
opponents. Until you know what arguments are often advanced, and until you have a substantial
collection of evidence, you can’t develop briefs. That limits you to later in the season.

Briefs are typewritten or word-processed documents, usually kept in a notebook or folder. When you
hear a particular argument, you can respond with a prepared brief rather than dig through your file
box for evidence cards. The best uses for briefs are for extensions in the Second Affirmative
Constructive speech, for plan attacks in the Second Negative Constructive, and plan defense in the
First Affirmative Rebuttal. See the explanations of those speeches for examples of how briefs can be
useful.

Which side should I debate?

That is a question that you and your coach need to answer together. But don’t assume that only one
side of the issue, or just one position, will be best for you.

When choosing the side to debate, ignore your personal feelings on the matter. The resolution always
deals with a topic area in which there are serious wrongs that need public attention, and many
beginning debaters feel that they would have an advantage on the Affirmative side. But each
resolution is carefully balanced in order to give both sides of the issue a fair chance to win. There
will be as many arguments against change as there arguments in favor.

Please consider debating both sides of the resolution during the season. A debater who has tried only
the Negative side will see a lot of Affirmative approaches, and will gain great insight into what
Affirmative strategies are successful. At the same time, though, he will have never seen other

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter01.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，9/9(W)

Negative teams at work. Debating on the Affirmative side for a few rounds will allow him to put into
practice the techniques he has seen as a Negative, and he can compare his own style against that of
other Negative debaters for the first time. The upshot is that the speaker will become a better debater
on both sides of the issue for the experience. The same argument applies to an Affirmative debater
who switches over to the Negative side, of course.

Changing sides also enlarges the scope of your debate experience. Affirmative teams concentrate on
a few specific cases in the course of the season, and lose sight of the breadth of the topic. Negative
debaters have to be prepared on a wide panorama of issues both within and outside the topic area,
but they rarely have the opportunity to explore an issue in depth. Exchanging positions allows for a
more meaningful educational experience for every student.

Indeed, it would be to your advantage to debate all four positions in the course of the year. You will
gain a better appreciation for the pressures your partner is under. As we will see later in this book,
each speaking position has its own unique tactics and style. Varying your position is the best way to
enrich your debate experience.

Talk about "educational experience" sounds all very nice, and is meant to impress your parents and
the high school administration if they happen to look into this book. All debaters know the real
reason why they debate: it’s fun. And by switching sides, you can dazzle people with your
versatility. Try it!

Introduction to Policy Debate

Copyright © 1990, 1993, 1996, 2002 John R. Prager
All rights reserved.
Permission is not granted to reproduce this document in whole or in part, in any medium.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter01.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，1/5(W)

Chapter 2

The Stock Issues

How do I know what arguments to make?

Any discussion of policy proposals relies on a pattern of analysis developed by the philosopher and
educator, John Dewey. This analysis applies to all proposals, not just debate resolutions.

Let us assume that you are concerned parent trying to convince a town meeting that the city ought to
renovate or build more playgrounds. Obviously, you would come to the meeting having made as
much preparation as possible. You would have a detailed plan of action — what playgrounds to
rebuild, where to buy more land, and so on.

Would this be enough to convince people? Hardly. You not only need to have a plan of action, but
you need to provide a reason for adopting this plan. So you would prepare arguments beforehand:
the old playgrounds are unusable, you would say. There are too many children in the city, and not
enough facilities. Kids end up playing in abandoned quarries. Even where facilities exist, the
grounds and equipment are in poor repair: there have been five major injuries to children in the last
two years due to collapsing swing-sets.

At the same time, you would need to justify the city's taking action. Point out that no private citizen
or company will underwrite the cost of repair, but that the city has thousands of dollars of funds
earmarked for park improvement.

How does this apply to debate?

As you will recall, the Affirmative team speaks first in the round, since they need to justify changing
the status quo. The goal of this first speech is to present a specific plan and a list of reasons for
adopting it, the case.

The plan is a very detailed list of what steps the Affirmative team thinks the government should
adopt. The case is a persuasive series of arguments designed to show that the plan is needed and
effective.

The Affirmative must present a prima facie (PRY-muh FAY-shuh) case in the first speech if they
expect to win the debate. "Prima facie" — a Latin phrase meaning, roughly, "at first glance" —
means that the arguments are sufficient to persuade a reasonable person until they are refuted. If the
Affirmative presents a prima facie case, they have fulfilled their burden of proof for the first speech:
they have presented a reason to change the status quo. If the Affirmative fails to provide a prima
facie case, the Negative can win just by pointing that out in their first speech.

What are the components of a prima facie case?

The prima facie case must answer certain of the stock issues in the 1AC speech. The stock issues are
four basic varieties of argument which appear in every debate.

One way to think of stock issues is as questions to which the Affirmative must answer yes and the

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter02.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，2/5(W)

Negative may answer no. There are many ways of posing these questions, but here are some
examples:

1. Is there a significant need for a change? Is there a great harm in the status quo, and/or is there a
great advantage which can be obtained by modifying our present way of doing things?

2. Will mechanisms in the status quo cause the problem to remain? Is the harm an intrinsic part
of the present system? Can only the Affirmative proposal gain the advantage?

3. Will the proposal ease the problem effectively?

4. Will the plan avoid unpleasant side effects?

The first stock issue is known as harm or need. The second is called inherency (or, sometimes,
uniqueness). The third issue is called solvency, and the fourth, disadvantages (or, rarely, cost). To
provide a prima facie speech, the first Affirmative Constructive must provide a plan and address the
harm, inherency, and solvency issues.

Notice how our playground example a few paragraphs ago fits into this system of analysis. The
Harm issue is considered in the dangers to children from the current playground structure. The fact
that nobody else is taking action satisfies the Inherency issue. The detailed proposal for new
equipment provides the plan, and the claims that it would be a functional solution meets the
Solvency requirement.

Why isn't the Disadvantages stock issue part of a prima facie case?

We assume that the Affirmative plan has a tiny amount of risk, but we trust the Affirmative enough
to suspend judgement on any disadvantages until later in the debate. We expect that any bad side-
effects will be brought up by the Negative team in their speeches. The Affirmative will, of course,
deny that there are any major defects in their plan.

If the Affirmative had the duty to anticipate and answer all possible side-effects in their first speech,
they couldn't possibly fulfill their burden of proof in eight minutes. So, in the interests of fairness,
Disadvantages are excluded from prima facie consideration.

Explain the Need stock issue.

To meet the need issue, the Affirmative must prove that there is a significant amount of suffering
going on due to present policy. They can take two approaches: they can prove a quantitative harm,
showing that many people are affected, or they can show a qualitative harm, demonstrating that
relatively few people are hurt deeply.

Consider a resolution calling for stricter federal control over pornography. One Affirmative case may
choose to show that millions of people are exposed to pornography, and each exposure corrupts them
slightly; the net effect is widespread, even universal, harm. This quantitative approach suggests a
big, but not necessarily intense, problem.

Another case on the same topic might suggest that, for a few individuals, pornography causes
criminally violent sexual behavior: it leads to rapes, assaults, and child molesting. Clearly, not all
people are sexually assaulted in the course of a year — not even a large fraction of the population are

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter02.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，3/5(W)

so harmed. But those who are harmed are hurt greatly. This is a qualitative approach.

Remember that the need analysis is equally valid as an advantage instead of a harm. For example,
the Affirmative could demonstrate that cutting pornography would cut assaults, resulting in a savings
of thousands of hours of police time, and millions of dollars in court and prison costs. This
quantitative advantage is just as legitimate as a quantitative harm approach. Both types of analysis
demonstrate a need for the Affirmative proposal.

Explain Inherency.

Inherency is the hardest of the stock issues for the beginning debater to understand. The crux of
inherency is the nature of cause-and-effect: the Affirmative wants to demonstrate that there are
features in the status quo which cause the problems discussed in the Need issue. Proving that this
causal link exists means that the harms can't be cured except by reforming the status quo.

There are four basic types of inherency that you might meet. For demonstration purposes, we will
assume that the Affirmative is proposing a plan to increase federal aid to people living in poverty.

Structural inherency is the strongest type of inherent barrier to establish. A structural analysis
suggests that a law, or rule, or fact of life is causing the harms. For example, the Affirmative may
argue that people who do not get a good education have low productivity, and thus earn low wages,
and thus are condemned to poverty. The causal link of poor education to low income is based on
economic facts. Similarly, the government rule that people who have given up looking for jobs are
not counted as "unemployed" means that the unemployment figures underestimate the number of
people in need of work; a law demonstrates structural inherency.

Gap inherency is weaker than structural inherency. The Affirmative notes that the present system
has identified a problem and is taking steps against it, but those steps fall short of curing the harms.
There is a gap between the solution now in existence and the harm that needs to be cured. For
example, federal welfare payments are designed to relieve poverty, but the money a family receives
from welfare is too little to raise it above the poverty line — a gap exists. Gap inherency is weaker
than structural inherency because it shows that the status quo is already making some effort to
remove the problem, as we will see when we discuss First Negative tactics.

Attitudinal inherency claims that the problems are caused by people's beliefs, feelings, or opinions.
For example, racial prejudice — an attitudinal problem — prevents many blacks from getting good-
paying jobs, thus causing poverty to strike at the African-American family more often than the white
family. Another example is that people find it humiliating to ask for charity (an attitude), and so
many poor people refuse out of pride to participate in welfare and food stamp programs, and thus
suffer poverty and malnutrition (the harm). Attitudinal inherency, also, is weaker than structural
inherency; the opposition will argue that the attitudes are not really strong (in 1NC), and that they
will thwart the working of the plan (in 2NC). Attitudinal inherency can be effective, but you must be
careful when you use it.

Finally, existential inherency argues that, since there's a problem, something must be causing
it ...and leaves the question at that point. The Affirmative claims that the mere existence of a problem
is enough; we don't have to worry about causes. This is a flawed analysis; existential inherency must
never be used! Unless they show a true barrier, the Affirmative can't prove that the harms will not
evaporate overnight — and so they will lose the debate. Existential inherency is considered a valid
approach in some debate circuits, but the consensus among most high school judges is that it is not
acceptable. Avoid it.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter02.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，4/5(W)

What is Solvency?

In many ways, solvency is the opposite of inherency. Again, you are trying to prove a causal
relationship, but the Affirmative's goal is to show that the plan will work to solve the problems they
have mentioned. Usually this means finding evidence in which an authority supports the specific
proposal the Affirmatives are suggesting. The important thing for Affirmatives to remember is that
the claim for solvency must specifically fix the problems described in the Harm analysis.

What are Disadvantages?

They are harmful side-effects of the Affirmative plan. They will be more fully discussed in the
chapters on Second Negative Constructive and First Affirmative Rebuttal strategy.

Are there any other stock issues?

No....but you may hear about three others. They really aren't valid ones — they are holdovers from
debate theory of previous decades — but a few schools are using old textbooks that still refer to
them, so you should be familiar with the concepts. If you are faced with a team using this analysis,
you have an excellent chance of winning; just make sure the judge knows that you know the
underlying concept of the issue is flawed.

Significance deals with size and magnitude. Usually an Affirmative team arguing significance notes
that their case extends to very many people. Properly, significance is a part of the Harm/Need stock
issue: the Affirmative must prove that the harm they cite or the advantage they hope to derive is a
significant and important one. Merely noting that large numbers of people (or many millions of
dollars) are involved is not sufficient. Be careful here. A few debate teams use the word Significance
when they mean Need or Harm.

Workability (sometimes called Unworkability) is usually brought up by the Negative, to claim that
the Affirmative plan is not practical. Usually the Second Negative speaker will argue that the plan
doesn't have Congressional backing, or that some minor details are too sketchy to function. These
arguments are misapplied. If the plan is flawed so that it will not function well, the Negative
argument is clearly one against solvency; if the plan is so flawed that it will worsen the situation, the
relevant stock issue is disadvantages.

Often, workability arguments are just presented as a list of questions or assertions (known as
presses): "How will your financing work? I don't see how the Affirmative is going to get all the
money they need. And mailing out checks to everybody in poverty every month — who's going to
lick all those envelopes? Until the Affirmative can answer these questions, we must conclude their
plan is not workable." But questions aren't the same as arguments, and they are not persuasive. The
Affirmative team cannot ignore Workability questions, but they can be handled quickly and
easily...and the Affirmatives can expect to win the debate.

Finally, there is the pseudo-stock issue called Topicality. This is a very special case, because
topicality is a legitimate — and often vitally important — issue in policy debate. It's so important, in
fact, that we devote a whole chapter to it later on. While some debate theorists disagree, I don't think
topicality should be considered a Stock Issue, however. Topicality is not an issue which must arise in
every debate, while the other stock issues must be considered. Even Disadvantages are at least an

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter02.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，5/5(W)

implicit part of every round, even when the Negative fails to introduce formal disadvantage
arguments, as part of the presumption in favor of the status quo. Topicality arguments are different;
we consider that the Affirmative case and plan are operating completely within the bounds of the
resolution until the Negative team begins a challenge to topicality. Thus, I think Topicality should
not be considered a part of the standard Stock Issue quartet.

Introduction to Policy Debate

Copyright © 1990, 1993, 1996, 2002 John R. Prager
All rights reserved.
Permission is not granted to reproduce this document in whole or in part, in any medium.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter02.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，1/12(W)

Chapter 3

The First Affirmative Constructive

Is the 1AC speech difficult?

In many ways, the First Affirmative Constructive (1AC) speech is the easiest one in the debate. As
the Affirmative team, you get to define the specific issues that will be discussed — that’s an
advantage that the Negative team lacks. More importantly, you can map out the 1AC speech in detail
before the debate even begins. All other speeches in the round will be improvised on the spot; the
1AC should be well polished and easily delivered.

How does the resolution affect the content of the 1AC speech?

We will assume that you’ve done a lot of background reading on the topic, and have started
accumulating evidence. You can’t expect to write a case without knowing the issues of the topic.

Look at the resolution. Resolutions can be divided between process resolutions (sometimes called
means resolutions) and result resolutions (sometimes called effects or ends resolutions). Process
topics require that the Affirmative team support a particular plan, although the exact details are left
to be fleshed out. Resolutions that call for federal financing of all education, or for structural changes
in the jury system, or for increased employment opportunities for the poor, are all process
resolutions. Note that although these topics tell the Affirmative in general terms what must be
accomplished, they still allow a great deal of freedom in selecting the mechanisms involved.

Result resolutions specify the goal desired, rather than the means to accomplish that goal. Such
proposals may call for programs to guarantee retirement security for the elderly, or to increase
political stability in Latin America, or to improve medical care for U.S. citizens. The exact
mechanism is completely left to the discretion of the Affirmative — only the result matters.

Your first concern in developing the 1AC speech is to discuss with your partner just what the
resolution requires you to do. Lately, many resolutions have been result, rather than process, topics,
but either type can occur.

How do I begin writing a First Affirmative Constructive?

We will first discuss a case structure known as the Traditional Needs case. As the name implies, this
format has been around for a while — since the mid-1930s. It puts primary focus on where the
Affirmative is strongest: the need stock issue.

Decide, with your partner, what harms under the topic are the most important. Develop a structure of
harms. Let us suppose, for example, that this year’s topic requires the Affirmative to provide a
program to guarantee employment for all U.S. citizens now in poverty. You might consider all of the
many problems associated with poverty: homelessness, malnutrition, alcoholism, drug abuse,
violence, poor education, and even suicide.

Structure the major harms into an outline form:

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter03.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，2/12(W)

1. Poverty breeds significant harms in American society.

A. Poverty implies inadequate shelter.

B. Poverty leads to malnutrition and starvation.

C. Poverty leads to psychological harms.

1. Substance abuse.

2. Mental illness

3. Domestic violence.

4. Suicide.

The main point, "Poverty breeds...," is called your first contention, since it is a claim that the
Affirmative contends to be true. It is supported by three subpoints, and the last of these three is
supported by four subpoints of its own.

Next, we must add supporting evidence. You will need at least six pieces of evidence to prove this
harm contention. Points A and B each need one quotation; each of the four points under C needs
evidence as well. Taken as a whole, each of the A/B/C subpoints proves your main argument, so you
don’t need direct evidence under contention 1 itself.

The next step is to develop an inherency contention: locate the causes of the harms, and show how
the harms are direct outcomes of current laws and policies. What causes poverty? Lack of jobs, for a
start. But what about people who have low productivity, and thus are earning low wages? Such
people often have large families, so that their tiny paychecks can’t stretch far enough. And what
about federal programs to relieve poverty? They function, but they don’t reach all the poor, and they
don’t usually give enough money to end poverty. The inherency contention might put this all
together.

2. Poverty is ingrained in the status quo.

A. Millions of people are poor.

1. The unemployed live in poverty.

2. Those working for low wages are often poor.

B. Government poverty-relief programs have failed.

1. Rules exclude many of the working poor.

2. Benefits are inadequate.

This is a sketchy analysis, but the kernel of an inherency argument is there. Point A Establishes
structural inherency: poverty exists because of economic conditions. Point B is gap inherency:
solutions have been tried, but they fall short of working.

You should have also noted that the points and subpoints are all complete ideas — usually complete
sentences — written in a compressed headline format. This is known as labeling the argument, and is
a vital skill for the successful debater.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter03.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，3/12(W)

Does the plan come next?

It certainly does. The material you have so far proves a significant harm is rooted in the system.
You’ve covered two of the three stock issues needed for a prima facie case. The last issue, solvency,
deals with the effectiveness of the plan at combating the problem. But until you have a plan written,
you cannot decide whether it will work or not.

Like the case arguments, the plan is structured into an outline form. Instead of contentions, the main
points of a plan are traditionally called planks. Unlike the contentions, the plan never includes
evidence. A little thought shows us why: evidence that the plan would work fits into the solvency
part of debate; evidence that the plan would or would not have harmful side-effects would fit into the
disadvantage arguments presented by the Negative; evidence that the plan is or isn’t needed fits into
the harm and inherency points.

The plan is a series of commands that will be made into law. Within the limits of law, though, the
Affirmative can do absolutely anything it likes in the plan. Anything. It doesn’t matter if the proposal
is germane to the resolution or not. The Affirmative has the power of fiat (FEE-ott), the ability to
"wish" their plan into existence; "fiat" is a Latin word meaning "let it be done!" Of course, if the
Affirmative uses their fiat power to do foolish things, the Negative will certainly point out these
disadvantages. Other than that, there are very few restrictions on fiat power (but see the section on
solvency attacks in the Second Negative Constructive and the chapter on Topicality to learn what
some of these limits are.)

There are six types of planks that most Affirmative plans have: mandates, administration, funding,
enforcement, spikes, and intent. Not all plans will have each. Not all Affirmative teams will use
these labels. But the terms are common enough that you should learn what they mean.

Mandates are the basic provisions of what the plan should accomplish. Every plan will have
mandates. They are the reforms that the Affirmative team is proposing; they are the actions that will
put the Affirmative resolution into effect. Often the mandates are very complex, with many
subpoints and details.

Administration planks define who is to operate the Affirmative plan. Often, the Affirmative will
want to set up a special federal office or governmental agency, and will offer an Administration
plank to specify how many people will be elected or appointed, the length of their terms, and so
forth. In many cases, the Affirmative is content to rely on a status quo agency; this plank could be
omitted.

Enforcement provisions say what the penalty will be for violating any laws proposed by the
Affirmative’s mandates; these planks may also specify what agencies will prosecute cases. In many
cases, it’s sufficient to say "Enforcement will be by civil and criminal penalties."

Funding. Often funding is the most controversial plank of the plan. Not all plans need funding, but
most need some source of money to put the mandates into effect. Funding planks are controversial
because Negative teams will argue that any means the Affirmative uses to raise money is going to be
counterproductive. Of course, Affirmatives are always free to spend money without raising funds
elsewhere, thereby increasing the federal debt. But the hazards of such action are known widely, and
Negatives will be prepared to crush any Affirmative that deficit-spends. So most Affirmative teams
opt to offset their new spending plans with some form of revenue-raising.

The Affirmative is generally limited to three methods to finance their plan: (1) raising taxes, (2)
redistributing money from current government programs, and (3) relying on gifts. Taxes are the most

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter03.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，4/12(W)

commonly used approach — you can choose to raise the rate on an existing tax, or concoct some
new system of taxation. You may also choose to cut back on one or more existing governmental
programs, and funnel the savings into your plan. Gifts are unreliable as sources of steady income, but
two methods have been successfully defended by debaters in the past: rewarding corporations and
businesses with tax incentives to contribute money, and instituting a national lottery system
(technically, a gift, since nobody is obliged to participate).

You need not stick to only one method. You can use any or all of these to finance your plan. It is
important that you have available an estimate of the cost of your plan, and an estimate of the money
raised — Negatives and the judge will certainly be interested in that information.

Spikes. Spikes are plan components which serve to avoid a disadvantage that the rest of the plan
would otherwise cause. They are parts of the plan that do not implement the resolution directly, but
rather make the rest of the plan function better. While you cannot claim an advantage from a plan
spike, it can prevent you from losing the debate to a persistent Negative team. For example, a plan to
provide free food for the hungry might lead to dramatic inflation; a plan spike to counter this might
impose wage and price controls on the U.S. economy. Instead of merely proving that the Affirmative
plan would be inflationary, the Negative would also have to prove that the price controls would be
ineffective or undesirable; the Affirmative, of course, would have evidence on hand to show that
price controls are just great.

Plan spikes are seldom labeled as such — usually they are hidden in the plank with mandates. If
you’re debating Negative, watch out for parts of the plan which seem to have no real function; it may
be a spike trying to protect a vulnerable part of the plan. If you’re on the Affirmative, and you
consistently lose to a particular disadvantage, consider adding a spike to offset the disadvantage.

Intent. "The Affirmative team reserves the right to establish legislative intent based on speeches
presented in this round." That phrase, or a close variation of it, is now fairly standard as the final part
of every plan.

When a legal case — especially a case testing the validity of a new law — is brought to trial, the
judge will frequently consult the debate in congress to gain insight as to what any disputed words or
phrases mean. The judge is seeking to interpret the phrases based on what the legislators intended
them to mean.

The intent plank of the plan is designed to give the Affirmative team the right to interpret their plan
as they see fit, if a dispute arises about the meaning of the provisions. It’s an attempt to discourage
Negatives from twisting the Affirmative’s words to their own advantage. Usually, the intent plank
makes no difference in the debate; Negatives find enough to attack in the plan without
misinterpreting it.

Some judges reject the whole concept of Affirmative intent and require that the plan stand or fall on
its own common-sense merits. And, in some cases, Affirmative teams have abused their intent,
claiming that a particular clause means contradictory things depending on the attacks presented in a
particular round. The best solution is to avoid an ambiguous plan: explain your proposal in clear
language.

What does a finished plan look like?

Here’s an example, based on the harm and inherency contentions presented earlier:

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter03.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，5/12(W)

Plank One: MANDATES. The U.S. Department of Labor, using minimal

increases in staff, will oversee the following reforms.

SUBPOINT A: A national computer system for all available jobs

will be instituted to link all state employment bureaus and work
referral agencies.

SUBPOINT B: A comprehensive program of job training will be

established to provide career skills to any adult citizen desiring to
participate.
SUBPOINT C: The federal government will serve as employer of
last resort for any citizen unable to find a job; wages will be
sufficient to raise the employee above the poverty line.

SUBPOINT D: A program of income supplements to any

employed person below the poverty line will provide sufficient
money to raise his income to $1 above the poverty level.
Supplements will be in the form of a monthly check.

Plank Two: FINANCE. Funding for the Affirmative plan will come from the
following five sources:

SUBPOINT A: A five percent increase in the corporate income

tax.

SUBPOINT B: Institution of a three-percent national sales tax on

any luxury items, with any single item costing $500 or more
subject to the tax.

SUBPOINT C: User fees will be imposed on any person enrolling

in the federal training program if the enrollee’s income is 10% or
more over the poverty level, with such fees equal to 1% of the
enrollee’s gross annual income.
SUBPOINT D: All federal funds currently devoted to subsidizing
the tobacco industry will be rechanneled into the Affirmative plan.

SUBPOINT E: Institution of a national lottery, with 50% of the

proceeds used for prizes and the remainder devoted to lottery
administration and the Affirmative plan.
Plank Three: ENFORCEMENT. Civil and criminal penalties will be imposed
for fraud and misuse of funds, following normal statutory means.

Plank Four: INTENT. Affirmative speeches will serve as legislative history

for this proposal.

As you can see, the mandates section can be quite complex. Note that there is no separate
administration plank — it’s been merged with mandates, since the U.S. Department of Labor is
handling the job. Plank 2/Point B defines what a "luxury tax" entails, which is more desirable than
saying only "a luxury tax will be imposed" and assuming that the judge and Negative team know
what you mean.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter03.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，6/12(W)

Does a plan have to be that complicated?

No. Recent trends in debate practice have tended to favor simplified plans in the form of a brief
paragraph explaining what the Affirmative intends to do. In line with our example above, you would
end up with something like:

PLAN: Establishment of a national job-listing database;

comprehensive job training; federal role as employer of last resort;
and income supplements for employed workers below the poverty
line. Oversight by the U.S. Labor Department, with funding and
enforcement through normal means. Affirmative speeches
demonstrate legislative intent.

Much simpler and faster to read, right? But notice how much of the detail has been lost in the
transition. The mandates have been streamlined. Funding, in particular, has been greatly altered —
"normal means" in this instance suggests that the government will just spend money, and not worry
about where it comes from. The hazard of the simplified plan is that it gives a license to the Negative
team to reinterpret what might be intended by the plan’s wording. Sure, the Affirmative reserves the
right to clarify what they intended, but there’s no guarantee that the judge will accept that
clarification instead of the Negative’s interpretation. So there is a bit of a risk for Affirmative teams
when they opt for discarding the details of the plan.

Indeed, some Affirmative teams go too far in simplifying their plans: they may say something like
"The plan will enact Senate Bill 973," and leave the matter at that. Such an approach shows dubious
ethics. The Negatives and the judge are entitled to know, on the face of it, exactly what the plan will
do, and merely making a reference to a piece of legislation does not satisfy the Affirmatives’
obligation.

Can we do Solvency now?

Yes indeed, now that we have the plan. The solvency contention has the same structure as the harm
and inherency contentions — but the purpose is to show that the specific actions taken in the plan
will relieve the harms. You will need to find evidence from experts that the programs you propose
will be effective. The solvency contention for the poverty case might look like this:

3. The Affirmative plan relieves the burdens of poverty.

A. Job training is the key to adequate income.

B. Computer-linked placement assures employment.

C. Adequate income relieves the harms of poverty.

It’s worth stressing again: solvency evidence is not the same as inherency evidence. For example, to
support point 3C, you might need to produce evidence that alcoholism and drug addiction are put
aside if an individual escapes from poverty; this would be difficult evidence to find. At the very
least, you would need to show that, if fewer people were poor, fewer would take refuge in drugs and
booze. This is not the same as inherency evidence, which shows that poverty now is leading to harms
now.

Too often, Affirmative teams give scant attention to solvency — yet that stock issue is the key to

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter03.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，7/12(W)

winning debate rounds. It is necessary that the solvency evidence match the specific details of the
plan to the specific harm arguments already given. If the Affirmative gets creative in inventing their
plan, finding solvency evidence in support of the plan’s provisions will be a challenge. That’s why
it’s often best for the plan to mimic a real-world proposal that has been discussed by political leaders
and public-policy experts. If you use such a proposal as the model for your plan, the statements these
experts have made in support of their proposal can become evidence for the solvency issue in your
Affirmative case.

What if my plan can cure a number of different harms?

In these examples, we’ve shown only one set of harm/inherency/solvency contentions. But if you
will have time in the speech, you may wish to propose other harms that the plan can solve. Every
particle of harm that the Affirmative plan cures will make you that much more likely to win the
debate.

Doesn’t the speech need some sort of introduction?

Yes, and the time to write that is now. The introduction to your speech is known as the Affirmative
Philosophy. Make it short, interesting, and to the point. Don’t allow it to become debatable in itself.
A few sentences to preview the harms your plan will solve will be sufficient. The last sentence of the
introduction will be a formal statement of the resolution, word for word.

How do I know if I have met the terms of the resolution?

The Affirmative has the right to interpret the resolution in any reasonable way. Before you assemble
the contentions you have developed into a 1AC speech, stop to ask yourself: is the meaning I’ve
given to all the terms clear? Or are one or more terms of the resolution vague or ambiguous?

Perhaps the resolution says you must "guarantee" employment for all citizens. If one person refuses
to work, does that mean the plan fails? The Negative may want to persuade the judge that
"guarantee" means "require"; the Affirmative will want the judge to know that the word really means
"provide access to." The safest way to do this is to find a definition for the term and incorporate it
into the introduction of the speech, following the formal reading of the proposition.

It’s quite possible that all the terms in the resolution have a commonplace, everyday meaning, and
you don’t feel that they need special definitions. That’s fine, too. Just say in the introduction that "all
terms will be operationally defined" — in other words, the meaning of the words should be clear
from the context in which they are used. These operational definitions are just as valid as formal
definitions.

What does a completed introduction look like?

Here’s an example: "Many, perhaps most of the people in our society reap the benefits of the
prosperous American economy. Yet all too often, those left behind by the economy suffer the most.
The unemployed and the impoverished form an American underclass, a separate society ruled by
death and drug addiction, by homelessness and hopelessness, by disease and despair. Because my

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter03.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，8/12(W)

partner and I feel that this agony in the midst of prosperity cannot be allowed to continue, we stand
resolved that the federal government should implement a program to guarantee employment for all
United States citizens living in poverty.

"One term in the resolution needs clarification, and that is the word ‘guarantee.’ Webster’s Seventh
New Collegiate Dictionary defines the term to mean ‘to engage for the existence of.’ All other terms
will be operationally defined in the context of the affirmative case and plan.

"The dimensions of the problem are best seen by turning to the first line of Affirmative analysis:
CONTENTION ONE: POVERTY BREEDS SIGNIFICANT HARMS IN AMERICAN SOCIETY.
We will explore three major justifications of this claim. The first of these is SUBPOINT A:
POVERTY IMPLIES INADEQUATE SHELTER. Helena Thurgood, dean of the Crisis Exploration
Center of Columbia University, writes in last summer’s edition of THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL
RESEARCH that, ‘No problem underscores the failure of the American economy as does
homelessness. For over three million Americans below the poverty line, the daily choice is between
a place to sleep at night and food to eat. It is not surprising that over eighty percent of the homeless
population is below the federally defined poverty level.’ Dr. Thurgood’s testimony is straight to the
point: poverty is directly responsible for homelessness..."

And so on. After the harm contention is presented, inherency will follow, followed by the plan, and
finally the solvency contention.

Several factors are important to note. The outline form developed in writing the case is still retained.
This technique, mentioned earlier, is called labeling. Each major point and subpoint has a letter or
number, and each has a short headline attached to summarize the importance of the evidence.

The counterpart to labeling is signposting: telling the judge at all times where you are in your
analysis, and forecasting what points are to come. This can be as simple as saying there will be three
subpoints under contention one, as in this example.

Also note how evidence is used. After the point to be proven is introduced by label, the speaker gives
the biographical information about the evidence to follow: author, credentials, and source and date.
The text of the quotation follows. Finally, the speaker shows just what the evidence means.
Together, the analysis and the evidence add up to proof.

How does the speech end?

Conclude with a simple summary of the issues, to show that a prima facie case has been presented.
The conclusion should be similar in style to the introduction: concise and direct. Often, Affirmatives
will also appeal for the judge’s decision. An example:

"The horrors of poverty and unemployment cannot be allowed to continue. But currently, the status
quo is incapable of ending either of these blights on the economy. Because the resolution will
alleviate the suffering of millions of people, we will ask for an Affirmative decision at the end of
today’s debate."

Can you summarize the structure of the Traditional Needs case form?

z Introduction / Affirmative Philosophy

z Statement of the Resolution

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter03.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，9/12(W)

z Definitions
z Harm and Inherency contentions (one or more of each; the order may vary)
z Plan
z Solvency contention(s)
z Conclusion

Are there other forms for Affirmative cases?

Currently, the most popular form for an Affirmative case is the Comparative Advantage (C/A)
format. The idea behind the structure is that, rather than claiming certain harms will be cured, the
Affirmative claims that their plan will provide one or more significant advantages over the status
quo. These advantages may be a savings of money, better treatment of individuals, or even the
easing of harms like those found in the Needs case. One important point should be stressed: the
burdens of the Affirmative do not change when their case structure changes. Only the organization
and the terminology vary; the basic requirements do not.

How do I write a Comparative Advantage case?

You assemble the C/A case just as you would a Needs case. Identify harm and inherency issues,
write a plan, and construct a solvency argument. Then research definitions, if necessary, and plan an
introduction and conclusion.

When it comes time to assemble the material into a speech, then the unusual features come into play.
The standard order of a Comparative Advantage speech is:

z Introduction
z Statement of the Resolution
z Definitions
z Plan
z One or more advantages, each broken down into arguments...

v...that the advantage is significant and desirable

v...that the present system is unable to obtain the advantage

v...that the Affirmative plan produces the advantage

z Conclusion

The plan comes before the case analysis in a C/A case. In the Needs case, the plan interrupts the
case, appearing just before the solvency contention. In the C/A structure, the entire plan is presented
early in the round, and then all case arguments are presented together. This approach strikes most
debaters as more orderly; certainly, it’s easier to take notes on this sort of case.

Each advantage — often there are two or more — must have certain points of substructure. These
parallel the analysis of the Needs case exactly: harm, inherency, and solvency. So the analysis
underlying the C/A case is exactly the same as for the Needs case.

Some of the terms will be different. The Needs case argues that there is a significant need or a
significant harm in the present system; the C/A case says there is a significant advantage to be

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter03.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，10/12(W)

gained by change. The Needs case says the harm is inherent in the status quo; the C/A case says the
advantage is unique to the Affirmative plan. The Needs case argues that the plan meets the need; the
C/A case claims that the advantage accrues from the Affirmative plan. Generally, the terms are
treated as interchangeable; you should be familiar with the variant terms, but you need not be a
stickler for them.

How can a Needs case be restructured as a C/A case?

Let’s use our example case from earlier in this chapter. The basic analysis was in three contentions:

1. Poverty breeds significant harms in American society.

2. Poverty is ingrained in the status quo.

3. The Affirmative plan relieves the burdens of poverty.

In comparative advantage format, these points become subpoints under the main advantage, as
follows:

1. The Affirmative plan relieves the burden of poverty.

A. Poverty causes significant suffering.

B. The status quo is unable to relieve poverty or its

harms.

C. The Affirmative plan abates the agony of poverty.

Notice that, even though the wording is changed, the A-B-C subpoints introduce the stock issues of
Harm, Inherency, and Solvency in exactly the same manner that our contentions 1, 2, and 3 did in the
Needs case format. The same material — subpoints and evidence — would be used to support this
framework case.

Can you have multiple advantages in a Comparative Advantages case?

Yes, just as you may have multiple harm/inherency/solvency arguments in the Needs case format.
Often it works to your benefit. If every advantage is properly structured and evidenced, each one
becomes an independent reason to adopt the resolution. So you can risk losing an entire advantage to
a Negative attack, since your other advantages are still sufficient to carry the debate.

Tell me about other case structures.

Needs and Comparative advantage cases make up 90 percent or more of the cases you will ever see.
There are a few other case forms that are sometimes used. As we noted before, the Affirmative still
has to prove the same stock issues regardless of the case structure used.

In general, these variant case types are weaker than the more common formats, because they are

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter03.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，11/12(W)

harder to understand and have more pitfalls to trap the unwary Affirmative debater. Sometimes,
Affirmatives will use a variant structure to confuse the Negative team. Too often, they end up
confusing themselves and even the judge. Only experienced debaters should try these case structures,
and then only after consulting with their coach.

The Modified Comparative Advantage case begins with the harm/inherency/ solvency analysis of
the Needs case. Following the solvency contention, though, the Affirmative lists a number of extra
benefits the plan will produce.
Because of time limits, these subsidiary advantages are rarely developed. Often, the Affirmative just
lists them, without evidence, and asserts that the plan will produce these effects as desirable by-
products. Astute Negatives will point out to the judge in 1NC that these advantages can have no
influence on the debate because they have no stock issue support. The list might sound impressive
("Advantage six: Our plan bans nuclear war. Advantage seven: We give free food to the starving
masses of Asia. Advantage eight: Violent crime in the U.S. is eliminated."). But without proof —
evidence AND analysis — that the advantage is needed, it cannot have an influence on the decision.
In debate terminology, the argument has no impact. Without inherency proof, there’s no reason to
suppose that the status quo can’t get the advantage, if it really is worthwhile. Without solvency
proof, there’s no reason to believe that the plan actually will produce the effect, anyway. Against a
competent Negative team, the extra advantages will fall apart, leaving only a Needs case by 2AC.

The Criteria Case begins by identifying the components of an ideal, effective system. Such an
argument, presented outside the usually stock issue analysis, is called an observation or overview.
The Affirmative argues that a good program will increase some specific factors and decrease others;
these factors are the criteria. Next, the plan is presented. Finally, the Affirmative argues (using C/A
structure) that they maximize the good factors and minimize the bad ones.
In practical effect, the observation on the criteria is really part of the need stock issue. The
Affirmative is arguing that decreasing some factors or increasing others would be advantageous.
They must have evidence that these factors are really important if they expect to win.

Under the resolution dealing with employment for the poor, the Affirmative might present an
argument that a good program for social welfare would (A) maximize employment and self-reliance,
(B) relieve poverty, and (C) have only a small cost to the government. The first advantage would be
(1) the Affirmative plan best maximizes employment, the second (2) hat the plan relieves poverty,
and so on.

The Goals Case seems similar to the Criteria case. The structure again begins with an observation,
this one showing the goal or a desired result of the present system. Note that this must be a definite
goal of the status quo, not a suggested goal that might be desirable. Next, the Affirmative presents
their plan, and then the advantage that the plan better meets the goal of the status quo.
Most judges believe that a goal by itself is not enough to win the need stock issue. It’s not sufficient
for the Affirmative to say merely that their plan will better reach a certain target; they must also
prove that the goal is desirable. We often adopt goals that are unimportant or even bad. For example,
it may be true that the current auto industry has the goal of producing and selling more cars each
year, and that an Affirmative plan will guarantee greater sales. Unless the Affirmative also shows
that this goal is a good one, they are in grave danger. The Negative might show, instead, that
producing more cars is a terrible thing to do — it leads to pollution, to greater consumer debt, etc. —
and so the fact that the Affirmative plan is more efficient at reaching this goal means that the plan is
WORSE than the status quo. It would be very hard for the Affirmative to recover from such a
turnaround argument.
The solution is to break down the analysis of the advantage into four steps instead of three:

Advantage One: The Affirmative plan better meets the goal.

A. The status quo falls short of the goal.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter03.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，12/12(W)

B. Failure to meet the goal is harmful.

C. The status quo in inherently unable to meet the goal.
D. The Affirmative plan better meets the goal.

Together, points A and B add up to a convincing need issue. Omit point B, though, and the
Affirmative team might as well admit defeat.

The No Need case structure is a dubious approach, at best. It usually looks a like a Comparative
Advantage case. But the main "harm" analysis says that there’s really no reason to keep the status
quo — it’s outlived its usefulness — so we should try something different and hope for some better
results. Usually, Negatives can present lots of reasons why we should keep the present system.

The Delayed Inherency case is one of the few approaches WORSE than No Need. The Affirmative
builds their case on a Traditional Need or Comparative Advantage structure. The major change is in
the inherency point: there isn’t one. Often, there will be only existential inherency presented
("There’s a clear problem, so something must be causing it.")
Affirmatives use Delayed Inherency in order to swamp the Negative team and the judge with harm
and solvency arguments in 1AC. The second speaker will then "discover" solid inherency arguments
in time to present them for 2AC, knowing the Second Negative probably will not have time to argue
against the new inherency positions.
This scheme rarely works. First Negative will tell the judge that the Affirmative fails to meet their
prima facie burdens without inherency in the first speech. He will argue that the Affirmative must
lose the debate even if they bring up inherency in 2AC. The Second Negative will spend a few
seconds on inherency at the start of his speech, allowing the First Negative to smash the 2AC
arguments in the rebuttal that follows. The judge will almost certainly give a Negative decision.

The Alternative Justification case presents two or more complete cases and plans in a C/A format.
By using this structure, the Affirmative tries to balance the Negative’s power to drop unsuccessful
arguments. The idea is that the Affirmative claims the right to drop an entire plan and its matching
advantages later in the debate — together with any disadvantages the Negative has found in that
plan.
Two flaws hurt the A/J case. All plans and advantages must be introduced in the eight minutes of
1AC, so the arguments are going to be sketchy and propped up by weak evidence. Secondly, many
judges (especially in states such as Michigan, where a conservative style of debate is preferred) don’t
accept the notion that Affirmatives can drop entire plans; this alone virtually guarantees an
Affirmative loss.

Introduction to Policy Debate

Copyright © 1990, 1993, 1996, 2002 John R. Prager
All rights reserved.
Permission is not granted to reproduce this document in whole or in part, in any medium.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter03.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，1/8(W)

Chapter 4

The First Negative Constructive

What are the duties of the Negative side?

The overriding duty of the Negative team is to oppose the resolution — to argue that it, and the
Affirmative plan that implements it, should not be adopted. This requirement is sometimes called the
burden of rejoinder. This duty is exercised throughout all Negative speeches. In particular, the duty
to oppose the resolution implies four separate goals for each Negative speech, and these are
explained below.

The Negative has the burden to clash with the Affirmative. This means that the Negative must point
out that the Affirmative analysis is weak, faulty, incomplete, or simply contrary to the true facts. In
order to win, the Negative must successfully challenge at least one argument presented by the
Affirmative. If a Negative team fails to clash, they allow the Affirmative arguments to go
unchallenged; assuming the Affirmative has presented a prima facie case, the judge has no option but
to vote for the Affirmative.

The Negative also has a burden of proof for what they assert. This means that they must provide
evidence in support of their reasoning, just as the Affirmative must. This is not the same as THE
burden of proof of the Affirmative, which is the burden to present a prima facie case. Rather, the
Negative’s duty here is to support reasoning with expert opinion to equal convincing proof.

Third, the Negative desires to steal the offensive from the Affirmative. This is a strategic goal, not a
duty. The Affirmative gains a great advantage from speaking first in the debate; the First Negative
speech is basically defensive. The Negative should adopt tactics to put pressure on the Affirmative
analysis, rather than meekly to defend the status quo.

Finally, the Negative desires to open up more issues in the debate. Again, this is a strategic goal
rather than an obligation. The Affirmative wants to focus debate on the need for a change and the
merits of their plan. The Negative wants to introduce arguments that diminish the need, obliterate the
inherency, and prove disastrous side-effects that may range far beyond the resolution.

What is the Negative position with regard to the stock issues?

Recall that the Affirmative must carry each of the four stock issues in order to win the debate. It
follows that the Negative must win only one of the stock issues in order to get the judge’s ballot. If
the Negative can prove there is no significant need for the Affirmative plan — or that there is no
inherency, and the harms may disappear sometime in the future — or that the plan won’t cure any of
the harms cited — or that the plan has disadvantages worse than the benefits — then the resolution
ought to be rejected.

Even though the Negative can win by capturing only one of the stock issues, it is an uncommon
strategy to concentrate on only one stock issue. The standard division of duties has the First Negative
confront the need and inherency issues, and the Second Negative confront solvency and
disadvantages. Covering all the stock issues between the two speakers maximizes the chance that the
decision will go Negative.

Of course, Negative teams are responsible for their own strategy. It may be that your needs will be

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter04.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，2/8(W)

served by using some other division of covering the stock issues. That’s okay. Use whatever works
for you and your partner.

My coach says Negatives can’t split duties that way. Why is that?

A few contemporary debate experts believe that all key Negative arguments should originate in the
1NC — and that implies, of course, that the First Negative and Second Negative can not split up
their coverage of the stock issues. If your coach prefers that 1NC initiate all arguments, then by all
means follow her advice.

I prefer to believe that each Negative team is responsible for its own strategy, and for its own
division of responsibilities. Because the 2NC is just as much a constructive speech as the 1NC, it is
legitimate for new issues to open up later in the round; thus, there is no theoretical requirement for
the First Negative to develop all the arguments in his speech. T

his is an issue of debate theory which has no definite answer; you will need to adapt your approach
to the style of debate that prevails in your area — and follow your coach’s rules. This document will
continue to assume that Negatives assign coverage of Harm and Inherency to the First Negative, and
coverage of Solvency and Disadvantages to the Second Negative.

What is the structure of the 1NC speech?

The First Negative Constructive conventionally begins with a brief opening statement, to establish
the Negative philosophy. This is followed by challenges to Affirmative definitions, often in the form
of topicality arguments. Next, the speaker addresses the Affirmative case point-by-point, refuting the
1AC arguments. Note that the speaker usually does not refute the plan, just the case issues. Finally, if
time permits, the speech will conclude with a summary: the speaker will note that the Affirmative
case no longer is persuasive enough to justify a change from current policy.

Unlike the First Affirmative speaker, the First Negative will not know for certain what arguments he
will need to present. All speeches from 1NC onward must respond to issues presented earlier in the
round, so complete preparation in advance is not possible. One of the main skills learned in debate is
the ability to extemporize a speech on the basis of written notes and a few evidence cards.

What is a Negative philosophy?

Like the opening statement of the Affirmative team, the introduction to the 1NC should be a short
paragraph that puts the arguments to follow in perspective. Ideally, it should serve as a focus to link
the First and Second Negative Constructive speeches together. Aim for consistency. Like the
Affirmative philosophy, the Negative’s introduction should be short, to the point, and interesting.
This is an attention-getter; it’s not supposed to be a debatable point in itself.

Let us assume that the Negatives plan to challenge all the stock issues. A standard generic opening
might be: "Good morning. It will be the Negative’s position in today’s debate that the harms cited by
the Affirmative in the opening speech are merely isolated exceptions to the usual smooth functioning
of the status quo. Our current policy is flexible enough to correct most problems already. In contrast,
the Affirmative plan will not readily repair these harms, and will cause such disastrous side-effects
that rejecting the resolution is the only rational choice."

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter04.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，3/8(W)

If you can be more specific in the introduction, so much the better. You may wish to suggest that the
present system is attempting to repair the harms, but that innovations have not yet had time to work;
or that we need a flexible policy, adaptable as people’s needs change, rather than the Affirmative
plan; or that, while the harms are indeed real, the government has overriding concerns beyond the
topic area. Each of these approaches concentrates on a single stock issue (respectively, inherency,
solvency, and disadvantages) as the primary Negative challenge.

How does 1NC respond to Affirmative definitions?

If the Affirmative definitions are reasonable ones, accept them. If the Affirmative is using obscure or
unusual definitions, the proper way to point this out to the judge is by a Topicality argument — a
subject so important (and so complex) that we will devote a later chapter to it.

The Negative speaker should not worry that he is conceding a major issue if he accepts the
Affirmative definitions. This may work to your advantage, since it gives you more time to grapple
with the substantive issues of the debate.

How do I proceed with point-by-point refutation?

The ideal way is to structure your speech for maximum impact; this is a good idea for all speakers,
not just the First Negative. It’s basically a five step process:

1. Tie your response to previous speeches. Restate the argument made by the last speaker. In
1NC, that means going back to the label that Affirmative used in 1AC and calling attention to
their argument.
2. Signpost and label and your arguments. The first technique, signposting, requires you to tell
the judge how many responses you’ll be presenting. Labeling involves a numbered or lettered
point and a pithy headline that summarizes the argument.
3. Explain your reasoning.
4. Give your evidence.
5. Show the impact that your argument has on the debate; tie it to the stock issues. Then proceed
with your next argument.

Here’s an example of how all these techniques come together; italics indicate where the structuring
techniques come into play. The resolution proposes federally-funded health-care for all U.S. citizens.
The First Negative Constructive, in part, goes: "The Affirmative claims that medical care costs are
rising out of control. Look at their first contention, which states that PRIVATE CITIZENS CANNOT
AFFORD HEALTH CARE. [1-Tie in to previous speeches]. I have three responses [2-Signpost and
label]. The first of these is that THE NEED FOR HEALTH CARE IS DECLINING. With the decreased
need for health care, individual out-of- pocket expenses will go down [3-Explanation]. For
substantiation, I turn to Otis Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, who writes in the
June 1985 issue of Modern Medicine that ‘As Americans become more health-conscious, they eat
better and exercise more. The lifelong need for medical care has been diminishing throughout this
century, as the U.S. public takes responsibility for preventing, rather than curing, disease.’ [4-
Evidence] We see that the Affirmative harm is self-limiting; as health care needs decrease in the
future, so will health-care expenses. The harm is not inherent [5-Impact]. But consider my next
point, TWO: PRIVATE INSURANCE MAKES HEALTH CARE AFFORDABLE [2-Signpost and label]…"

Should each Affirmative point be equally attacked?

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter04.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，4/8(W)

Usually, the answer is NO. You look foolish trying to refute something that is obviously true. And
even if you have the evidence to attack all the points advanced in 1AC, you certainly don’t have the
time to present it. Focus your emphasis on the points that will win the debate for the Negative;
ignore everything else.

Two common Negative strategies should be mentioned. The spread seeks to present a lot of
responses to each major Affirmative point. The goal is to swamp the 2AC speaker with the number
of responses he must answer. If some Negative positions are not refuted by 2AC, the Negative will
argue that they must win the issue; otherwise, the Negative still can pick and choose which
arguments to pull through the rebuttals. The spread has become the dominant strategy in most varsity
debates.

The centering attack is less often used, but can be just as devastating. Here, the Negative focuses on
just a few Affirmative points — perhaps one stock issue — and spends the bulk of 1NC refuting
those points in great detail. Again, this forces the 2AC speaker to spend most of his time rebuilding
the original case. Both the centering attack and the spread involve the Negative’s expanding the
scope of the debate far beyond the original Affirmative case.

What are the possible First Negative approaches?

There are six basic approaches to defeating an Affirmative case. They are:

z Challenging the Affirmative burden of proof.

z Straight refutation.
z Defense of the status quo.
z Minor repairs.
z Counterplan.
z Topicality challenges.

The usual approach is to use a combination of the first four tactics as needed. Counterplans and
Topicality issues are very powerful strategies, but they are also very complex; we will discuss them
in later chapters. The other approaches are discussed below.

Challenging the Affirmative burden of proof. The thesis of this approach is that the Affirmative
has the duty to present a thoroughly convincing case. If this has not been presented, the Negative
need go no further — the Affirmative must lose because of the gaps in its evidence or reasoning. The
Negative demands additional evidence under the penalty of an Affirmative loss. Of course, there is
not enough time in an hour-long debate round to present all the evidence that the Negative could
demand.
A number of tactics are available to show the flaws in the Affirmative proof. The basic one is the
press for evidence, especially statistics. A press is a demand made for some evidence by a competent
source. By itself, a press carries little weight in the round, but the more statistics that the Affirmative
cannot supply, and the more fundamental the gaps in their evidence, the more likely the judge is to
vote Negative.
Secondly, the 1NC speaker can challenge or deny the reasoning behind the evidence. This requires
showing that the Affirmative is drawing conclusions from their evidence which the quotations
themselves really do not support. Given the basic EVIDENCE + REASONING = PROOF equation of
debate, the Negative can undermine the proof of a point if they can show the reasoning is unsound.
Conclusionary evidence — which does not show a true cause and effect relationship — is suited for
challenge if the Affirmative uses it to establish a causal link. So is evidence which is too indefinite; if
the author uses words like "might," "sometimes," "perhaps," and "may," the Negative is justified in
challenging any conclusion drawn from this quotation.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter04.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，5/8(W)

The third tactic is the direct evidence challenge, which tries to attack the other leg of the PROOF
equation. The Negative shows that the evidence the Affirmative presented should not be believed.
The Affirmative might be relying on old or outdated evidence; the source of the evidence may not be
qualified to give expert opinions; or the author or periodical cited might have a demonstrable bias.
All of these are valid reasons for the judge to disregard the evidence when reaching his decision.
Chapter 1 lists several tests of evidence validity.
The fourth and final tactic is the failure to establish a prima facie case. This is common in novice
rounds, and sometimes occurs at other levels of competition. If the 1AC fails to include harm,
inherency, or solvency, or neglects to provide a plan, this should be pointed out to the judge firmly
as grounds for giving the Negative an immediate decision. (The debate will still go on, of course, but
a competent judge will decide on a Negative victory at that point and disregard any later Affirmative
attempts to patch up their case). Even though Affirmatives rarely omit an entire stock issue, the
Negative should be alert for weaknesses in the Affirmative stock issue analysis. Before beginning his
or her speech, the First Negative should have a clear understanding of the Affirmative’s claimed
harms, inherent barrier, and solvency arguments.

Straight refutation attempts to show that the Affirmative position is not true. This is a stronger
position than the previous approach, which merely contends that the case is not proven. But both
approaches have a common failing in the eyes of the judge; too often, the Negative appears to be
quibbling instead of taking a constructive stance and defending a reasonable policy. For this reason,
Negative teams should consider using burden-of-proof challenges and straight refutation to
complement their other 1NC positions, and not rely on them entirely.
There are three useful tactics for straight refutation. The Negative may again present evidence and
reasoning challenges, showing that there is not enough proof that the Affirmative position is true.
Secondly, the Negative may present counter-evidence, indicating that the Affirmative claim is false.
Counter-evidence, to be persuasive, must be obviously superior to the Affirmative evidence
presented in 1AC: it must be more recent, or from a more credible source, or it must take into
account factors which the Affirmative evidence overlooked.
Finally, the Negative can argue that the Affirmative proof is irrelevant to the debate: the matter being
proven has no bearing on the resolution, or the subpoint is irrelevant to the main contention.

Defense of the status quo and minor repairs are related approaches. The first argues that the
present system is already capable of taking care of any problems that arise; the second argues that the
present system is nearly perfect, but a little tinkering — far short of the Affirmative resolution —
will make it absolutely perfect. Minor repairs usually involve encouraging a present trend, pushing
more money through an existing program, or expanding an experimental government program.
Minor repairs always rely on existing status quo goals and already-existing programs. In advocating
the minor repair, the Negative is giving up a little bit of presumption in order to claim that the
massive change requested by the Affirmative is not needed.

How does 1NC confront the Need stock issue?

There are two possible strategies; you can use either or both. As your first approach, you can
REFUTE IT. Three particular tactics work best here. First, you can claim that the Affirmative hasn’t
proven the basis of their harm claim; the techniques mentioned earlier for challenging the burden of
proof would apply. Secondly, you can point out that the Affirmative hasn’t proven their so-called
"harm" to be bad. Many of the apparent evils that Affirmative teams claim are spreading may not be
harmful. One example which shows up regularly in debate is poverty: Affirmatives love to claim that
low incomes beset a growing proportion of a certain group of citizens. In fact, unless the Affirmative
teams can show that poverty leads to more material harms, the label "poverty" is not enough to show
that these citizens are suffering. Likewise, Affirmatives that claim to save money under their
program do not really prove a desirable advantage until they demonstrate a need for those savings.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter04.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，6/8(W)

Virtually all resolutions allow the Affirmative to refer to a problem that — by itself — is not very
bad; it’s the Negative’s job to point out that the "harm" isn’t actually harmful. Most goal-related
harms fall into this not-proven-bad zone.

Finally, you can show that the Affirmative is dead wrong. This requires that you introduce counter-
evidence to show that the harm does not really exist, or that conditions where it does exist are
isolated instances. You can even prove that something which appears to be bad is really good; this
technique is called a turnaround, or a turn. For instance, if the Affirmative claims that poverty is
bad, the Negative may respond that poverty is good. Why? Poor people are less likely than the
wealthy to overeat (and get heart attacks from poor diets); poor people don’t have high-stress jobs
that can lead to ulcers and heart attacks; poor people always have the hope of a better life for
themselves and for their children to drive them to achieve more, while the rich and middle class,
having achieved the American Dream, have no such incentive and thus have lower social mobility;
etc. This strategy of showing a plausible harm to be a surprising benefit has been adopted by First
Negatives with increasing success in recent years.

The second grand strategy for dealing with harm is to REDUCE IT. Bring up trend evidence to
show that the harm is diminishing. Prove that the harm is not quantitative — it only hurts a few
people. Prove that the harm is not qualitative — it only hurts a little.

How does 1NC confront the Inherency issue?

Certain techniques still work here: you can challenge the Affirmative burden of proof by indicting
their reasoning or their evidence. But the flexible 1NC will adapt his strategy to the Affirmative
inherency position; generally, this means you must first identify the type of inherency the
Affirmative is proposing. If you need a reminder, go back now and read about the inherency stock
issue.

If the Affirmative says we can’t fix the problem, they are claiming a structural barrier. The proper
Negative response is that we can, we are, and we will continue to work on the problem: a defense of
the status quo. The second-best approach is to suggest a minor repair that would improve the status
quo just enough to solve the harm. An example: the Affirmative justifies a federal program to
employ those living in poverty by showing that welfare does not provide enough money for the
average family to survive. The Negative response is a minor repair: pump in more money through
the present welfare programs; this will cure the Affirmative harm of poverty.

When the Affirmative argues that we will not try to solve the problem, they are proposing attitudinal
inherency. The Negative has a number of options. They can defend the status quo by proving that
effective steps are being taken, or they can suggest a minor repair to make sure the steps are
effective. One strong tactic is to point out to the judge that this problem is purely based on attitudes,
and suggest a minor repair program that will change the underlying attitude; not only does this make
an effective 1NC position, but it also sets up a 2NC solvency attack, discussed in a later chapter.
Again, an example from the poverty resolution: The Affirmative claims that welfare programs fail
because people are embarrassed to receive charity. 1NC first notes that millions of people are
nevertheless willing to take the money, regardless of any humiliation. Secondly, he suggests that
private groups are working through outreach programs to reduce this attitude, and (minor repair)
government action to reduce these feelings further would be effective.

If the Affirmative says we shouldn’t try to fix the problem because status quo methods have
undesirable side-effects, they may be arguing structural or attitudinal inherency. Show that the side
effects can be avoided, or that there are other programs to diminish them. Alternatively, you can also
institute a minor repair so the status quo can fix the problem without a harm accruing. Again, we’ll

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter04.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，7/8(W)

look at examples from the work-for-the-poor resolution. The Affirmative claims that welfare is a
dead-end solution, since giving money freely to the impoverished makes them unwilling to work for
cash. This is an attitudinal problem, and will fall to Negative minor repairs to educate people in the
work ethic. Let us suppose that the Affirmative argues instead that welfare puts cash in the hands of
needy people, who spend it rather than save it; this increases consumer demand and makes inflation
rise. Once again, we have a "shouldn’t" argument, but this make a structural inherency claim based
on economic principles. The Negative may show that the tax money raised offsets this demand, for
no overall inflation, or they may propose minor repairs to control inflation if it arises.

What if the Affirmative maintains that present actions try to solve the problem but fall short? This is
clearly gap inherency. The Negative will treat this as structural inherency of the CAN’T or
SHOULDN’T variety, or suggest minor repairs — especially putting more resources to work at
existing programs.

How does the 1NC confront the Solvency issue?

Most often the First Negative ignores solvency. When he gets to the point where 1AC introduced
solvency arguments, the 1NC speakers tells the judge, "My partner will address the solvency
arguments." This lets the judge know that you haven’t overlooked this stock issue, but that you want
to bypass it until a more advantageous point in the debate.

This rule has exceptions. If the Affirmative has not presented any solvency point, for example, 1NC
must point out to the judge that the Affirmative therefore lacks a prima facie case and cannot be
expected to win the debate. Stress that the Second Affirmative Constructive is too late to introduce
this stock issue.

Likewise, if the Affirmative solvency analysis is weak, or the evidence fails to support it, use your
arsenal of burden-of-proof challenges to defeat the issue. But the 1NC usually will not read counter-
evidence against solvency.

Does 1NC do anything special in arguing against Goals or Criteria cases?

These cases are approached from the same standpoint as Traditional Needs and Comparative
Advantage cases. But some strategic approaches should be kept in mind:

z DENY THE GOAL EXISTS. Suggest that most people or most lawmakers do not give this
goal very much weight when deciding how public policy should be conducted.
z SUGGEST OTHER GOALS. The Affirmative must show that their goal is more important
in popular opinion and more desirable.
z CHALLENGE THE HARM. The Affirmative must show that significant problems occur in
addition to — or because of — not meeting the goal. If the only harm they can muster is the
failure to meet the goal, the obvious course is to change our goal, not the present system.
z CHALLENGE THE ENDURANCE. The Affirmative must also show that the goal is a long-
term issue. If we are likely to switch to another goal tomorrow, there’s no harm from failing to
meet it today.
z WATCH FOR ABSOLUTE GOALS. Many quotations used to establish goals promote them
only as absolutes. Justice, for example, is usually promoted as a good thing when everyone
gets what he or she deserves. The Negative can argue that an absolute goal must be met
absolutely — that if any bit of the problem remains, the goal still is not met. Unless the
Affirmative can show evidence that approaching the goal is also beneficial, either the need or

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter04.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，8/8(W)

solvency issue will fall Negative.

How does 1NC prepare for 2NC?

There is a constant danger of the two Negative speakers contradicting each other in their constructive
speeches. For example, on the inherency issue, 1NC may say, "No inherent barrier exists to solving
the problem. We’re solving it now, or minor repairs can fix it." Then comes 2NC, who says, "The
problem can’t be solved — not by the Affirmative team, and not by the status quo. We’ll just have to
learn to live with it. Anyway, solving it would be a disaster." This clearly contradicts his partner’s
position.

The best method to avoid undercutting your partner’s arguments is to coordinate your attacks by
conferring before the 1NC speech begins. Make sure that 1NC inherency and harm attacks mesh
with 2NC plan objections. All disadvantages presented by the 2NC should be clearly unique, in that
they apply only to the Affirmative plan and not to the status quo or any suggested minor repairs.

The second best method is to use a 2NC introduction that justifies any contradictions. Such an
introduction should always be used if you know a contradiction is coming up. See the chapter on
Second Negative Constructive for an example of how this can be done.

The benefits of Negative cooperation are best seen on the inherency-solvency link. The First
Negative should always try to reduce the Affirmative inherency position to its underlying attitudes,
especially in cross-examination. 1NC can then present a "change the attitude" argument. Moreover,
2NC can then argue that the attitude will undercut operation of the Affirmative plan in his speech.
This approach binds the Negatives together as a team; few other Negative strategies so link the
partners.

Introduction to Policy Debate

Copyright © 1990, 1993, 1996, 2002 John R. Prager
All rights reserved.
Permission is not granted to reproduce this document in whole or in part, in any medium.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter04.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，1/4(W)

Chapter 5

The Second Affirmative Constructive

What are the goals of the 2AC speech?

Your duties as the Second Affirmative in the constructive speech are quite clear. You have to regain
initiative and recapture the offensive position after the inroads made by 1NC. You want to narrow
the debate back down to the Affirmative issues established in the very first speech. The Negative has
tried to detour into irrelevancies; don’t let them get away with it!

At the same time, you won’t be satisfied merely to rebuild to the point you were at before 1NC.
Certainly 1AC didn’t say everything that was possible to support the Affirmative plan — he only had
eight minutes. You now have the opportunity to add new analysis and evidence to advance the
Affirmative case. You won’t present new contentions, but you will build on the material already on
the judge’s flowchart. Give the judge even more justification for giving the Affirmative team the
victory.

At the end of your speech, you want the Affirmative side clearly to be winning. Coming up is the 13-
minute Negative block. The better you are before the block, the less damage control you will need
after it

What is the format of this speech?

z Begin with an INTRODUCTION. You can recall the 1AC philosophy, or develop your own. If you
are in a late round in an elimination debate, you might want to salute the judges and say how
happy you are to be here today. In any event, the introduction should be no more than a
sentence or two to set the tone of your speech to come. If you will have to challenge a lot of
issues, omit the introduction altogether.
z Next, turn to DEFINITIONS. If topicality has been challenged, counter it; see the chapter on
topicality for information. Otherwise, acknowledge that the Affirmative definitions have been
accepted by the Negative, either formally (they said they would accept them) or by implication
(they ignored them). If definitions were not challenged, they’ll probably drop out of the debate
after this speech, so you don’t want to waste too much time on this issue. Saying something
like, "We note at this point that the Negative did not object to our definitions, so we will
continue to use them for the rest of the round," is enough.
z For the main part of your speech, you will PULL FORWARD THE CASE. Go back to the original
outline of 1AC and take each point in turn. Discuss all Negative objections, refute them,
extend the issue, and go on to the next point.
z Finally, SUMMARIZE. Conclude your speech by showing that all the stock issues clearly stand on
Affirmative ground. Remind the judge that, as of this point in the debate, an Affirmative ballot
is clearly warranted. Spend — at most — half a minute on this summary.

How does the Affirmative refute Negative arguments?

Refer to the chapter on 1NC to see how refutation is done. The 2AC speaker uses the same
techniques. Challenge the evidence or reasoning offered by the Negative. Read counter-evidence, to
show that the Negative position is simply not true. Or show that, even if the Negative is correct in

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter05.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，2/4(W)

it’s position, the argument simply does not apply to your Affirmative case.

As you would expect, your refutation needs to be well organized. The signposts and labels presented
in 1AC help a lot. For each point of the original case, remind the judge of the 1AC analysis. Then
mention what the Negative said about the point. Finally, refute the Negative position to rebuild your
case, and extend with new evidence and reasoning.

What is the purpose of extensions?

As you go point-by-point down the Affirmative case, you not only must respond to Negative
arguments, but you should use this last chance to develop new arguments of your own. Such an
argument is called an extension, because it extends upon the original Affirmative analysis.

The Affirmative case should grow throughout the debate. Do not just repeat an argument from 1AC;
make it better. Do not be satisfied to read another piece of evidence that repeats facts from 1AC —
instead, present evidence that makes a stronger stand.

Did the Negative ignore something from the first speech? Great! Bring it forward! If time permits,
nail the issue down with new analysis and evidence. Above all, do not drop part of the Affirmative
case just because the Negative ignored it! You should have extensions prepared in advance for all the
issues of your speech, for the rare case when an incompetent Negative team totally botches 1NC.
Even when the Negative misses only a few issues, prepared extensions allow you to advance the case
points that were not challenged.

Extensions are most useful, however, in rebuilding those issues that the Negative did attack.
Remember, you must answer all 1NC positions, even if they seem unimportant. Tell the judge that
they are unimportant, but respond. You cannot risk ignoring anything the Negative has said. Then,
use your prepared extension block to show how new evidence and reasoning also point the
Affirmative way.

How do I properly organize my speech?

As mentioned earlier, follow the First Affirmative Constructive organization exactly. Do not
necessarily follow the pattern that the Negative used. A good 1NC speaker would have used the
Affirmative format anyway, but a poor 1NC will wander from issue to issue at random. If you follow
his lead, your organization will be just as bad, and leave a bad impression on the judge.

Consider the following example. The Affirmative is promoting federally financed health care for the
poor. Following a fairly strong 1NC, the Second Affirmative rises to rebuild the case issues: "Well,
the First Negative started off discussing inherency, so I’d better start there. They said Medicaid
insurance coverage was in good shape, and gave us four reasons. I’m gonna read a card that my
partner read in the first speech...."

Even from this excerpt, you can see that the Affirmative is in trouble. We don’t know which of the
four inherency objections the speaker is trying to refute. And re-reading evidence from an earlier
speech adds very little persuasive impact on the Affirmative side; the judge has already taken note of
the evidence, and so the only reason to read it again would be to correct a misinterpretation of the
quotation by the opposing team.

Let’s look at a better approach: the same case, the same 1NC, but a better 2AC speaker:

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter05.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，3/4(W)

"Look at the first Affirmative advantage: THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN BETTER PROVIDES
ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE. Our analysis began with point A: THE POOR NEED ACCESS
TO HEALTH CARE. This was dropped by the Negative team; pull it across the flow for
the Affirmative. But add to it the fact that the poor need health care more often than any
other group; the Journal of Mortality Studies in July of last year reported, ‘Adjusted for
other factors, those under the federal poverty level have health care needs two or more
times greater than those of the general population.’

"In point B, my partner told you that THE POOR CANNOT AFFORD ADEQUATE MEDICAL
CARE; again, there was no Negative response. The Negative concedes half of our
inherency position.

"Now on to point C: MEDICAID FAILS TO PROVIDE HEALTH CARE ACCESS. The first
Negative gives us four responses, the first being that MEDICAID IS FINACIALLY SOUND.
Sadly, that’s just not true. Remember, the Negative evidence was from 1997, and a lot
has changed since then. Let’s look at what Representative Barney Frank said in 2002,
from the Congressional Record of June 14...."

And so on. Clearly, this speaker is much more in control of the debate. She noted the lack of
Negative argument on the first two issues and reclaimed them as Affirmative territory; the Need
issue — point A — was supported by an extension. Note how the C point was handled, as well; the
speaker not only challenged the adequacy of the Negative evidence, but she is reading counter-
evidence to refute it and to advance the case by turning a Negative issue into an Affirmative one.
And the four Negative arguments are going to be picked apart in the order they were presented, so
the judge always knows what attacks are being refuted. By the time this speech is over, the
Affirmatives will be in a very strong position.

Is there any exception to the rule that the 2AC follows 1AC structure?

Oh, sure. Every rule has to have exceptions, right?

The exception in this case is that the Second Affirmative has to abandon her case structure when the
First Negative has presented something that is completely novel to the case. We’ve mentioned some
of these possibilities before: topicality arguments, disadvantages, and counterplans, for examples.
Don’t worry if you’re not yet familiar with these terms — they’ll all be discussed in later chapters.
The point is that when the Negative team presents one of the offcase arguments, they must develop
their own organizational structure along the way. After all, since the argument is not a direct
outgrowth of the Affirmative case (that’s why we call it "off case"), it clearly cannot be fit into the
1AC structure.

On those occasions when the 2AC has to address a new issue developed by the 1NC — an offcase
issue that has its own organizational structure — then the 2AC will signpost her arguments to the
Negative format. She should not try to attach it to part of the Affirmative case structure.

You will need to develop a sense of where the offcase issue should be addressed, of course. Some
offcase arguments have great potential importance to the round — such as topicality —and should
probably be answered immediately after the 2AC introduction. At other times, you might prefer to
extend the case analysis before turning to offcase issues. The judge will be able to keep track of your
arguments, no matter what order you present them, as long as you take pains to signpost your speech.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter05.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，4/4(W)

Gotcha. Any more exceptions?

One more, but it’s basically a restatement of something we’ve already talked about: handling plan
attack arguments. You will recall that we said, in our discussion of writing the Affirmative case back
in Chapter Three, that the plan should not have evidence. The idea is that the plan structure itself
shouldn’t be debated in the round, although we can certainly expect arguments to develop over the
plan’s effectiveness and desirability.

Some Affirmative teams, when faced with a Negative disadvantage argument, make the mistake of
trying to respond to the disad using the framework of the plan. That’s a bad idea, because the disad
will not fit nicely into the plan structure. As we noted a couple of paragraphs ago, it’s far better to
adopt the Negative outline structure when you refute a disadvantage.

It’s rare, but also possible, for Negatives to bring up solvency arguments in the 1NC, forcing the
2AC to refute them. Again, you will not want to try to follow your Affirmative plan structure in this
instance. If the Negative solvency attacks match up nicely to the 1AC case structure on solvency,
then you will of course use the Affirmative structure as a framework for your response. If, however,
the 1NC presents a Plan-Meet-Need argument with an original outline structure (PMNs will be
covered in the next chapter), then you’ll adopt the Negative structure. Let the circumstances, and the
way the argument is presented, guide your strategy.

Introduction to Policy Debate

Copyright © 1990, 1993, 1996, 2002 John R. Prager
All rights reserved.
Permission is not granted to reproduce this document in whole or in part, in any medium.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter05.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，1/12(W)

Chapter 6

The Second Negative Constructive

What are the goals of the Second Negative Constructive speech?

So far in the debate, the Negative has been responding to Affirmative arguments — reacting to their
issues, rather than establishing new issues of its own. In the 2NC speech, you finally have a chance
to expand the debate greatly into areas the Affirmative hasn’t anticipated. The word "constructive" is
very appropriate here: you will be constructing a great edifice of reasons why the plan is flawed and
should be rejected.

This is also the beginning of the Negative block, a vast period of time in which the judge hears only
Negative arguments. This is your chance to swamp the Affirmative with details. You should
concentrate on grabbing the offensive position for the rest of the debate.

Third, this is your chance to address the last two stock issues: solvency and disadvantages. Your
solvency attacks will prove that the plan cannot work. Your disadvantages will show that the plan
will spawn hordes of disastrous side-effects that justify rejecting it, regardless of whether it works or
not.

This should be a polished speech. You’ve had at least two speeches to prepare for it; you probably
didn’t pay much attention to 1NC and 2AC anyway. Do your best to demolish the plan. The next
Affirmative speech — 1AR — is by its very nature a difficult speech. Your goal is to make it
impossible.

What is the format of the Second Negative Constructive?

Usually, it will appear in this format:

z Introduction
z Overview on case issues (rare)
z Solvency arguments
z Disadvantage arguments

There is no summary or conclusion at the end. You won’t have time to present one. The First
Negative, in his rebuttal, will summarize the Negative stand at that time. If you really feel your
speech needs a formal closing, use something like, "Because the plan will not work — I’ve shown
you four reasons — and because it leads to seven disadvantages including nuclear war, we’ll ask for
a Negative ballot at the end of the debate."

What is the purpose of the introduction?

You may want to begin by referring back to your partner’s Negative philosophy before going into
the plan attacks. Or you can just forecast what you plan to do: "I am going to start with an overview
on inherency, and then present one PMA and four D-A’s." (This jargon will be explained later).

Often — especially for novice debaters — the introduction can serve to explain apparent

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter06.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，2/12(W)

contradictions between the two Negative speeches. Solvency attacks say that the plan won’t cure the
Affirmative harms. That seems to imply that the Second Negative accepts that the Affirmative harms
do exist, that the Affirmative inherency is valid, and that any minor repairs suggested during 1NC
will fail. When 2NC presents disadvantages, those also may apply to Negative minor repairs. To an
inexperienced judge — and novice teams often get inexperienced judges — this looks as if the
Negative partners are contradicting each other.

One way to explain this is in the introduction: "My partner has shown you that there are no great
harms in the status quo, and no inherent barrier. Believe him. But pretend with me during the next
eight minutes that the Affirmative analysis is substantially correct. I’d like to show that, even if we
accept the Affirmative’s harm and inherency, the plan won’t solve the harms and it will cause great
disadvantages."

What is the purpose of an overview on the case?

Bear in mind that this type of overview should be fairly rare. An overview is a major argument that
doesn’t fit in well with the standard pattern of speaker duties. As we will see in the chapter on
flowcharting, there is no easy way for the judge to record need or inherency arguments made by
2NC. Therefore, whenever you present an overview, you risk confusing the judge. For that reason,
you won’t present such positions often.

However, sometimes they are necessary. If 2AC extensions call for a major new argument on harm
or inherency, the Negative has to take a stand in this speech or forfeit the issue. After 2NC, the only
remaining speeches are rebuttals, and no new arguments may be made in rebuttals. If faced with this
situation, the best course is for 2NC to use an overview to outline the issue and let 1NR expand it.
Since the argument was officially introduced in the Constructive speech, this is a legitimate tactic.

Secondly, you might need an overview to present a topicality challenge. Most judges will ignore a
nontopicality argument presented in 2NC. But you might have success with justification or
extratopicality, especially if new information has come to light in 2AC to make these arguments
more reasonable.

Third, an overview is justified if there has been a major shift or contradiction between the
Affirmative partners. Take a few seconds to note the conflict to the judge, and show its impact on the
debate. Consider this argument: "I wish to call attention to a major shift by the Affirmative team.
The First Affirmative told us that the American poor are often homeless. My partner refuted that.
Then the Second Affirmative argued that, when the poor did have homes, they were often
unsatisfactory, rat-infested, lacking hot water, and so on. Note first that the Affirmative has
abandoned their original harm claim in the face of Negative refutation. Note also that their inherency
arguments only support the homelessness harm — they have not yet established inherency for the
inadequate housing harm, and it’s too late in the debate for them to present that. This shift destroys
the prima facie standing of their case. And in the next speech, my partner will show that the poor do
indeed have access to decent housing."

Does 2NC ever deal with harm and inherency?

I would say "no." Except as noted above, when a major new issue develops in 2AC, you don’t touch
the case issues. Especially, you do not go back and repeat the arguments presented in 1NC.

Why not? Well, your partner is going to review and extend on case arguments in the very next

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter06.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，3/12(W)

speech, the First Negative Rebuttal. If you cover case arguments first, he won’t have anything to say.
Also, you only have eight minutes — that will be barely be enough time for you to present your plan
attacks. You don’t want to cover issues that have already been addressed; you want to open up new
topics.

Now I get to contradict everything I just said. Despite the firm command in the last two paragraphs,
there will be times when the Second Negative spends some or all of his time discussing case issues.
But this is part of a deliberate strategy of reassigning speaker duties. It’s an advanced technique —
we’ll discuss it in a later chapter — not really suitable for new debaters. Additionally, recent trends
in debate strategy suggest that the 2NC should never present new arguments; see the last section of
this chapter for a discussion.

What is the biggest mistake made by Second Negatives?

Some Second Negative speakers choose to go point-by-point down the Affirmative plan, making
solvency and disadvantage arguments as they meet points worth contending. This approach is awful.
In doing this, the 2NC speaker limits his plan attacks to Affirmative terrain. There is no way to go
beyond the 1AC Affirmative issues to show how the plan will not work, and it’s very hard to break
free of the Affirmative plan format to introduce novel disadvantages.

Many points of the Affirmative plan will not require specific attacks. The Second Negative looks
silly challenging the Intent portion of the plan, for example. The strongest plan objections
concentrate on the plan’s functioning as a whole; a point-by-point approach makes such holistic
attacks impossible to present. An effective Second Negative will present his own structure.

How do I present solvency arguments?

You will want to develop one or more complete arguments that suggest the Affirmative plan will not
work. These are usually called Plan-Meet-Need or Plan-Meet-Advantage arguments … but most
commonly, they are called by their initials: PMN and PMA. As the names suggest, these arguments
propose that the Affirmative plan will fail to solve (meet) the need or advantage area which was
proposed.

It’s important to stress that the PMN is a structured Negative argument — it does not just react to the
solvency evidence and analysis of 1AC.

A typical PMN is structure as follows:

[Factor X] will prevent solving the harms.

A. The Affirmative plan calls for [some items].
B. [These items] cannot be obtained
1. Various subpoints as needed…
2. …to explain why…
3. …the particular items aren't available.
C. Without the needed support, the plan fails to solve.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter06.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，4/12(W)

This example illustrates the crucial parts of a PMN. The label (sometimes called the tag or name) is
the top line. You will, of course, tell the judge that this is your first, or third, or twentieth PMN
argument before presenting the label. The label is a neat summary of how the argument will develop.

The first point of substructure — the A point, here — is called the plan link. It notes the purpose of
the Affirmative plan: either the main goal, or a supporting purpose. Usually, you do not need
evidence to prove a plan link. It should be obvious.

The bulk of the PMN is devoted to reasons why this desired goal is unavailable; this explication may
take up several major points and involve a lot of subpoints. The last line explains the impact of the
argument — the effect the PMN has on the debate. Often, this is done by showing how much
solvency the Affirmative team loses by the argument. An absolute PMN means that the plan will
never work, and that no easing of the problem will occur. A partial PMN claims that the plan will
work imperfectly, solving only a fraction of the harm the Affirmative team identifies.

Please notice how here (and in the examples that follow) we use the same sort of outline structure
that the Affirmative team used in developing their case: alternating letters and numbers, and labels
for each point that are full, declarative sentences.

Give me an example of a PMN.

Okay. The resolution is on health care for all U.S. citizens. The Affirmative team is providing free
health insurance to all Americans, with a deductible amount that increases as the patient’s income
rises. The program is financed by means of a $1 tax on every citizen. The Affirmative hopes to
improve the nation’s health, especially that of poor people. The Second Negative presents these
PMN arguments:

PMN 1. Shortage of medical resources prevents improved health.

A. Medical resources are vital to the Affirmative plan.
1. The plan provides only insurance coverage.
2. Insurance helps only when medical care is available. *
B. Insurance increases demand for medical resources. *
C. A doctor shortage prevents the plan from working.
1. There is a doctor shortage now *
2. General practitioners are in short supply. *
3. Surgeons and other specialists are in short supply. *
4. Fewer medical degrees are expected in the future. *
D. A nursing shortage prevents the plan from working.
1. The supply meets only 80% of current demand.*
2. Fewer nursing degrees are being sought. *
E. A severe shortage of hospital beds exists. *
F. Inadequate supplies of medical support are available.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter06.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，5/12(W)

1. Blood supplies are low. *

2. Few organ donations are offered. *
3. We’re running out of tongue depressors. *
G. Lack of resources dooms the Affirmative plan.
PMN 2. The Affirmative plan is financially unsound
A. Affirmative plan raises $290 million.
B. Current needs of the poor far exceed that figure. *
C. Plan requires more money than current programs.
1. Universal insurance will increase medical demand.*
2. Universal insurance will spark inflation in health care costs. *
D. The plan will be less effective than current Medicaid benefits.

The points marked with asterisks would normally require evidence. Both PMNs are examples of the
partial PMN argument. In the first example, note that the plan link uses two points of substructure to
make its point that insurance, by itself, is not enough — we also need the medical resources that
insurance money buys. The B point suggests that, in general, if resources are limited now, increased
demand will make them far more so under the Affirmative plan. Points C to F show that medical
resources of various types are limited now, and are not expected to increase under the Affirmative
plan. Finally, the G point would be supported with analysis to argue that, with all these limitations,
the Affirmative is going to lose most of their solvency.

This first PMN is a generic PMN. The arguments advanced will be appropriate to a wide variety of
Affirmative cases during the debate season. Only the specific links to the plan may need to be
rewritten for each round. Such a PMN can be prepared ahead of time and used whenever necessary.

The second example takes advantage of a flaw in the plan. Point A, the plan link, notes the limited
amount of money raised: at most, $1 for every person in the U.S., or about $290 million dollars. The
Negative could also have argued that this is an unreasonably high estimate, since a good portion of
our population (those under age 5) is unlikely to have even that much personal income in the course
of a year. Since the plan covers insurance needs based on ability to pay, the poor will get free care.
But Medicaid, which now provides free care to the poor, already spends several billion dollars each
year. Replacing that with $290 million is a step backward, especially since we can expect the
demands of customers to inflate the cost of health care, meaning the revenues we raise will not go as
far next year as this year. Therefore, the plan’s solvency is severely limited. This PMN is called a
case-specific PMN. Unlike the generic argument, it cannot be fully prepared ahead of time. Judges
respond very favorably to case-specific arguments, since they demonstrate the 2NC speaker to have
analyzed the plan in depth. Always look for case-specific attacks before planning generic PMNs in
any round.

These examples will not be precisely relevant to this year’s resolution, but the principles behind
creating them remain the same.

What are the categories of PMN arguments?

It is very difficult to anticipate all possible Affirmative plans and design unique PMNs against every

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter06.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，6/12(W)

possible case. However, most successful PMNs fall into about five categories. If you spend a few
minutes considering whether the Affirmative plan will cause any solvency flaws in these five areas,
you will probably develop a more persuasive Second Negative Constructive speech.

PLAN FLAW attacks take advantage of a mistake made by the Affirmative in writing their case.
Perhaps they provided no funding, or not enough money. Perhaps they have no enforcement
mechanism, and one will clearly be needed. Perhaps their plan lacks a needed administrative agency,
or relies on certain tests and evaluations (IQ tests, educational achievement tests, poverty-income
surveys) that are not reliable. All these errors guarantee that the wrong people will be helped, or that
those in need will be ignored. The second example, above, is a plan flaw PMN, arguing that the plan
provides insufficient money.

INADEQUATE TECHNOLOGY and INADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE. These PMNs

argue that some sort of support or resources needed does not now exist, or exists in too limited
quantities to be useful to the Affirmative. "Infrastructure" refers to publicly supported necessities for
major projects: the availability of electricity, the conditions of roads, and modern conditions of
factories can all be considered part of society’s infrastructure. The first PMN example given above is
an inadequate technology PMN. Other examples from recent debate resolutions have argued that
transportation difficulties made it impossible to get food to the starving people in Africa before it
spoiled ; that biotechnology was not sufficiently advanced to made drug-free marijuana plants ; and
that no medical treatment for Alzheimer’s disease was expected in the immediate future.

ALTERNATE CAUSALITY. This argues that the cause of the problem identified by the
Affirmative’s inherency analysis is not unique — that other factors not controlled by the Affirmative
plan also cause the problem, and these factors will continue to exist even if the plan is implemented.
An example: The Affirmatives argue that pornography leads to sexual violence (assaults and rapes),
and therefore banning pornography will reduce this problem. The Second Negative argues that three
other factors have been associated with sexual violence, also: alcoholism, mental illness, and genetic
factors such as duplicate X and Y chromosomes. Therefore, banning porn will not completely solve
the problem. Alternate causality is often a weak approach for a couple of reasons. First, such PMNs
generally only reduce the solvency partially, rather than block it absolutely. Second, the 2NC speaker
often seems to be contradicting his partner. The First Negative will have argued that the problem is
now being solved in the status quo; the Second Negative is arguing that the problem is by its nature
insoluble. Affirmative will try to tell the judge in such a case that this contradiction means both
arguments should be dropped from the round; Negatives need to remind the judge that, regardless of
which position is true, either one is sufficient to defeat the Affirmative team on the basis of
inherency or solvency.

CIRCUMVENTION and NONIMPLEMENTATION. These last two classes of PMN will be

discussed more fully in a few paragraphs. They are mentioned here for completeness. Circumvention
PMNs argue that people will avoid or try to get around the plan; Nonimplementation arguments
suggest that the plan will never be adopted for political reasons.

Can 2NC argue that the plan is against the law?

It should be clear by now that Second Negatives will try anything. They will regularly try arguing
that Congress would not pass the Affirmative plan, that the President would veto the plan, or that the
plan itself is unconstitutional. For this reason, they will say, the plan cannot work.

Such arguments are not valid. The word "should" of the resolution gives the Affirmative the power
of fiat, as you will recall from our discussion of case-writing back in Chapter 3. So the Affirmative is
allowed to propose any laws they require, even to amending the Constitution. The fact that Congress

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter06.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，7/12(W)

and the President would never pass these laws is irrelevant; the Affirmative need show only that
these laws should be passed, not that they would be passed. But see the next section of this chapter to
find out when such challenges are valid.

It’s worth noting, however, that a law which would be unconstitutional may allow for a good
disadvantage. Consider the pornography case mentioned above. Our 2NC cannot say that the plan
would not be adopted because it restricts freedom of speech, and therefore the plan would never be
adopted. But he can say that freedom of speech is a wonderful right, and restricting free speech for
any reason is intolerable. We’ll see how disadvantages are constructed in a short while.

How does attitudinal inherency affect PMNs?

When the Affirmative team uses attitudes to provide the inherent barrier for their case, they are
taking a grave risk. Laws, by themselves, do not change opinions. And the Affirmative fiat power
cannot magically wish away the attitudes. So the Affirmative plan will be subject to the same
attitudes which lurk in the status quo. This is usually expressed by saying that the Affirmative suffers
a loss of fiat power when facing attitudinal inherency. Note that this loss occurs only when the
Affirmative team proposes the attitudinal barriers; it’s not enough that the Negative first argues there
are attitudes opposed to the Affirmative plan.

When trying to overcome their own attitudinal inherency, the Affirmatives must treat the "should" of
the resolution as "would." This is an exception to the rules proposed in the last section. If lawmaker
attitudes were the barrier, the Affirmative must show that some other lawmaking group is able and
willing to put their plan into effect, or that some component in their plan will transform lawmaker
attitudes. If apathy or resentment on the part of their clients makes status quo programs ineffective,
the Affirmative must show that their reforms would not be subject to the same problems.

Here is where the last two PMN categories fit in. Circumvention PMNs argue that people will
avoid the Affirmative plan. If it requires some form of volunteering, for example, people will fail to
volunteer. If the plan requires obeying a law, people will sidestep the rules. Affirmative attitudinal
inherency is not absolutely necessary for a circumvention attack — the Negative can show that the
attitudes exist — but it strengthens the case.

Some examples: The Affirmative argues that poor people are lazy, and spend too much time getting
welfare for free. Their plan requires any able-bodied poor to work before receiving money. Negative
will say that this attitude will persist despite the Affirmative plan: the lazy poor will starve rather
than work, or they will deliberately disable themselves, or they will forge doctor’s excuses to avoid
working. In another case, the Affirmative argues that pornography exists because virtually all people
want it, despite all the evidence that’s it’s bad. The Negative response in 2NC is that pornography
smuggling will occur — and, because police, judges, and jurors want pornography as much as
always (the attitude persists), nobody will be arrested because of illegal pornography trading. The
Affirmative plan is unenforceable, and thus useless.

Nonimplementation PMNs are used when the Affirmative has identified lawmaker attitudes as their
inherency. The Negative will argue that these attitudes prevent the plan from ever being adopted (or
implemented). The Affirmative’s power of fiat is not enough to change the barrier of attitudes which
they themselves have erected. Nonimplementation PMNs must have prior Affirmative support of
attitudinal inherency; the Negative cannot raise this issue on their own.

An example: The Affirmative argues that welfare benefits are inadequate because Congress and the
President are unwilling to spend money on people they regard as idle loafers. Their plan would
institute a guaranteed national income to raise all citizens above the poverty level. The 2NC’s most

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter06.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，8/12(W)

effective attack would be a nonimplementation PMN — arguing that federal lawmakers would not
adopt the program. No evidence would be needed. The Affirmative has already claimed that the
lawmaking authorities are not completely rational, and that they do not have the best interests of their
constituents at heart. The power of fiat is not going to change that.

Nonimplementation PMNs are the best solvency attacks possible, because they guarantee an absolute
loss of solvency. The plan cannot be put into effect, so the Affirmative cannot get any of their
advantage. The drawback is that too many Affirmative teams, and too many inexperienced judges,
have been trained to believe that the Affirmative power of fiat is absolute. The Negative has to
explain the argument very carefully in order to make sure the judge understands it.

The power of the nonimplementation PMN is so great, however, that it is worthwhile trying to build
one even when the Affirmative has not specifically used attitudinal inherency. Try to reduce
whatever inherency is claimed to one of attitudes; the cross-examination periods are best for this. If
the Affirmative claims gap inherency, for example, ask them to explain why Congress hasn’t taken
action to close this gap. A foolish Affirmative may answer that Congress thinks it would be too
expensive (for instance, in the case of free health care for everyone), or that there are strong political
factions opposed (in the case of gun control, for example). The First Negative would then note in his
speech that the Affirmative’s real inherency is attitudinal. The Second Negative would then crush the
case with a Nonimplementation PMN.

Is there any other way to attack solvency?

Yes. Occasionally, 2NC speakers will turn to the original 1AC solvency contentions and refute them
in detail — pointing out where the evidence is weak or missing. This is done before presenting
PMNs, and you should make it clear to the judge precisely what you will be doing beforehand.
Refuting the solvency contention is not as strong as presenting independent PMNs, since you are
reacting to Affirmative issues instead of building your own Negative structure. If you choose to use
this technique, let it supplement your PMNs, not replace them. However, in tandem with original
PMNs, the case-side solvency argument can be a devastating attack; this is one of the instances
where the Second Negative’s addressing case-side issues (and following the 1AC case structure) is
fully justified.

Of course, it works out just as well if the First Negative spends the time in the 1NC to refute the
case’s solvency contentions. It is more likely, however, that the 2N will in a better position than the
1N to undertake a thorough analysis of the case arguments, given the time to concentrate on the
solvency issue during the 1NC and 2AC speeches.

Are disadvantages important?

Remember that the question behind the fourth stock issue — the question that Affirmatives must
answer "yes" — is: Does the plan produce benefits that outweigh any possible side-effects? The
arguments presented by the First Negative will probably diminish the need and inherency issues, but
(since most Affirmatives have the truth on their side) probably will not win those issues entirely.
Second Negative’s PMNs will reduce solvency a little further, but not entirely. This leaves the
Affirmatives with a net advantage. If the Negative wants to win the debate, they must try to
overbalance that remaining net advantage of the Affirmative. This is done by showing that the plan is
not merely useless, but bad. So disadvantages are crucial to the 2NC speech— they are often the
point on which Negative wins the debate. You will want to present one or more strong disadvantage
every round.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter06.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，9/12(W)

Of course, you will have to make choices. You only have 8 minutes in this speech. But, other things
being equal, if you must choose between including an extra PMN or an extra disadvantage, go for
the latter.

How do I present a disadvantage?

From now on we will use debate jargon: disadvantages are shortened to D-As or, sometimes, Disads.
The structure has many close parallels to the need-inherency- solvency pattern of an Affirmative
advantage.

The Affirmative plan causes [harmful event Y] to occur.

A. The Affirmative plan does [X].

B. Doing [X] leads to [Y].

C. The status quo avoids [factor Y].

D. [Event Y] is dreadfully harmful.

This example contains most of the crucial elements that go into the structure of a disadvantage. As
always, we begin with a label that summarizes the argument: "My third disadvantage is that the
Affirmative plan leads to disastrous inflation." The first sub-argument should be a plan link, which
connects the disadvantage to the specific point in the Affirmative plan that triggers the bad results.
Following the plan link will be one or more internal links: chains of cause and effect. Here, we have
just one link, point B. Together, the plan and internal links act much as solvency analysis works in
the Affirmative case: they show the logical consequences of the plan, as a series of logical steps
which proceed one from the other.

The final main point will show the impact of the argument — the total harms that the Negative team
will claim to result. This invariably requires evidence about how many people will be hurt and how
deeply they will suffer. Sound familiar? The impact is the counterpart to the Affirmative’s Need
analysis. In fact, when the judge decides the debate, he will be weighing the solved Need of the
Affirmative against the proven impact of the Negative.

The impact claim should be supported by strong analysis showing that the harms caused by the plan
are not present in the status quo; they are unique to the Affirmative plan. This, the C point, is
equivalent to proving inherency in an Affirmative case. After all, if we will get a disadvantage
regardless of whether the plan is adopted, the D-A is no reason to reject the resolution, just as
Affirmative must prove that advantages can come only from their plan.

Negatives will sometimes argue that the impact is linear, meaning that the problem increases the
more the plan functions. Some linear D-As get worse the more people that are involved, or the more
money that is spent, or the longer the plan works. Even in the harm already exists in the status quo,
Negatives argue, the plan intensifies or extends suffering to a unique extent.

The other way to prove uniqueness is by a threshold D-A. Such an argument claims that the
Affirmative plan will be enough to push us over the brink into disaster. Usually, the Negative will
claim we’re on the edge of the brink. Since the disastrous situation envisioned by the disadvantage
does not currently exist, the harm caused by the plan is unique.

Just as with PMNs, disadvantages are classed as generic (if they apply to a variety of cases) or case-

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter06.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，10/12(W)

specific (if they apply only to a few cases, or have to be composed on the spot). Each has its
advantages. You can write generic D-As in advance, while case-specific ones are harder for the
Affirmatives to refute and are more likely to impress the judge.

Give me examples of disadvantages.

Okay. We’re back to the free medical insurance topic. The Affirmative is providing free health
insurance to all Americans. The Negative proposes the following:

DA #1. The Affirmative plan causes great suffering and death.

A. The plan provides increased health care access.
B. Health care procedures are harmful.
1. Doctors misdiagnose ailments. *
2. Hospitals spread infections between patients. *
3. Doctors prescribe inappropriate medicines. *
4. Surgeons mis-operate. *
C. Medical risks increase as access increases. *
D. Danger to patients warrants rejection of the plan.

DA #2. The Affirmative plan risks political chaos and war.

A. The plan provides free health insurance.
B. The insurance industry collapses.
1. Private companies cannot compete with the government. *
2. Private companies cannot compete with free insurance. *
C. The U.S. economy collapses.
1. Insurance companies control the bulk of U.S. investment. *
2. Investment drives the American economy. *
3. A second Great Depression occurs as investment dries up. *
D. Economic instability leads to political instability. *
E. Political instability increases the risk of nuclear war. *
F. The harm is unique to the Affirmative plan.
1. The economy is now prosperous. *
2. There is little current risk of war. *

Again, asterisks indicate lines which need evidence. Note that the first of these disadvantages is a
simple plan link that runs straight to harms. The second example has a number of internal links, each
of which carries its own harms, but the ultimate impact claimed is the risk of nuclear war. Even if the

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter06.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，11/12(W)

Affirmative refuted that final claim soundly in their next speech (1AR), the Negative could still trim
back and say that economic collapse and political instability are significant impacts to the D-A in
their own right.

What can the Negative use as plan links for disadvantages?

Anything in the Affirmative plan is fair game. You can attack their mandates, funding,
administration — even the plan spikes that were included to avoid disadvantages! Plus, you can link
these to any conceivable impact for which you can find evidence. Take the Affirmative by surprise,
and they won’t have an effective response to your argument. No doubt the Affirmatives in the above
example were surprised to find out that health insurance leads to nuclear war…

Are there any plan attacks besides PMNs and D-As?

In Chapter 2, we talked about the so-called workability argument — but that is an invalid type of
plan attack. As you will recall, this argument challenges the methods that the plan uses in
functioning. Since it doesn’t take a firm stand to prove the plan will not function, the workability
attack is not as strong as a PMN; since it doesn’t prove the plan’s functioning will have nasty side-
effects, it’s not as strong as a D-A. Avoid using this attack as a Second Negative.

There is sometimes cause to present a hybrid PMA/D-A. Consider the first disadvantage given
earlier in this chapter, which says that medical care hurts the patient rather than helps him. If the
Affirmative had claimed as their need issue that people need improved health, this D-A not only
establishes a harmful effect from the plan, but it also shows the plan does not cure the Affirmative
harm. So the plan attack could be labeled a combination Plan-Meet-Need and Disadvantage attack.
This is, specifically, a solvency turnaround PMN/D-A, since it argues that the net effect of the plan
will be to widen harms already claimed by the Affirmative.

The dilemma PMN/D-A is the other variety of this argument. Let us assume that the health care plan
was funded in a totally inadequate manner — say, a 5% tax on full-length coats made of panda fur.
The Negative is able to prove that this will produce only a tiny fraction of the revenue needed (there
aren’t many panda coats sold in a year). They present a PMN/DA dilemma: since the Affirmative
doesn’t provide enough money, the plan may not work; but if the administrators spend money
anyway, the plan will work, but at the expense of causing a disastrous increase in the federal deficit.
The Affirmative’s dilemma is either a lack of solvency, or a disadvantage large enough to outweigh
their advantage. The solvency turnaround PMN/D-A argues that the plan worsens the specific
affirmative harms and causes a related new problem; the dilemma PMN/D-A argues that the plan
will either fail to work or will cause a new problem, and forces the Affirmative to choose between
these two unpleasant possibilities.

There is no formal structure for a PMN/D-A. You will have to combine the two forms as best as
possible, based on the specific case before you. Most PMN/D-As are case-specific arguments, rather
than generic arguments, so you will have to tailor them to the case anyway.

Is there an alternative strategy for the whole 2NC?

Yes. As we noted a couple of chapters ago, recent trends in debate practice have encouraged some
Negative teams to originate all key issues in the First Negative Constructive. If your coach endorses

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter06.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，12/12(W)

that practice, then we can expect that the 2NC should never begin new arguments. Well, maybe
"never" is too strong a word, but new arguments in 2NC should be very, very uncommon.

What this means is that the Negative partners must decide between themselves how to divide the
issues in the round, before the 2NC rises to begin his speech. Some positions from 1NC will be
extended by the Second Negative, and the remainder will be handled by the First Negative in her
rebuttal.

This tactic is strategically sound. We can expect each of the Negatives to present a thorough point-
by-point refutation of the Second Affirmative’s positions on the Negative issues. The strategy binds
the Negative partners together into a seamless philosophical approach. And because the Second
Affirmative has already given the core Affirmative response to each of the Negative claims, the
Affirmatives are stuck with those responses – and only those! – during their rebuttals.

Nevertheless, I will restate my opposition to requiring all Negative positions to emerge in 1NC.
Almost always, it leads to a shallow debate: 1NC presents two topicality positions and two
disadvantage arguments, and those become the only issues debated the rest of the round. In many
instances, obvious flaws in the Affirmative case and plan go unexplored, because the Negative is not
prepared to debate Inherency or Solvency or Harm issues. A meaningful debate — as opposed to
playing rhetorical and strategic games — is better served by giving the second Negative time during
the constructive speeches to think about the plan, and to initiate new arguments in the Second
Negative Constructive. Alas, that approach is not altogether fashionable at the current time.

Introduction to Policy Debate

Copyright © 1990, 1993, 1996, 2002 John R. Prager
All rights reserved.
Permission is not granted to reproduce this document in whole or in part, in any medium.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter06.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，1/9(W)

Chapter 7

The Early Rebuttals

How do rebuttal speeches differ from constructive speeches?

The final four speeches in the debate round, the rebuttals allow each speaker to summarize the debate
and justify why his or her team should win. Each rebuttal is about half as long as a constructive
speech — only five minutes — and this forces the speakers to condense the debate down to the most
crucial arguments. And unlike the constructives, the rebuttals are not followed by cross-examination
periods.

No new arguments are permitted in rebuttal speeches. That means that neither team can present a
new major line of analysis. For example, the Affirmative cannot finally present a solvency
contention in 1AR; nor can the Negative present a new disadvantage in 2NR. Only those arguments
that have entered the debate by the conclusion of the Second Negative Constructive are allowed.

This can be a tricky point for inexperienced debaters. You are permitted to read new evidence in the
rebuttals, and often doing so is necessary for success in the round. You are permitted to extend on
old arguments — and an extension that properly grows out of an earlier argument may raise new
issues or shed new light on existing arguments. But no major new lines of analysis should be
introduced.

If your opponents present a new argument in rebuttals, the proper response is to tell the judge in the
next speech that this is a new argument, so your team doesn’t have to respond to it. Then, if time
permits, answer the argument anyway. That shows style.

As mentioned before, all speakers have the duty to use rebuttals to condense the debate into the most
significant issues. Pull forward your strongest analysis; focus on the issues that you’re winning.
Conclude the speech by telling the judge why you should win the debate.

What strategies go into the 1NR speech?

Three strategies form the basis of this speech: overwhelming, extending, and narrowing.

Overwhelming: This is the second half of the Negative block. Your partner has just concluded an
eight minute speech that devastated the plan. Now you have five minutes to return to the case and
demolish harm and inherency for good. You want to make it impossible for the following
Affirmative speech to pick up all the vital pieces.

Extending: Your initial responses in 1NC were attacked by the Second Affirmative. You will want
to reaffirm your original positions on all the stock issues. Where possible, extend on your original
arguments; a proper extension is an outgrowth of a constructive argument, not a new argument in
rebuttals. See Chapter 5 for a refresher on the techniques of extending.

Narrowing: In your First Negative Constructive, you tried to expand the debate into new territory.
Now is the time to narrow the debate. The Second Affirmative probably responded to most, but not
all, of your arguments. You will strengthen the ones that were refuted, and pull forward all of those
that were ignored. Drop any arguments that are clearly not going to win the debate for you. At the
conclusion of your speech, all the issues should be firmly Negative.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter07.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，2/9(W)

What is the format of 1NR?

z Minimal introduction.
z Case analysis.
z Summary.

Why only a minimal introduction?

Many First Negatives don’t use any introduction at all; they jump directly to the case analysis.
Properly done, this can weld the 2NC and 1NR speeches into one long Negative speech, with the
formal introduction begun by the Second Negative and the formal conclusion at the end of 1NR.

If you really want an introduction, try a simple summary of speaker duties: "My partner has shown
that the plan is untenable; in my speech, I’ll show conclusively that the plan isn’t needed."

Some textbooks suggest beginning this speech with a sure-fire winning argument — something that
the Affirmative slighted in 2AC. Let’s suppose that the Affirmative argued that acid rain was a great
threat to the American environment. You presented five arguments in 1NC against the Affirmative
inherency — but 2AC gave solid answers to only four of those positions. Pull forward the
unchallenged argument immediately to claim the initiative: "Remember the testimony from Senator
Van Buskirk in my earlier speech, that all we need is stronger enforcement of existing laws in order
to control acid rain. The Affirmative presented no challenge to this minor repair. In conceding this
point, the Affirmative will lose the stock issue of inherency. But let’s go to the top of the flowchart
and see how most of the other issues fall Negative as well."

Do I discuss the plan attacks at any point?

You shouldn’t have to. But maybe you will have to. That’s an ambiguous answer, but it’s the right
answer.

We’re assuming, of course, that the Negatives have followed the traditional assignment of speaker
duties: harm and inherency for the 1N, solvency and disadvantages for the 2N. Usually there is no
real need for the First Negative to mention her partner’s arguments in the 1NR speech. The plan
attacks have never been refuted by the Affirmative. Sure, there has been some discussion of the plan
attacks during cross-examination, but questions are not the same as arguments. The plan attacks are
still unrefuted. Competent judges will realize that. Reinforcing the plan attacks just wastes time that
you would prefer to spend elsewhere.

And yet, some debaters — especially novices — can’t count on always getting competent judges.
You may be judged by a parent of a debater, or a high school teacher with no knowledge of debate:
somebody who has learned only that if a side drops an argument, that argument is lost. If you get one
of these judges, and if you don’t mention your partner’s plan attacks, the judge may drop them from
the debate. You will lose the round.

What can be done to resolve this problem? The secret here is to know your judges. You may have
been judged by this individual before, or perhaps a teammate has, so you can assess the judge’s
competence before the round begins. Or perhaps your coach knows the judge. Or you may be sure
from the circumstances of the round that all the judges are highly skilled; perhaps you know the

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter07.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，3/9(W)

tournament director required that judges have many years of experience. If all else fails, you can
always ask the judge about his judging philosophy before the round begins.

If none of these suggestions give you the answer you want, then you may wish to include something
in the introduction to link this speech with the just-concluded 2NC. Something on the order of, "My
partner’s plan attacks have just been introduced, so there has been no chance of Affirmative
refutation. Pull them all forward — both PMNs and all four disadvantages — into the rebuttals."
That’s short enough so that it doesn’t waste too much time, but it makes the point that the plan
attacks are still very vital parts of the debate. This may be enough to keep a less-competent judge on
your side.

How do I handle the case analysis?

Begin with topicality, if that was an issue in the debate. Then go point-by- point down the
Affirmative case, just as in your earlier speech. Your case attacks should still be very organized:
Here’s what 1AC said, this was my reply, this is what 2AC said, and here’s why my answer was
right all along. But now, you have to be selective. You cannot expect to pull forward all your
original responses. Drop any argument that’s a sure loser — don’t be afraid to tell the judge that
you’re dropping it. Since the Negative only need carry one stock issue, conceding one point, or
several, or even an entire Affirmative contention won’t necessarily lose you the debate. At the same
time, highlight any points that are clearly Negative. Spend the most time on important points that are
narrowly balanced between Affirmative and Negative.

While you have the power to drop arguments, you cannot shift away from your earlier position. But
be wary of Affirmative shifts and contradictions, and point them out to the judge when they occur.

Cover only those issues that you targeted in your first speech: harm, inherency, and (possibly)
topicality and solvency.

What about the conclusion?

Plan on spending the last thirty seconds or so to summarize the debate from the Negative point of
view. Remind the judge of the principal reasons why harm and inherency fall Negative; briefly
mention your partner’s plan attacks as well. Project an attitude of winning. This is the conclusion,
not only of your speech, but of the concentrated attack that makes up the Negative block.

For example: "The Affirmative would have us believe that pornography is corrupting America. But
I’ve shown three studies that have found no link between pornography and sexual assaults, and I’ve
proven that the connection between porn and organized crime does not exist. Harm is clearly a
Negative issue. As for inherency, recall that current laws allow local citizens to ban porn in their
neighborhood, so federal intervention is not needed. And do not forget my partner’s proof that the
Affirmative plan will not limit pornography, and that trying to impose such limits will spell disaster
for American freedoms. With all the stock issues firmly in the Negative corner, we’ll ask for a ballot
against the resolution at the end of this debate."

What are the objectives of the 1AR speech?

At this point in the debate, there has been a lot of dispute about the original harm and inherency

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter07.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，4/9(W)

issues — they were established in 1AC, refuted in 1NC, rebuilt in 2AC, and refuted again in 1NR.
On the other hand, the Negative’s plan attacks, presented in 2NC, have never been refuted by the
Affirmative. So performing that refutation must be one of the primary goals of this speech.

On the other hand, the First Negative has just concluded his rebuttal. This means that the Negative
has had the last word — so far — on the original Affirmative case. That can’t be permitted. The
Affirmative has to bring forward their harm and inherency analysis into each speech, so they cannot
afford to let the 1NR case challenges go unanswered. That response also must be presented in 1AR.

Topicality can lose the debate for the Affirmative. If it’s been an issue in the round, the First
Affirmative had better present an argument in his rebuttal to deal with it.

Sounds impossible, doesn’t it? The First Affirmative has only five minutes to answer thirteen
minutes of Negative block arguments. This rebuttal is the hardest speech in the debate. That’s fair,
though, since the First Affirmative Constructive was the easiest speech to deliver. And judges (to an
extent) know the difficulties of 1AR, and will forgive minor lapses; an imperfect speech can still win
the round.

What is the format of the First Affirmative Rebuttal?

z No Introduction
z Plan Attacks
z Topicality
z Case Attacks
z One-sentence summary, if time permits.

Why no introduction?

C’mon, wise up. You don’t have time.

Okay, how do I prepare for plan attacks?

The best way is to prepare as much in advance as possible. Anticipate the objections that Negative
teams are likely to raise against your plan. Then work out blocks of responses for them, just like the
Second Affirmative prepares blocks of arguments to be used as extensions in the Constructive
speech. These need not be very complex — just short answers to common plan objections.

As the season progresses, you might consider rewriting the Affirmative plan to avoid, defuse, or
patch up any problems that have led to losses. Let us say your proposal to increase voter
participation in federal elections keeps losing to a Negative argument that you will promote
destruction of tropical rain forests, thereby creating a global climate disaster. You might include a
plan spike that causes the U.S. to plant trees in tropical regions, thereby averting that particular
disadvantage. Of course, you cannot claim a separate advantage from that plan element (since it’s
extratopical), but it does serve to avoid losing to a plan attack.

How do I respond to PMNs?

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter07.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，5/9(W)

In general, you will ignore the substructure of the Negative argument and address it with one or more
responses. Remember to use clear signposting and labeling techniques to fit your arguments into an
easily recorded outline format.

There are five basic tactics available for refuting solvency attacks. Which one or ones you choose
depends, of course, on the nature of the argument presented by the Negative.

z IT’S NOT PROVEN. Check the Negative arguments for flawed evidence, distorted
reasoning, and so forth — the basic tools of evidence refutation.
z IT’S NOT TRUE. Present brief counter-evidence to indicate that one or more crucial links
presented by 2NC are wrong.
z CUT THE PLAN LINK. Show how the Negative objection relies on a faulty understanding
of what your plan does: the root cause they cite may be completely irrelevant to your plan. Or
you may be able to demonstrate an effective plan spike that undermines the thesis of the PMN.
z STAND BY YOUR FIAT POWER. You can legislate your program into existence. You can
even have the states call a constitutional convention, if that is needed to bypass attitudes of
Congress (but you must be able to prove that the same attitudes will not be present among the
delegates to the convention). Fiat power also guards your plan against repeal or
Constitutionality attacks, and may provide some benefit against circumvention arguments.
And fiat power gives you the option to include plan spikes, enforcement, administrative, and
funding provisions.
z DENY THE PMN IMPACT. If the Negative claims that the PMN is absolute, show that it
only cuts solvency a little. Try to convince the judge that, even if the PMN goes Negative, the
bulk of solvency still falls to the Affirmative team.

Here’s an example of a PMN response. Refer back to the chapter of 2NC arguments; the First
Affirmative Rebuttal is going to address one of the PMN examples given there on the topic of
national health insurance:

"In the first PMN, the Second Negative argued that lack of medical resources
undermines the Affirmative plan. Lump all the subpoints together, and I have
four responses.

"ONE — INADEQUATE EVIDENCE. The bulk of the Negative evidence was

from the 1980’s, and the most recent card was from 1991. A lot has changed
since then — so much, that the evidence is no longer credible. We need more
current evidence before we’ll accept this argument

"TWO — MEDICAL RESOURCES ARE ADEQUATE. Virginia Eisenbud, a

social worker writing in last June’s Modern Health Care, notes that ‘Supplies of
medical personnel from orderlies to nurses to surgical specialists now far
exceed demand, forcing a decline in wages.’

"THREE — THE PLAN INCREASES RESOURCES. The judge will recall that
point seven of our mandates provides additional college loans for medical
students, and point nine gives cash incentives to medical supply companies.

"Finally, FOUR — THE NEGATIVE GIVES NO IMPACT. The Negative fails to

show this is going to be a long-term national problem, so they can’t prove that
the Affirmative solvency will be significantly reduced. We’ll argue that, even if
you accept the Negative thesis, most of the solvency still accrues."

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter07.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，6/9(W)

How much emphasis should I give to arguing disadvantages?

The most. Because the Negative D-As are going to be weighed against the Affirmative case to
determine who wins, you cannot afford to slight the disadvantages. In a crisis situation, you can still
win by only lightly arguing PMAs and case-side — but if you drop the D-As, you’re sunk.

Some general guidelines: Lump disadvantages together if they spring from the same source. For
example, if the Negative has presented four D-As stemming from increasing the federal income tax,
merge them together and attack them as one disadvantage with four impacts. Tell the judge what
you’re doing, of course: "Disadvantages 7 through 10 all are linked to increasing the federal income
tax, so I’m going to treat them as a group. We have three responses..."

Likewise, ignore the substructure — usually — to get at the critical weaknesses of the argument.
You don’t have time to go point-by-point down the Negative’s argument. Even when your main
attack is going to be denial of a critical internal link, you may wish to handle that as one of several
responses.

As always, question evidence and reasoning whenever possible, using the standard techniques of
refutation. Remember, in proposing a D-A, the Negative has taken on a burden of proof much like
that of the Affirmative at the start of the debate — they have to give a prima facie argument that the
disadvantage will occur and will do nasty things. Here, you get to challenge that burden of proof.

What tactics work best against D-As?

The most common approach is "No we don’t; not too much; so do you." In other words, the D-A
doesn’t really occur, or it has only limited impact, or it’s not unique to the Affirmative plan. There
are seven specific tactics you can use to refute a disadvantage, not including evidence/reasoning
challenges.

DENY A LINK. Demonstrate that the plan link or an internal link is faulty. Denying a plan link may
be as simple as pointing out that the plan does not do what the Negative says it will: "The first
Disadvantage argues that raising the corporate income tax will result in unemployment and
recession. But our plank three of the plan only raises rates on the U.S. personal income tax, not the
tax on businesses, so that disadvantage falls because it has no case link." Sometimes, though, you
will need to read evidence showing that the chain of cause and effect that the Negative builds is not
valid: "Note that the Negative argument about income tax relies on higher tax rates cutting
investment. Authorities say that’s not the case! Turning to Marcia Van Allen, professor of
economics..."
Denying a link is very similar to a 1NC argument against inherency. The Negative argues that the
chain of cause and effect leading to Affirmative harm is broken because of some factor; the
Affirmative argues that the causal chain is broken before the disadvantage occurs.

RELY ON A SPIKE. You plan may already include a provision to turn aside or minimize the harm
of the D-A. Show how this plan plank will thwart the disadvantage. Again, this has parallels to the
Negative use of minor repairs to breach the Affirmative inherency position. It may be enough to
point out that the plan includes this provision; sometimes you’ll need to read evidence to show that
the spike will work as promised, especially if the Negative attack has argued that the plan spike will
be ineffective.

QUESTION THE THRESHOLD. The Negative has argued that the Affirmative plan will cause
disaster. To show that the disadvantage is likely to occur, they must establish that we’re on the brink
of disaster now, so that any Affirmative tampering will push us over, or that the Affirmative plan’s

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter07.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，7/9(W)

effects are so huge that the problem is certain to accrue even though it seems remote now.
Two factors come into play here — the magnitude of the harm, and how likely it is to happen. The
Negative has to support both. Their impact argument tells us how awful the disadvantage will be, but
many Negatives neglect to show how likely it is — or, at best, argue without evidence that we are
perilously close to trouble already.
The proper Affirmative response is to demand proof that about the certainty of the D-A. You can
either demand that the Negative show how far we are from the threshold (it’s their burden of proof,
after all), or you can read evidence to show that we’re very far from it now. You will tell the judge
that, "If we have no guideline to show that the claimed disadvantage is likely to occur, there isn’t
sufficient reason to reject the Affirmative plan."
A good recent example is the growth D-A, which shows up year after year in one form or another.
The Negative argues that U.S. economic growth will expand under the Affirmative plan. This will
cause industries to expand their operations, resulting in environmental destruction, which will kill
crucial animal and plant species, which will lead to general collapse of the Earth’s ecosystem and the
death of all human life on the planet. A big impact, but how likely is it? The shrewd 1AR speaker
will point out to the judge this D-A requires massive, uncontrolled, and worldwide economic growth
before the final disaster occurs; a modest 2% increase in the U.S. economic growth rate will not pass
the threshold.

DENY UNIQUENESS. This is similar to an inherency challenge. Just as the Negative can argue
that the Affirmative advantage can be obtained in the status quo, the Affirmative can argue that the
Negative’s D-A will also occur in the present system. And if the same harm occurs whether of not
we put the plan into place, that doesn’t justify rejecting the plan!
Both sorts of Negative disadvantages fall into this trap. Linear D-As argue that the more the
Affirmative plan works, the greater the harm produced — but this is usually an intensification of any
already existing harm. For example, the Negative might argue that for every $10,000 spent on the
plan, one worker will suffer unemployment. Affirmatives can respond by saying the plan cost is only
$10 million, thus increasing unemployment by only 1,000 people, and since random fluctuations in
the job market throw far more people out of work every week, the disadvantage is not unique.
Threshold D-As are prey to this argument, too. The Negative will argue that we’re on the verge of
nuclear war or environmental catastrophe — threshold D-As often have big impacts — and the
Affirmative plan will be sufficient to precipitate the disaster. The Affirmative will challenge the
Negative to prove that the status quo won’t leap into the disaster anyway. Several factors help you
here. Often, the Negative evidence itself will argue that current trends are edging us toward the
disadvantage, prove the disad is not unique. Or, if the evidence suggests we’ve been on the brink for
a long time without the disaster occurring, this hints that the threshold might not actually exist, or the
imagined harms are not real. A good example here is the impact of the federal debt on the economy:
we’ve been warned for decades that the deficit will bring financial doom to the U.S. Since the first
warnings, the debt has increased enormously and each year, economists warn, "This is it! We’re on
the edge! No more, or certain doom!"
Sometimes Negatives will read evidence saying we’re edging away from the potential disaster, to
reinforce their uniqueness. Good. That means the gap the Affirmative must cross to cause the harm is
getting wider all the time — a threshold challenge, as described above.

POINT OUT INCONSISTENCIES. Very long chains of cause and effect lose their persuasiveness
because no one authority supports all the causal links. Some debate theory experts believe that the
Negative must be able to support the bulk of a disadvantage thesis with a quotation from one source.
In any case, it’s probably a valid challenge to make against long chains of reasoning. Perhaps 2NC
has argued that raising taxes will take money from the rich, who will then invest less, causing critical
industries to collapse, thereby destroying the American economy, which causes the world economy
to collapse, and thus will lead to political unrest and nuclear war. Demand that the Negatives provide
one expert who will support this entire chain of reasoning. Some Affirmatives have even gone so far
as to tell the judge, "If the Negatives can produce one authoritative source to support the entire
argument, we will concede this disadvantage and lose the debate. If they cannot produce a single
source, though, we will argue that this chain of cause and effect is so unlikely that no authority

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter07.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，8/9(W)

believes it." This is a risky position to take, but some judges may buy it.
A second type of inconsistency may occur between arguments. Sometimes, Negatives propose
disadvantages that partially or even fully negate one another. For instance, the Second Negative may
propose two D-As: that the plan heats up the economy, leading to inflation, and that the plan restricts
investment, leading to a recession. The canny First Affirmative admits the plan links for both
arguments! He then argues that the economic growth (which causes the inflation) will cancel out the
economic slowdown (the cause of recession) more or less precisely, so no net disadvantage will
occur.

DENY OR REDUCE THE IMPACT. This is equivalent to a harm denial by 1NC. The Affirmative
argues that the "harm" produced by the D-A is tiny, or affects few people (it’s not a quantitative
harm), or affects people only a little (it’s not a qualitative harm). Ultimately, you tell the judge,
"Even if you accept the thesis of this disadvantage, it’s not sufficient to outweigh the Affirmative
plan."
Let’s assume that, under a universal health insurance resolution, the Negative would argue that such
a plan would be equivalent to socialism. The Affirmative could respond that "Socialism, by itself, is
neither good nor evil, but must be judged on its effects. The Affirmative plan saves thousands of
lives. Weigh that against the philosophical harm against promoting Socialism — something not
intrinsically bad — and you see that the Affirmative advantage outweighs the Negative impact."

TURNAROUND. A turnaround takes the Negative argument and converts it to a reason for the
judge to vote Affirmative, by making it an additional advantage for the Affirmative side. This is
perhaps the strongest argument you can make against a disadvantage. On the other hand, a
turnaround requires careful explanation and always requires reading evidence; many First
Affirmatives don’t have the time for either.
One way to perform a turnaround is to turn a link. The Affirmative admits that most of the Negative
argument is correct, but they directly contradict the plan link or one internal link. The upshot is that
the Affirmative plan is less likely than the status quo to cause the impact of the disadvantage. For
example, the Negative may argue that the plan causes increased proliferation of nuclear weapons,
which increases the chance of nuclear war. The Affirmative, in reply, proves that a growing spread
of nukes maintains a balance of power, making war much less likely. So, by increasing proliferation,
the plan lessens the chance of war — and therefore the plan is better than the present system for an
additional reason.
The second way to perform a turnaround is to turn the impact. The Affirmative concedes all the links
in the D-A, but argues that the impact is a good thing, not a bad thing. For example, perhaps the
Negative has argued that the plan’s proposal to sell weapons systems to African nations will cause
dissent with our allies in Europe and ultimately cause the breakup of NATO. The Affirmative may
concede most of this argument but respond that NATO is a useless tool of foreign policy whose chief
effect has been to hamper U.S. relations. Thus, by ridding us of this deadwood, the plan is superior
to the status quo.
Some disadvantages may be subject to several possible turnarounds. For instance, the Affirmative
plan may promote job training for convicts in prison, allowing them to get decent jobs after parole
instead of returning to crime. The Negative argues that this will be disadvantageous: since ex-cons
will work more cheaply than mainstream workers, they will cause businesses to fire current
employees to hire the ex-cons, leading to mass unemployment. The Affirmative could choose to turn
a link: with the declining American birthrate, says the 1AR speaker, it is predicted that twenty years
from now we’ll have too few workers to fill all the jobs vital to the U.S. economy; by enabling ex-
cons to fill the gap, we’ll have an additional advantage over the status quo. Alternatively, the
Affirmative could turn the impact: sure, we cause unemployment, 1AR will say, but that’s a stimulus
for the displaced workers to get their own job training, which will improve their productivity, and
will make the U.S. more powerful in the world marketplace — an additional advantage over the
status quo.
One danger than must be avoided is double-turning. Some Affirmatives get so excited that they turn
both the links and the impacts in a single disadvantage. Instead of making the Affirmative position
stronger, this tactic is worse than ignoring the D-A altogether. A double turnaround shows that the

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter07.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，9/9(W)

status quo is more likely than the plan to cause the impact (link turn) — but that the impact is really
good (impact turn). Or, in other words, the status quo will do something good; the plan won’t .This is
not an argument the Affirmative wants to make. The next Negative speaker would concede both
turnarounds, getting a status quo advantage to weigh against the Affirmative case on the judge’s
ballot.

Speaking of the case — do we go back to case issues?

Yes, definitely, since 1NR spent four minutes on them. You need to cover topicality, if that is an
issue in the debate. Then, pull forward your strongest lines of harm and inherency arguments into the
rebuttal round. Refute any new challenges that appeared in 1NR as you go. Stick to the original 1AR
structure as much as possible. You probably will not be able to pull every point and subpoint in the
original case outline. That’s okay, as long as you take care to bring forward the Affirmative’s ideas
into the rebuttal speech.

You began with the plan attacks because they were your most pressing concern: issues that had never
been refuted by the Affirmative. You end with case issues because you want to conclude your speech
on the arguments the Affirmative finds most persuasive — the home turf of the 1AC case.

If time permits (usually, it won’t), end with a one sentence summation: "Because the plan attacks are
not persuasive, and because Negative refutation still leaves a sizable, inherent harm that only the
plan can solve, we’ll ask for an Affirmative vote," or something like that.

Introduction to Policy Debate

Copyright © 1990, 1993, 1996, 2002 John R. Prager
All rights reserved.
Permission is not granted to reproduce this document in whole or in part, in any medium.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter07.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，1/3(W)

Chapter 8

The Final Rebuttals

What are the goals of the Second Negative Rebuttal speech?

This is the Negative’s last chance to take a stand, and to sway those issues which still might be
undecided in the mind of the judge. However, this speech is also the first time that the Second
Negative has been required to present case arguments. The Second Negative speaker must flow the
two earlier rebuttals in order to present this speech properly. He should be willing to consult quietly
with his partner to make sure the case issues are understood.

What is the format of 2NR?

z CASE ATTACKS. Begin here. Start with topicality, if that is an issue in this debate. Your
partner has made strong attacks against the need and inherency issues. Pull the strongest
arguments across, following the 1AC outline. Tell the judge how the Negative wins these
stock issues.
z PLAN ATTACKS. Again, cover each of these in the original order as you presented them in the
2NC. The Affirmative has condensed and sloughed off all your beautiful PMAs and D-As.
Don’t let them get away with it. You probably don’t have time to reinforce the full
substructure of each point, but rebuild the plan attacks as much as possible. Extend on your
original disadvantage analysis, if time permits, but above all, refute the 1AR arguments.
While you don’t want to slight case arguments, the main thrust of your speech should be in the
plan arguments. The plan attacks are the Negative’s constructive turf; that’s why you spend
the latter part of the final speech here. And the plan attacks are your best chance to win a stock
issue and the debate.
z CONCLUDE. In the last thirty seconds of your speech, refer back to your partner’s Negative
philosophy, tell the judge which stock issues you think are clearly Negative — and summarize
the reason why they are Negative — and ask for a ballot against the resolution.

Can I drop losing arguments?

The First Negative speaker probably trimmed down his case attacks in 1NR by dropping any
arguments that either (1) were going to go Affirmative anyway or (2) wouldn’t have helped the
Negative position even if the arguments fell Negative. In general, you have the right to drop hopeless
arguments too. Considering that you have to cover case and plan both in just five minutes, it’s likely
that you will have to drop something.

You may even wish to drop plan attacks. Perhaps you have presented a D-A that has no real impact,
and the 1AR speaker pointed this out. Rather than defending this argument, you’d like to extend on a
D-A with a strong impact that the Affirmative glossed over. Or perhaps two of the four PMAs you
presented really weren’t very strong, and you would like to use more time rebuilding the two
stronger attacks. This is perfectly acceptable.

There is one danger you must beware. If the Affirmative used a turnaround argument against one of
your disadvantages, you dare not drop it. By turning the link or impact of the D-A, the Affirmative
has changed the disadvantage into a new advantage which flows from their plan. If you drop the

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter08.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，2/3(W)

issue at this point, you are conceding that the plan has a surprising beneficial side-effect. The judge
will add the impact of this argument to the Affirmative side when deciding if advantages outweigh
disadvantages.

If, at this point, you don’t understand what turnarounds are, please re-read the section on them in the
previous chapter.

The best way to defeat a turnaround is to challenge the proof at the point the D-A was turned, either
at the link or the impact. This may mean reading new evidence to rebuild the chain of cause and
effect (link turnaround) or reading new evidence to show that the result is really bad, not beneficial
(impact turnaround). At the same time, challenge the Affirmative’s evidence and reasoning, just as
with any proof challenge. Do not re-read evidence from 2NC! That evidence is already recorded on
the judge’s flowchart, and presenting it again will not advance your case.

It may happen that the turnaround is TRUE...in other words, it sounds more reasonable than the
original Negative position, and you don’t have any evidence capable of defeating it. In that case, at
the very least, you should argue that the turnaround should not be counted in the Affirmative’s favor,
since it is an extratopical advantage. This argument can be presented against any turnaround. For an
explanation of extratopicality, see Chapter 13.

Here’s what a defense against a turnaround may sound like:

"Let us consider my third disadvantage: INCREASED INCOME TAXES LEAD TO

NUCLEAR WAR. The Affirmative ignored all the substructure and argued that nuclear
war would be desirable, since it would introduce more variation into the human gene
pool and thus promote evolutionary development of the human race. I have three
responses. ONE: THE EVIDENCE CITED IS UNTENABLE. The quotation is from 1958; the
source, Dr. Goldschmidt, was a pediatrician accused of Nazi war crimes before his
execution. TWO: THE DISADVANTAGE OUTWEIGHS ANY BENEFITS. Dr. Goldschmidt
was referring to a limited nuclear exchange that would leave the mass of humanity
untouched, but Professor of Environmental Policy Melissa Waxford writes in the April
issue of Eugenics magazine that ‘any exchange of nuclear weapons between the
superpowers would doom all of humanity, and is 99% likely to end all life on earth.’
POINT THREE: THE CLAIMED ADVANTAGE IS NOT UNIQUE. If this new genetic variation
were desirable, the U.S. could bring it about by starting nuclear war on its own. We
don’t need the Affirmative plan, so the advantage cannot be counted in the Affirmative’s
favor. The benefits are clearly extratopical, since they do not flow from the resolution."

What is the goal of the Second Affirmative Rebuttal speech?

This is the Affirmative’s last chance to score points for their side. Plus, of course, this is the very last
speech in the debate. Leave it on a firm Affirmative footing and give the judge a strong impression
that you ought to win.

What is the format of 2AR?

z PLAN ATTACKS. Start here — this is Negative turf and you want to reduce its emphasis by
concluding with your own arguments. How you argue the plan attacks will depend on how
well your partner’s rebuttal went. If 1AR beat a Negative argument, just note that fact in
passing and press on. If 1AR only damaged the plan attack a little, squash it FAST if possible.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter08.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，3/3(W)

In all cases, use a quick response to cover any extensions made during the Second Negative
Rebuttal. Such responses should reaffirm your partner’s initial 1AR analysis of the plan
attacks, of course. As you proceed down the structure of the plan attacks, point out to the judge
that none of the Negative arguments is sufficient to win the debate: the impacts are limited and
cannot overcome the Affirmatives solvency evidence and obvious plan benefits.
z TOPICALITY. If this was an issue in the debate, dispose of it as quickly as possible. You cannot
risk ignoring it in the final speech.
z CASE. Your main emphasis will be here, on the Affirmative ground. Go back to the original
1AC structure, subpoint by subpoint, and pull everything across. Show how the interplay on
each point still leaves the Affirmative ahead. Don’t forget the extra impact given by the
extensions presented in your constructive speech. Summarize the Affirmative positions as you
go down the flow. At the conclusion of each contention, show that the stock issue represented
in that contention must be awarded to the Affirmative.
z CONCLUDE. Echo the Affirmative philosophy in the last few seconds of your speech, and ask
the judge for an Affirmative ballot.

Introduction to Policy Debate

Copyright © 1990, 1993, 1996, 2002 John R. Prager
All rights reserved.
Permission is not granted to reproduce this document in whole or in part, in any medium.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter08.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，1/4(W)

Chapter 9

Flowcharting

How do I keep track of the debate?

It’s important to know what arguments you opponents have raised. Equally important, you need to
know in general terms what you are going to say when you stand up to speak. The solution is to
produce a written record of what has been argued: the flowchart, often called the flow. Recording the
debate on paper is thus called flowing the round. Each debater and the judge will prepare a flowchart
of the debate, as will most observers in a round. Each speaker will take his flowchart to the front of
the room with him when he speaks.

There are two techniques used in flowing a debate: each has its adherents, and you should use
whichever seems most comfortable to you. Most debaters prefer to use legal pads to record
arguments. The pad is turned sideways with the binding to the left, allowing lots of room to record
arguments across the page. It seems to work best to record only one or two significant arguments per
page: you might have one Affirmative contention on the first page, two contentions on the second,
the plan on the third, and each plan attack on a separate page thereafter. You should expect to use six
to ten pages per round; any less, and the notes you take get jammed together illegibly. Many debaters
record Affirmative and Negative arguments in contrasting colors of pen (black ink for Affirmative,
red for Negative), to help clarify who said what.

The alternative is to use a single sheet of large size art paper — perhaps 2' by 3' — folded into
columns, and record arguments on that. This often makes it easier to separate the positions taken by
each team. On the other hand, the huge paper is hard to manipulate when presenting a speech unless
there is a podium in the room, which often is not the case.

How is the flowchart divided?

The flow is organized into two big divisions. The "case side" deals with issues that arise from the
case presented in 1AC. This will have seven columns, to record arguments presented in 1AC, 1NC,
2AC, 1NR, 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR. Note that this is precisely the order of the speeches that comment
on case issues. Of the constructive speeches, 2NC is missing, since that speaker doesn’t deal with
harm and inherency. All four rebuttals are present, though, because all four rebuttals will deal with
case arguments.

The second division is "plan side," obviously. You will need room for five columns. The Affirmative
plan from 1AC is recorded in the first column. The next column holds the plan attacks presented in
2NC. The final three columns are for the rebuttal speeches that deal with plan issues — 1AR, 2NR,
and 2AR. Note that 1NR is not given space on this part of the flow, since that speaker will not argue
plan issues.

If you are using legal pad, remember to leave room for seven columns of arguments on each page
that has a 1AC contention. This means that you will have lots of columns active on lots of sheets of
paper. That’s okay — paper’s cheap, and you can’t afford to lose a debate because your opponents’
arguments are illegibly scribbled in a corner of the page.

Recent changes in the style of debate will require some modification to these rules of flowcharting. It
has become common for First Negatives to offer plan attacks, which cannot be flowed on the case-

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter09.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，2/4(W)

side flow (see Chapter 13). And, increasingly, Second Negatives are called upon to offer arguments
on case issues. These innovations will require some adaptation on the parts of everyone recording the
round.

What gets recorded on the flowchart?

As much as possible. The purpose behind numbering and labeling the structure of your arguments is
to aid in locating them on the flowchart. So certainly, you’ll want the complete structure of the First
Affirmative case recorded. Similarly, when the First Negative stands to present her responses to
1AC, position the arguments across from the points they refute. Where necessary, draw lines to
indicate where arguments apply.

If possible, it is a good idea to record the evidence presented by the opposing team. Ideally, you will
want the author, date, and some notes about the quality of the evidence provided.

Abbreviations are the key to successful flowing. Some abbreviations are obvious: SQ for "status
quo," INH for "inherent" or "inherency," a capital M on plan-side standing for "Mandates," an upward
or downward arrow to mean "increasing" or "decreasing." You will develop your own set of
abbreviations and symbols. At a minimum, you want to be able to note places where evidence was
presented (even if you don’t record what the evidence said); places where no evidence was presented
and your opponents relied on assertions; places where arguments were dropped by the opposing
team; and points that will require clarification in the next cross- examination period. It is important
that your debate partner understand the abbreviations you use and can read your flowchart!

How can the flowchart be used as an offensive tool?

At the same time you are recording your opponents’ arguments, you should prepare and write down
your own in the next column for your next speech. Perhaps the speaker provided no evidence for his
point? Good! Put your symbol for "assertion" in his column, and in your own next column, you can
write "1. Assertion" and maybe "2. Not true (ev.)." When the time comes to deliver your speech, you
can expand this by saying, "The Negative speaker next argued that current programs to improve
trade with Japan are working. First, note that the gentleman relied on assertion only; he presented no
evidence. But realize secondly that this assertion is simply false, as Professor Emil Gebstatter of the
University of Michigan tells us in FOREIGN POLICY of last April..."

As the season progresses, you will become more familiar with the evidence you have on hand and
the arguments that you can support. This will allow you to write your speech outline more or less
completely as you flow your opponents’ speeches. At the very least, you will be able to minimize
prep time used between speeches.

What happens if you don’t use your flow for the offense in this manner? You might be able to
extemporize a brilliant speech. But, without any notes on the flowpad, you won’t recognize when the
next speaker drops three points of your thirteen-point spread on inherency. Or maybe you will know
that the points were dropped, but you will be unable to recall what you had said in the first speech.
So a clear victory for your side may fizzle away.

I don’t think I can do this…

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter09.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，3/4(W)

Cheer up. Flowcharting is a skill, like any other. Constant practice during classroom debates and
actual tournament rounds will hone your skills. You may not be able to record everything perfectly
(not even the judge can), but your flows will get better as time goes on.

Flowcharting is perhaps the hardest single debate skill to master. Remember that your opponents are
having just as hard a time as you are, and take heart.

When the round is over, do I throw the flowchart away?

NO!!! Your flowchart is your record of what went on in the round. If you lost the debate, you need to
know precisely what arguments defeated you. If you won, you need to know where your strongest
points were. Negatives will want to discuss in class the Affirmative cases that they have met, to
prepare the rest of the squad. Affirmatives will want to share unusual Negative approaches with the
squad, so that other Affirmative can prepare for bizarre plan attacks and other Negatives can adopt
any powerful D-As.

If you have managed to record the source of any evidence in the round, it may be worthwhile to look
it up at the library. Sometimes the evidence will be useful to your teammates. Sometimes, you will
find that the evidence was misquoted or taken out of context. In the latter case, you’ll want to
photocopy the offending text and confront the team with the original source if you meet them again
in competition.

You may throw out your flowcharts at the end of the debate year, but not before. Use them as
learning tools as the season progresses — they are especially useful at the start of the year (to assess
the variety of cases being presented) and at the end of the year (in preparing for District and State
competition).

Is there a special way to flow the 1AC speech?

Affirmative teams have an advantage here: they know the content of this speech before the debate
round begins. They can prepare slip sheets to record the flow of 1AC in its entirety. These are strips
of paper attached to the rest of the flowchart with paper-clips or removable tape. The slip sheet is
attached to the first column of a new debate pad as each round begins; this saves time in flowing
during the round, since the sheets can just be switched from one flowchart to the next.

Of course, Negatives that rely on certain arguments for many of their rounds can adopt a similar
technique. The outline format of frequently-used briefs (especially topicality arguments and plan
attacks) may be recorded on adhesive notes in advance of the round. The sticky notes can then be
positioned on the flowchart in the appropriate spots whenever needed.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter09.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，4/4(W)

Introduction to Policy Debate

Copyright © 1990, 1993, 1996, 2002 John R. Prager
All rights reserved.
Permission is not granted to reproduce this document in whole or in part, in any medium.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter09.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，1/7(W)

Chapter 10

Cross-Examination

Why is cross-examination important?

First of all, the C-X period is time "up for grabs." Unlike regular speech periods, the C-X segments
are not assigned to any one speaker but are jointly shared by Affirmative and Negative. You can use
this time to make an impression on the judge, to threaten your opponent’s case, or to advance your
own analysis. Style is important. Those who perform well in the cross-ex period tend to get higher
speaker points; those who are rude or abusive will be penalized.

Secondly, this period is separate from the rest of the round. Nothing obtained during the C-X period
is official until it is introduced into formal speeches later in the debate. The Negative might get the
Affirmative to admit their plan is absolutely the worst idea ever conceived — but if the Negative
never brings this admission up in a later speech, it is lost. It is crucial that you USE the information
obtained in cross-questioning periods.

There is no place on the flow chart to record C-X questions and responses. Usually, the judge will
lay his pen down and listen to cross-examination, but will not take any notes.

Who conducts cross-examination?

C-X periods follow each of the four constructive speeches. The witness is always the person who
just concluded his or her speech. The questioner is always one of the members of the opposing team,
and each speaker must act as questioner once and only once during the debate.

Those are the official rules. There is a traditional assignment of duties not mentioned in the rules,
though: 2N questions 1A, 1A questions 1N, 1N questions 2A, 2A questions 2N. The easy way to
remember this is: when your side is scheduled to ask questions, recall which of the partners will be
giving the next full speech, and the other partner will conduct cross- examination. So, after the First
Affirmative Constructive, the Negative team’s next speaker will be 1N, and therefore 2N will ask
questions for C-X.

Why do most teams follow this pattern? Consider the example further. After 1AC, the harried First
Negative is involved in assembling his arguments. Letting the Second Negative conduct questioning
allows an extra three minutes of time for 1N to prepare. The same reasoning applies to the other
speakers. Remember, though, that this assignment is not an official rule, just a convention based on
what seems to be most effective. Cross-examination can be conducted as each side sees fit, as long as
each speaker participates once as questioner.

What are the goals of cross-examination?

There are several reasons why C-X is permitted:

z TO CLARIFY EVIDENCE, REASONING, OR CASE STRUCTURE. Given the rate at which most
debaters speak, it is common that the first few questions of C-X ask for clarification of
material the opposing team didn’t catch. "Would you read plank two of your plan again?" is

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter10.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，2/7(W)

common enough. Sometimes requests are for certain pieces of evidence to be re-read.
Occasionally the questioner ask for just the bibliographical information — the author’s name,
his qualifications, the publication and date — by asking for the citation (or cite) on that
particular card. Other times, just the quoted text is needed, and the questioner will ask for the
body of the evidence. Finally, the questioner may ask for explanation of the reasoning behind
the case analysis or a particular point of the Affirmative plan.
z TO EXPOSE ERRORS, WEAK ANALYSIS, AND ASSERTIONS. Most of these questions are
merely set-ups for the following opposing speech. The questioner is trying to determine that
the witness really did say that "rabies currently afflicts 45% of all residents of California," for
example. Or the questioner may want to highlight to the judge that there was no evidence
presented for a particularly crucial point (just an assertion by the speaker), or that the evidence
does not really prove what the speaker interpreted it to mean (weak analysis). These questions
often grow directly out of clarification questions, and lead to strong arguments in a later
speech against the value of the proof provided.
z TO GAIN ADMISSIONS, SET UP ARGUMENTS, AND REDUCE THE OPPONENT’S CREDIBILITY.
Usually this is accomplished by asking a series of questions designed to test how reliable the
opponent’s analysis is. Each question by itself may seem insignificant, but the overall thrust is
to trap the witness in a dilemma. He must either make a distasteful admission or else risk
looking foolish by insisting something is reasonable when it obviously is not.
z TO ASSIST YOUR PARTNER. The questioner wants to use the full three minutes of C-X time in
order to give his partner maximum prep time for the upcoming speech. Also, the questioner
should confer with his partner before rising to begin questioning. Find out if there is anything
your partner needs to have asked. Do not ignore his requests! If possible — and it it’s not
obvious to you — find out why he needs this information, so you can ask follow-up questions
if the witness answers imprudently.

How should the questioner conduct cross-examination?

Here are some guidelines for style and strategy that will help you elicit the best results from the C-X
period:

ADOPT A FORMAL STANCE. Look at the judge. Don’t pretend that the witness is invisible, but you
should focus on the judge rather than your opponent. This is an official rule, but it also serves a
number of commonsense purposes. The judge needs to hear the questions and answers, and if you
turn away, he might not hear clearly. And if you face the witness, it’s too easy for the C-X period to
become a confrontational shouting match; you want a calm and orderly cross-examination instead.
Just as speakers in Congress address their remarks to the presiding officer, you will address the
witness by way of the judge.

A second rule in many areas is that you may not consult your partner during the C-X period. He may
not write you notes. Any communication between you must take place before you rise to speak. A
few areas do not enforce this rule; some even welcome so-called tag team cross-examination, where
each member of the questioner’s side is free to interrogate the witness. Check with your coach to see
what style applies in your area.

PRIORITIZE YOUR QUESTIONS. Ask the most important questions first. Later on, you may wish to
go fishing for minor inconsistencies, if you have time. But you have no recourse if you ask about
trivia at the start of the period and run out of time before getting to the crucial issues. Obviously, if
you need to know the wording of a 1AC contention that you missed, that ought to be a high-priority
question.

DON’T MAKE SPEECHES. This is the time for you to ask questions; you should not offer arguments

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter10.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，3/7(W)

or read evidence. Since C-X is not recorded on the flow chart, any arguments you might make would
have to be repeated in a constructive or rebuttal speech anyway to count to your advantage, so
presenting arguments in C-X just wastes the cross-examination time.

Some people try to get around this rule, beginning a question with something like, "Are you aware
that Senator Floop said in the Congressional Record that..." and presenting evidence. The witness (if
he’s smart), will reply, "No, I’m not aware that evidence was presented in any constructive speech
this round." Avoid trying to read evidence instead of asking questions.

Likewise, don’t comment on the answers you get from the witness. Let the judge come to any
obvious conclusions, and make sure you point out the importance of the witness’ responses in your
next speech.

One other item: don’t begin your C-X by saying, "Just a few questions..." That is debate cliché that
wastes a second of time. And nobody believes it: we all know you’re going to ask three minutes of
questions. Begin with your first question.

ANTICIPATE THE ANSWER. Clarification questions excepted, you should probably expect a certain
answer from the witness for each question you ask. If the witness gives the answer you expect, build
on that response. If the witness gives an unexpected answer, that may reveal a flaw in his reasoning:
pursue the matter.

Avoid open-ended questions, which may allow the witness to drone on for a long time. Cross-
examination periods go by very fast; you can’t afford to let the witness waste time. A question like,
"Why should we adopt your plan?" addressed to the First Affirmative speaker would allow him to
repeat all the contentions of the 1AC.

GROUP YOUR QUESTIONS. Ask all your questions about inherency at one point; try not to jump
around on the flowchart. Careful notes on your flowchart will make it easier to take questions in
order. It is also helpful to write down special questions, especially high-priority ones, on a separate
index card or piece of paper before you stand to begin the interrogation.

BE FAIR. Don’t demand yes-or-no responses to a complex question. Allow the witness sufficient
time to give a reasonable answer. Do not ask a number of questions in a row and then demand a
single response.

CONTROL THE TIME. You are in control of the C-X period. You have the right to interrupt the
witness by saying, "Thank you," if you think he is wasting time deliberately. You can ask the witness
to be brief, or to respond only with a yes or no. Do so carefully — you want it clear to the judge that
you are not being pushy.

CONTROL YOUR STYLE. A patient, confident, friendly and earnest approach is always to your
advantage. Avoid theatrics. Do not pressure the witness. Avoid "Perry Mason" theatrics. You must
be firm, especially with troublesome witnesses; you must not be badgering. Don’t try tricks — they
usually backfire. The aggressive questioner who drives a novice witness to tears may win the debate
anyway (though often his performance will so alienate the judge that a loss is guaranteed), but at the
very least his speaker points will be very low.

USE WHAT YOU ELICIT. The most important advice. Build on earlier responses in order to frame
your next questions. Present the conclusions in the next speech for your side.

Can you give an example of cross-examination?

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter10.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，4/7(W)

Sure. The First Affirmative has just concluded her constructive speech. The Affirmative plan seeks
to abolish the sale of pornography through federal regulation, with the goal of reducing crime and
social violence. The Second Negative is about to begin his questioning. Notes on the techniques used
are given in brackets.

2N: Would you please re-read your definition of "pornography?"

1A: The citation, or the body of the evidence?

2N: Just the body.

1A: "Sexual pornography is graphic illustrations of sexual acts and deviancies which
appeal to base human instincts. Violence pornography is material which treats violence
in a dismissive or favorable fashion."

2N: This concept of "violence pornography" is new to me. Who was the author of that
evidence? [The commentary is unnecessary. The questioner probably should have asked for
both the source and the evidence to begin with.]

1A: Herbert Dowling, professor of communications at Rutgers.

2N: Thank you. How can we tell if a piece of literature is pornographic or not?

1A: Well, it’s a lot more than just literature. We show in contention one that television
and movies as well as printed media…

2N: Yes, I know. How can we tell if a media example, then, is pornographic? [The
witness was quibbling, and the questioner quite properly cuts her off.]

1A: I think in most cases it’s clear from the content.

2N: [He expected that answer. Now he goes fishing for a further response.] And if there is any
dispute over whether something is pornography, who decides?

1A: Under current Supreme Court rules, the community must set standards as to what
constitutes pornography in any uncertain case.

2N: [Aha! The answer he had hoped for!] Now, plank one of your plan establishes a
national regulatory board, doesn’t it?

1A: Yes, the Advisory Board to Combat Deviancy.

2N: And if this ABCD board decides that a particular "media example" is pornographic,
they can ban it nationwide, right?

1A: Yes.

2N: Then they are enforcing national standards, and not the local standards that best
determine what is pornography, aren’t they?

1A: [Oops! This looks like a trap] Um, the standards are national, yes, but in most cases
pornography is obvious and, um, national standards and local standards would agree.
[Sudden inspiration] Plus we show in contention three that local standards are not always
sufficient, so the current Supreme Court rules aren’t the best rules. That’s part of our

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter10.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，5/7(W)

inherency.

2N: Now, in contention one, you tell us that pornography is widespread, right? [He is
switching to another line of attack — but the witness doesn’t know that. He makes sure she
knows precisely what point in the case he’s referring to.]

1A: Yes, point A is PORNOGRAPHY IS ENDEMIC. It runs all through society.

2N: Everybody is exposed?

1A: Virtually everybody, through print and television.

2N: Have you been exposed to pornography?

1A: Oh, yes, often several times a day. [Well, she’d have looked silly saying No.]

2N: Hmm. And contention two is your harm contention, right? Could you summarize
the subpoints for us? [Two questions without a chance to answer is a little unfair, but they are
closely related. Certainly he knows the answer he expects the witness to give.]

1A: Contention Two is harm, right. We show in the subpoints that pornography causes
moral deterioration, sexual assaults, physical violence, and it leads to organized crime.

2N: [The trap starts to close] Have you ever committed sexual assaults or a crime of
physical violence?

1A: [Startled] What?

2N: Have you ever committed the crimes mentioned in subpoints B and C?

1A: No, of course not.

2N: But you said that you have been exposed to pornography — frequently — and your
case says pornography leads to these things. Why haven’t you begun a life of criminal
violence? [The commentary preceding the question is needed to explain the logic of the inquiry
to the witness.]

1A: No, I… The pornography I’ve been exposed to has urged me to do these things.

2N: But you’ve resisted these urges. How?

1A: I guess I had the right home environment. Good moral education, that sort of thing.

2N: Okay, then doesn’t that mean that pornography by itself isn’t the cause, but the
combination of porn and poor moral training?

1A: Well, yes, but we can’t regulate moral training.

2N: But if we could regulate moral training, there would be no need for the Affirmative
plan to regulate pornography, right?

1A: I don’t believe you can regulate home life that way.

At this point the witness is in hot water. She doesn’t want to admit that her plan might not be needed,

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter10.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，6/7(W)

but — given the chain of admissions she has made so far — she can’t very well insist that the plan is
needed for everyone. Rather than admit one side or the other of this dilemma, she falls back on a
lame-sounding excuse. (As an alternative, she could have replied that regulating pornography was
necessary to cure the organized crime problem).

Overall, we can see that the Negative has set up a possible topicality challenge (over the definition of
"violence pornography"), a possible PMA or D-A (on national standards vs. local standards), and a
possible harm or inherency attack (concerning pornography’s causal role in creating violence and
sexual assault). A very good approach for the questioner!

How should the witness act during cross-examination?

ADOPT A FORMAL STANCE. You, too, should look only at the judge. You may not consult your
partner in answering questions. In many rules, these are official rules and you can be disqualified for
violating them. As with tag-team cross-examination, though, some areas allow or prefer partner
cooperation during C-X. Consult with your coach for advice here.

BE DIRECT. Answer questions fully but concisely. Don’t go out of your way to waste the
questioner’s time — the judge will notice it. If you must qualify your response, do so first. Starting
out, "yes, but..." risks being cut off by the questioner after your "yes" response. A better approach is
to say, "Except for the case where...., my answer is yes."

BE HONEST. Admit the obvious. If you are wrong, say so. Trying to insist that an invalid position is
right only makes you look foolish. Don’t try to evade the question.

Be direct, honest, and open. "I don’t know," and "My partner can deal with that better than I can,"
are acceptable answers if honestly given. Don’t overuse the "My partner will bring that up / read that
evidence in his next speech," however — and if you do say it, make sure you follow through on it.

ANSWER, DON’T ASK. Your role is to respond to the questions, not ask them. You can legitimately
request clarification if you do not understand the question.

THINK AHEAD. As the example above shows, small questions can build on each other to
embarrassingly large conclusions. Anticipate where the questioner is leading, so you can defuse the
final conclusion early.

REMAIN POISED. Project an honest, calm, friendly attitude. A calm confidence will help you answer
questions with assurance, and will improve the impression you make on the judge. And it will
unnerve the opposing team — the questioner will keep wondering why you are so confident despite
all the admissions you seem to be making. Do you know something he doesn’t ?Is he going to look
foolish raising these points in his next speech? By remaining composed yourself, you can destroy the
confidence of the questioner.

It is especially important to remain poised when replying to a bullying, sarcastic, or abusive

questioner. Your composure will make his tactics seem even more offensive to the judge, and your
side in the debate will profit from the contrast.

What is the most common cross-examination question?

No question about it: when the Second Negative rises to interrogate the First Affirmative, the first

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter10.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，7/7(W)

thing he asks is likely to be, "Can the Negative see a copy of your case?"

Too often, the Negative partners fail to prepare an adequate flowchart of 1AC, partly because they
are blocking out arguments to make in upcoming speeches. It would be better to concentrate on
obtaining an adequate flow. The Second Negative speaker, in fact, has two full constructive speeches
during which he can prepare for 2NC.

The Affirmative team also bears some responsibility for this problem. All too frequently, 1AC
speaks too fast for adequate communication. In many cases, this is a deliberate tactic to confuse the
Negative team. But this approach also risks confusing the judge, who is not allowed to examine the
written Affirmative case.

Negatives must realize that it is permissible for the Affirmative team to refuse to provide a copy of
the case. Debate is an oral activity, and if the Affirmative team is unwilling to share a written
transcript of their speech, the Negatives have no recourse.

Affirmative partners should decide before the debate begins if they are willing to hand out copies of
their case. If they are willing, they should have several copies available; but they should also take
care to collect all copies after each round is concluded. If they plan to refuse such requests, they must
make sure that the 1AC speech is clearly delivered, so that the judge will not penalize the
Affirmative for trickery. Affirmatives should also consult with their coach for advice on whether
surrendering a copy of the case is to be allowed, based on the expectations that prevail in the debate
community.

Introduction to Policy Debate

Copyright © 1990, 1993, 1996, 2002 John R. Prager
All rights reserved.
Permission is not granted to reproduce this document in whole or in part, in any medium.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter10.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，1/17(W)

Chapter 11

Topicality

We have had several references to topicality so far. What is it?

At the core, the basic Affirmative burden is to promote the resolution. Their plan must put the
resolution into effect; the plan must draw its advantages from the specifics of the resolution; the case
must explain why the resolution is vital.

The Negative topicality argument is the supreme challenge to this viewpoint. The Negative will argue
that the Affirmative team is abandoning this duty to support the resolution — in effect, that the
Affirmative team is cheating. Because of the extraordinary nature of this claim, in many cases the
Negative team will win automatically if they win a topicality argument.

There are three types of topicality challenge the Negative can make. The nontopicality challenge
argues that the Affirmative hasn’t done enough to sponsor the resolution; sometimes this argument is
called subtopicality. The nontopicality challenge is the most common, and is the argument most
debaters refer to when they mention "topicality." The extratopicality argument claims that the
Affirmative has gone too far — that they have gone beyond the resolution in order to gain their
advantages. Lastly, the topicality justification (often, simply justification) argument claims that the
case doesn’t give enough explanation for why the resolution, rather than the plan, need be adopted.

Topicality — and counterplans, which are discussed in the following chapter — are parts of
intermediate debate theory. Every debater needs to know and understand the nature of topicality
arguments, but the other stuff is more important. Don’t read this chapter until you are familiar with
speaker duties, stock issues, and the other material covered in the earlier chapters.

Since topicality can guarantee a victory, should Negatives always use it?

No. In fact, overuse of topicality arguments is one of the traps many Negatives fall into. Topicality
should be used sparingly. A strong Negative challenge will take several minutes to present, and will
cut time for presenting other arguments. So you should reserve topicality challenges for those
instances where either you have no other arguments to make, or you are confident of winning the
topicality issue because it is so clear-cut.

Additionally, many judges are reluctant to vote on topicality if that would involve an automatic loss
for the Affirmative team, since the judge would rather see the case debated on its merits rather than on
a procedural issue. Other judges don’t understand the nature of the topicality argument, and won’t
grant it the importance that the Negative wants. Judges are an independent bunch — they can refuse
to decide which way an argument like topicality falls, and there is no appeal from their decision. And
many judges at invitational tournaments or league debates may not be completely familiar with debate
theory, and will fail to grasp what topicality means. Since you may not know until after the round if
you’re facing one of these judges, the best approach is to save topicality until you really need it.

Topicality is best reserved for the so-called squirrel cases: Affirmative cases that rely on an unusual
twist to the meaning of the resolution’s terms. Since topicality arguments deal closely with
definitions, they are the most powerful tool you have to fight squirrel approaches.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter11.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，2/17(W)

What special evidence will I need to argue topicality issues?

Both Affirmative and Negative teams will want to devote a section of their file boxes to definitions of
key terms of the resolution. Dictionary definitions are fine, to begin with —collect several definitions
of each term. Later, you will look for special definitions in legal dictionaries, social science
dictionaries, and other specialized reference works.

Explain the reasoning behind the nontopicality argument.

The focus of this argument is on the plan. The Negative maintains that what the Affirmative plan
proposes is not what the resolution specifies: that the plan falls short of being an example of the
resolution.

In a law court, the equivalent argument deals with jurisdiction. Nobody can be prosecuted in state
court for a federal crime, for example, and nobody can be prosecuted in a New Jersey court for a
crime that happened in New Mexico involving only people who were New Mexico citizens. A
defendant who argues successfully that the court has no jurisdiction over his case will have his case
dismissed without the merits of the case being investigated.

Since the Negative is defending the status quo — you will recall our discussion of presumption back
in the early chapters of this text — they have much the position of the defendant in a trial. In the
debate, a nontopicality argument claims that the judge has no jurisdiction over the Affirmative’s
charges, since they are outside the resolution. If the judge accepts this argument, the Affirmative must
lose (the case against the status quo is dismissed), regardless of whether the Affirmative’s case
analysis was true.

Nontopicality is a yes-or-no issue. Either the Affirmative is topical on each term the Negative
challenges, or they are not. If they are not topical on any single point, they ought to lose the debate.
This is the impact of a topicality challenge: it’s an absolute issue that, if lost, will lose the debate for
the Affirmative. Usually, it is called an independent voting issue: independent in the sense that it is
separate from the stock issues, and a "voting" issue because the judge’s decision on which team
carries the argument may determine which side wins.

Is any side favored in a nontopicality challenge?

Yes: the Affirmative, initially.

Much like presumption shields the Negative on case issues, the Affirmative plan is assumed to be
topical until it is challenged. The Negative has a burden of proof to show that the Affirmative plan is
nontopical, if they decide to present this argument. Additionally, the Affirmative has the right in
debate to define terms, and topicality hinges on definitions.

On the other hand, the Negative team has the right and the duty to challenge outlandish definitions. So
a well-presented nontopicality argument can overcome the bias in favor of the Affirmative and may
win the debate for the Negative. The upshot is that these arguments, since they are so important, must
be presented strongly and structured clearly if they are to have maximum effect.

Who presents a nontopicality argument?

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter11.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，3/17(W)

Since this is by its nature a new issue in the debate, nontopicality must appear in a Negative
constructive speech. At one time it was standard for it to be assigned to the Second Negative. But
judges reasoned that, since this was so important an issue to the Negative — they’re accusing the
Affirmative of cheating, after all — delaying the presentation until 2NC was unethical.

It is now standard to introduce nontopicality as an issue in 1NC, usually as an overview before the
speaker begins with case arguments. If the Negative team delays until 2NC to present it, many judges
will not vote on the issue, in effect deciding for the Affirmative on this point. You are advised to
begin your nontopicality arguments in the First Negative Constructive, if you are planning to use such
attacks.

What is the structure of the nontopicality argument?

There are three distinct parts to the argument.

First, the Negative must propose some way to decide whether a case is topical or not, in the form of
standards for judging whether the definition of a word or phrase is appropriate. Second, the Negative
will cite each violation that the Affirmative team has committed — each instance where they ignore
or distort the meaning of a word in the resolution. Finally, the Negative provides the impact for the
nontopicality argument, by reminding the judge that topicality is a threshold issue that may spell
doom for the Affirmatives.

What sort of standards are used?

Standards are tools used to determine if a definition is legitimate. There are about a dozen or so
standards in common usage — but really they tend to be variations on four fundamental approaches.
You should be familiar with all the variations on jargon, so we’ll look at these commonly-used
standards briefly. In each "family" of standards, the first example is the fundamental one, and the later
examples are simple variants on that approach.

The Meaning-based Family of Standards

MEANINGFULNESS or EACH WORD HAS MEANING is one of the most widely used standards. The
Negative argues that each term in the resolution was put there for a purpose, and to overlook one
word or phrase alters the resolution as a whole. They may argue that the Affirmative plan would be
just as topical if a particular phrase were dropped out of the resolution, thus proving that the plan does
not take into account the meaning of the phrase in question. If the Affirmative approach makes words
redundant, then that is a sign that the Affirmative interpretation is misguided.

NON-CONTRADICTION or INVARIANCE. This standard — which goes by either name — is useful

only under certain resolutions. The Negative team insists that a word may not be used in two
contradictory senses within the same plan. Consider the case where the resolution called for the
Affirmative to "implement a program for deep sea fishing," and the Affirmative plan outlawed tuna
fishing (which sometimes kills dolphins) and established incentives for former fishermen to grow
agricultural crops. Negatives might concede that the phrase "implement a program," could mean
either to establish a new policy (farming incentives) or to abolish an old policy (banning tuna fishing).
But they would argue that for one plan to do both creates a conflict: the phrase is being used with two
contradictory meanings — to create and to abolish — within the plan.

PRESERVING GRAMMATICAL MEANING. Negatives will argue that the grammar of the resolution
must be considered when assigning definitions to words. This standard often appears when Negatives

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter11.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，4/17(W)

are challenging topicality based on particle words like "a" and "to." For instance, "a" commonly
means "one," so if the resolution requires the Affirmative to "adopt a policy," Negatives will claim
that a plan that undertakes more than one fundamental action is ignoring the grammatical function of
the word "a."

The grammatical meaning standard often applies to phrases as well as single words. Consider the
resolution, "Resolved: That the federal government should establish a program to aid the needy in the
United States." The Affirmative plan proposes to feed the starving people of Africa; Affirmatives
argue that since the plan is funded and sponsored in the United States, they are topical. But the clause
"in the United States" clearly modifies the word "needy," not the word "program," making this
Affirmative approach nontopical.

PRESERVING CONTEXTUAL MEANING. The words of the resolution must be defined consistently
with the surrounding words; choosing isolated definitions can lead to absurdity. Let us suppose the
resolution required the Affirmatives to promote "financial security during retirement for senior
citizens." One definition of "retirement" is "withdrawal from the world." Using that definition in
isolation would imply that cases dealing with the financial needs of elderly monks and hermits would
be topical. The context of the other terms in the resolution make it clear this is a distortion.

Negatives commonly apply this standard to specific phrases, where a cluster of words has a special
meaning other than the words in isolation. For instance, "free expression" has a distinct meaning as a
phrase that is not equally well-defined by separate definitions for "free" and "expression."

The Quality-based Family of Standards

BEST DEFINITION or BETTER DEFINITION is the official standard adopted by some national college
debate programs; there is no official ruling for high school debaters. The Negative here argues that, if
the Affirmative and Negative definitions disagree, the better definition should apply. Of course, the
Negative will go on to present a definition which they say is "better," and try to show that the
Affirmative plan fails to meet that definition.

Better Definition acquires more force as a standard when the Affirmative has not presented formal
definitions, but relied instead on operational definitions. It seems intuitively pleasing as an argument:
debaters constantly are told that the better evidence will win an argument, so shouldn’t the better
definition also be used in judging the meaning of words? Over time, though, it became obvious to the
debate community that calling for a "better definition" wasn’t really sufficient guidance: How can you
tell when one definition is better than another? This problem led to the development of the other
standards in this family.

FIELD CONTEXT. This is a commonly-used variation on Best Definition. Each year’s topic deals with
a specific segment of social or governmental policy, the Negatives say, so the best definitions come
from experts in the field. Thus, if the resolution deals with deep-sea fishing rights, presumably
fishermen and lawyers specializing in the law of international waters would be the experts best able to
define the terms.

Negatives love the field context standard. Unfortunately, they rarely realize that there often is a
circular argument at its heart. Consider a Negative topicality challenge based on the term "foreign
policy" in the resolution. Negatives will try defining the term as it is used by experts in the field of
international relations — but that’s silly. If you don’t know what "foreign policy" means, then you
can’t say whether authorities in international relations are experts in foreign policy or not. In other
words, field context is a useless standard when you’re trying to determine what makes up the "field."

On the other hand, field context can be useful when defining other terms of the resolution. Consider a

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter11.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，5/17(W)

resolution requiring the Affirmative to "adopt a foreign policy to limit economic globalization." While
Negatives cannot use foreign policy experts to define "foreign policy" — at least, not without circular
reasoning — they certainly can use those experts to define "economic globalization."

COMMON USAGE. This variation of Best Definition is directly opposed to the field context standard.
The Negative argues that the resolution is worded by nonprofessionals for use by non-experts, so the
best definitions to use are the everyday common ones. Thus, general dictionary definitions will be
preferable to definitions from experts in the field. This is one of the few common standards that
Affirmative teams will sometimes use, too.

LEGAL CONTEXT. This is a specialized version of field context. Since every Affirmative plan has the
form of a law passed by Congress, the Negatives will argue, the best way to define terms used in the
resolution is the way lawmakers do. The Negative may cite definitions used by Congress when
passing laws, or the definitions used by various courts when deciding what laws and contracts mean.

There are many resources you can consult to get appropriate definitions for a legal context standard.
The U.S. CODE is a multi-volume collection of the laws passed by the federal Congress. It is
constantly updated. Many recent laws have lists of definitions that appear in the Code at the start of
the relevant chapters. Most college and public libraries and some school libraries have sets of the U.S.
Code.

BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY provides some common legal definitions of terms, and it is a highly
respected source, but most of its definitions deal with Latin legal phrases of little use in debate. Two
other multi-volume reference works, WORDS AND PHRASES and CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, are
more useful to the debater. These encyclopedias record how courts have interpreted common words
and phrases as they appear in laws, contracts, and deeds. These encyclopedias may be hard to find,
but they provide a great resource for the debater. On the other hand, because courts aren’t always
consistent, many of the definitions will be mutually contradictory.

Legal Context is a widely accepted standard. Many of the so-called Better Definition arguments really
rely on legal definitions and fall under this standard.

FRAMERS’ INTENT. The best definitions, some Negatives may claim, come from what the authors
meant when they wrote the resolution. The Supreme Court, for example, often looks at the record of
debate in Congress when deciding what a law’s terms means, or they may look at the Federalist Papers
when deciding if a law is constitutional. Similarly, debaters can look at the early committee reports
from the group that wrote this year’s resolution, or look at the related topic area and discussion
questions, to see what is the true meaning of each word and phrase.

Some debate judges reject this approach. While the records of the committee that wrote the resolution
are often available, the authors generally disavow any special expertise in interpreting the resolution,
saying that the words of the resolution are now in the public domain. Affirmatives can sometimes use
the framers’ intent standard to argue that their plan was something that the original study committee
did consider as a potential Affirmative case for the resolution.

The Borderline-based Family of Standards

SETTING LIMITS, FAIRNESS, or DIVISION OF GROUND. This one standard can appear under several
names. The definitions used must divide Affirmative and Negative ground fairly, giving equal room
for each side to develop arguments. Any definition which does not so divide the resolution into clear
turf, the Negative will argue, fails to set limits and thus in not acceptable for debate. Thus any
definition that would make it impossible for the Negative to suggest minor repairs or a counterplan
would violate the Fairness standard. This concept of clear borders between Affirmative and Negative

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter11.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，6/17(W)

ground is why we call this the primary example of the borderline family of definition standards.

BRIGHT LINE. Negatives use this standard to claim that the proper definitions for terms of the
resolution are those which set an obvious and unambiguous marker between Affirmative and
Negative ground. This standard says that we need to use definitions which give a self-evident yes-or-
no test to whether the plan is following the terms of the resolution. For example, when the resolution
uses the words "significant" or "substantial," Negatives will commonly use a bright line standard to
argue that the Affirmative should meet some specific numerical target, in contrast to interpreting the
key term as "big, important, momentous" — a definition which is clearly less precise.

The final example in the borderline family is THE VACUUM TEST. Negatives will use this to make the
point that we need to "look at the plan in a vacuum" — that is, in isolation from other arguments in
the debate round — to see whether it falls within the resolution. Most often, Negatives are making the
point that the plan must be topical on its face, rather than a byproduct of solvency. For instance, if the
resolution calls for the Affirmative to "establish a program to significantly limit immigration to the
United States," it should be self-evident that the plan does restrict immigration by law. A plan which
doesn’t act directly in this regard would fail the vacuum test. While this standard is not commonly
used for conventional nontopicality arguments, it is very important for something called effects
topicality, which we’ll look at a little later in this chapter.

The Reasonability-based Family of Standards

REASONABILITY. Unlike the other standards, this one is usually argued by the Affirmative in defense
of its position. The Affirmative is usually conceded to have the right to define terms in any reasonable
manner. Affirmative teams will argue that their definitions fall into the zone of reasonability, and
therefore their case is topical.

The chief difficulty with this standard is that reasonability itself is a fairly vague concept.
Affirmatives cannot know in advance if the judge will believe that their interpretation of the
resolution is a reasonable one. Negatives will often argue that failing to preserve the meaning of
words, or using a poor definition when a better one is available, is sufficient to make the Affirmative
definition unreasonable.

The other standard in this family — again, usually used by Affirmatives — is the argument that
LITERATURE CHECKS ABUSE. When Affirmatives make this claim, they are saying that policy
experts (yep, the same people we met in the field context standard) generally use the terms in the
same way the Affirmative is using the terms. Published material in the topic area ("literature") stops
("checks") any attempt to mangle the meaning of the terms in the topic ("abuse").

Again, Negatives will usually find this an insufficient response. Perhaps there are experts who use
terms in the same way that the Affirmative team is, they will concede. However, those experts are not
facing the duty to discuss the limited topic area bounded by the words of the resolution. The
"literature" doesn’t take into account the precision demanded by a specific debate resolution — so the
fact that Affirmatives have found an author who defines terms in a specific way doesn’t ward them
from charges of being abusive.

How does the Negative demonstrate the standards are violated?

After presenting one or more standards, the Negative speaker then cites each instance where the
Affirmative distorts or ignores the meanings of the words involved. Usually, the Negative presents a
formal definition of his or her own. He reminds the judge of the Affirmative definition, if one was

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter11.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，7/17(W)

presented. He then argues that the Affirmative definition violates the standards, while the Negative
definition preserves them. Then he moves on to the next phrase under dispute.

What is the impact argument?

The concluding part of the nontopicality attack reminds the judge of the effect of topicality on the
debate — the Affirmative MUST lose if they are found to be nontopical at any point, and that
topicality is a yes-or-no decision for each phrase under discussion. Keep this portion short. Make sure
there enough to remind inexperienced judges how important topicality is. But experienced judges
don’t like to have debate theory quoted at them, so don’t lecture the judge too much. It’s a fine line
you get to walk here.

It is becoming increasingly important, though, not just to claim that nontopicality is a voting issue, but
to provide some reasoning why it ought to be a voting issue. Again, this does not require a vast and
lengthy explanation, but some reasons should be given whenever you offer one of these arguments.
Common reasons for believing topicality a voting issue include: because it’s a rule of the game;
because it serves as a parallel to jurisdiction in a courtroom; because of tradition; because educational
debate requires a definite and fixed subject for meaningful discussion; because the tournament
invitation said or implies that this topic was to be debated, and thus participants have an obligation to
respect this social agreement; and so forth.

Should I label and signpost this argument?

You should label and signpost every argument you present. Here is the outline of a nontopicality
challenge:

THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN FAILS TO IMPLEMENT THE RESOLUTION

A. STANDARDS EXIST TO DETERMINE TOPICALITY.

(Substructure here — one point for each standard you suggest. Analysis will
defend why these standards are good.)
B. THE AFFIRMATIVE USE OF [word 1] VIOLATES THESE STANDARDS.
(Possible substructure here, or you may just present an alternative definition,
and show how it is superior to the Affirmative’s at meeting the standards)

C. THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE MUST BE REJECTED AS NONTOPICAL.

(A short argument for topicality being an absolute and independent voting issue
should be used here.)

Of course, if you had more violations to cite, they would appear as points C, D, E, and so on, with the
last subpoint being the impact argument.

Can you show me an example of a nontopicality argument?

I thought you’d never ask. Assume that the resolution is "Resolved: that the federal government
should adopt a comprehensive policy to reform the jury system in the United States." The Affirmative
plan would abolish the grand jury — an investigative body — and replace it with broader prosecutor

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter11.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，8/17(W)

powers. The First Negative begins his Constructive speech:

"Before diving into the specifics of the Affirmative contentions, I want to begin with an overview on
topicality. THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN FAILS TO IMPLEMENT THE RESOLUTION. Subpoint A:
STANDARDS EXIST TO DETERMINE TOPICALITY. The Negative will suggest two standards to
determine if a plan really stands as an example of the resolution. Our first standard: Meaningfulness.
Each word in the resolution was put there for a purpose and ought to serve a function. The second
standard: Better Definition. When conflict arises between the Affirmative and Negative interpretation
of definitions, the better definition should prevail.

"I will be citing four separate reasons why the Affirmative loses topicality. The first of these is
Subpoint B: THE AFFIRMATIVE VIOLATES THE WORD ADOPT. We will defend the definition
of adopt found in Webster’s Second International Dictionary, 1957: ‘In a legal sense, to cause to
occur; to take action with a certain result in view.’ Opposed to this, the Affirmative gives us no
formal definitions. By the Affirmative plan, the states and local governments are called upon to
abolish their grand juries and to expand prosecutor powers, but the federal government is not taking
any direct action. States are doing the ‘adopting’ under the Affirmative plan; the federal government
is not.

"Subpoint C: THE AFFIRMATIVE VIOLATES THE WORD A. Again from Webster’s Second, we
find that ‘a’ means ‘one, as opposed to many.’ But the Affirmative plan clearly takes at least two
distinct steps — abolition of grand juries, and enhancement of prosecutor powers. That is more than
one step. This violation of a tiny word makes the plan outside the resolution.

"Subpoint D: THE AFFIRMATIVE VIOLATES THE WORD COMPREHENSIVE. Webster’s

Second says this word means ‘extensive; including much.’ We have only an operational definition
from the Affirmative. Does their plan include much? There are over fifty times the number of trial
juries as there are grand juries, yet the Affirmative plan deals with only the latter. Since the
Affirmative plan deals with less than two percent of the jury system, conclude that it is hardly
comprehensive.

"Subpoint E: THE AFFIRMATIVE VIOLATES THE WORD IN. Again, from Webster, we get the
definition ‘throughout.’ But the First Affirmative tells us that grand juries now exist in only thirty-odd
states. So there’s nothing to eliminate in eleven states, and the Affirmative plan cannot extend
throughout the U.S. when there is nothing for it to do in many areas.

"Finally, let’s look at the impact of this argument. Subpoint F: THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE MUST
BE REJECTED AS NONTOPICAL. Topicality is a threshold issue that the Affirmative must pass
before they are allowed to proceed. Topicality has this status because if tradition and the need for a
fixed subject to maximize educational value of debate. Each of these violations is an independent
voting issue with absolute impact on the debate."

How does the Affirmative answer a nontopicality argument?

Since nontopicality carries so large a penalty — loss of the debate! — if the Negative wins the issue,
the Affirmative cannot afford to give the argument anything less than their full attention. Most of the
burden will be on the Second Affirmative, of course, since he or she must provide the initial answers
to the 1NC argument.

If topicality was not introduced in the round until 2NC, then the First Affirmative must grapple with
the issue in the rebuttal. The 1AR speaker should first point out to the judge that delaying the
argument to this late point weakens the Negative position. Then 1AR should refute topicality as
quickly as possible.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter11.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，9/17(W)

Affirmatives will first argue the issue of standards. You may want to accept the Negative standards,
especially a Meaningfulness standard. Against any form of the Better Definition standard, the best
response is to insist that Reasonability is a superior standard. In other words, the Affirmative will
argue that "better" definitions are irrelevant: the Affirmative is entitled to use any definitions that it
wants, provided they are legitimate meanings of the words in question, just as the Affirmative is
granted the right to choose the specific harm and inherency issues to be debated.

Against the violation arguments, the Affirmative has a number of choices. They can argue that they
do, if fact, meet the Negative definitions. Or they can propose their own definitions (either dictionary
definitions or the operational ones), and argue that the plan meets these definitions "reasonably" well,
under the Reasonableness standard. Or they can argue that their definitions meet the Negative
standards — for example, that the Affirmative definition is better than the Negative’s .The
Affirmative must make at least one response to each of the violation arguments.

Of course, it’s common for Affirmatives to offer multiple responses to a nontopicality challenge.
They can (1) argue that the Negative standards are bad ones; (2) that the Negative definitions don’t
meet the Negative standards; (3) that the Affirmative plan meets the Negative definitions, so there is
no violation; (4) that better Affirmative standards exist; and/or (5) that Affirmative definitions meet
the superior Affirmative standards, so those definitions should be used to prove the plan is topical. If
an Affirmative team makes all five of these claims, then they have five different potential ways to
defeat the topicality argument before the round is over.

Can the Affirmatives challenge the impact of a nontopicality argument?

They can. It’s not always the best approach, however. For the impact argument, it is often best if the
Affirmative concedes that topicality is an absolute, independent voting issue. A lot of judges believe it
is, and will disregard any Affirmative attempt to argue that it isn’t .

However, a few strategies have been tried by Affirmatives to win even this point, under the notion
that they can then risk losing a violation argument. Why? Well, if topicality isn’t a voting issue, then
the judge will not give the Affirmatives a loss even if they are proven to be nontopical. Both
Affirmative and Negative teams should be aware that these arguments exist:

TREATING TOPICALITY AS ABSOLUTE LIMITS FREEDOM OF SPEECH. Affirmatives argue that the
value of free speech is important to American society, and should not be abridged. Such abridgment is
especially intolerable in educational public speaking. But requiring them to deal with the resolution
restricts what the Affirmatives can say, thus abridging free speech. Therefore, they conclude, the
judge should support free speech by refusing to vote on topicality.

DISCARDING TOPICALITY ENLARGES EDUCATIONAL VALUE. Affirmatives note that Negatives have
great freedom to propose counterplans and disadvantages far outside the resolution. Allowing the
Affirmatives similar freedom by discarding the notion of topicality allows the Affirmative to research
and debate areas of government policy much broader than the resolution allows, thus opening new
educational opportunities for both teams.

NEGATIVES ARE ABUSING THE DEBATE PROCESS WITH THE ARGUMENT. Because topicality is a
no-risk strategy for the Negatives, they tend to use it as a "time suck" — a tactic to force the
Affirmatives to fritter away their speaking time on a stupid procedural trick. That means less time
devoted to debating about (and learning about) the important issues of the topic.

The Negative should be prepared for these arguments. Against the Freedom of Speech argument, the
Negative could respond that the Affirmative has complete freedom of speech — but they shouldn’t
expect to be rewarded with a win if they wander from the topic. Nor should their freedom extend so

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter11.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，10/17(W)

far as to violate the rules of debate (such as sticking to the resolution) any more than the Negative’s
freedom of speech should allow them a fifteen minute 2NC speech because there are so many flaws in
the plan that ought to be mentioned.

Against the Educational Value argument, Negatives should respond that discarding topicality destroys
the educational value of debate. The resolution is designed to separate Affirmative and Negative
ground (see the Fairness standard listed above). If the resolution is dismissed, Affirmative ground
expands without limit and Negative ground shrinks to nothing. Moreover, there is no way that the
Negative can prepare to attack a case without a basic guideline as to what that case may concern.
Finally, the Affirmative speakers are free to research any area of social policy they like in order to
enhance their own education, and they are free to debate such policies with their teammates on their
own time; but within the context of this particular round, sticking to the announced topic is clearly
fairest for everyone.

Against a Time Suck argument… Hmm, the Negatives can really get in trouble here. The best
response is to declare that the nontopicality challenge was meant sincerely, and not just as a maneuver
to waste time. However, the fact is that Negatives often do use topicality to rattle the Affirmative
team, and often drop the argument in their last speeches. A Negative team which reserves topicality
arguments for when they are needed, and pursues the issue all through the debate, is clearly less
vulnerable to a time suck claim. You would be wise to follow that principle.

Give me an example of a 2AC response to a nontopicality argument.

We will show how the Second Affirmative could respond to the nontopicality challenge given earlier.

"The First Negative began with a topicality challenge, so let us turn to that before reestablishing the
Affirmative case. The gentleman presented us with two standards in his A subpoint. We will accept
the position that each word in the resolution has meaning, but we reject the standard that the better
definition must prevail. The proper standard here is Reasonability. The Affirmative team must be
allowed to define terms any way it wishes in line with common usage, so long as these definitions are
reasonable ones. I’ll show you that we implement these terms in a reasonable manner.

"Turn to the violations. Point B claims we violate the word ‘adopt.’ But use the Negative’s own
definition. Our plan makes the federal government ‘take action with a certain result in view,’ that
result being abolition of the grand jury. And federal action is needed to outlaw these juries
everywhere. Conclude that our plan causes a policy to be adopted.

"Point C claims we violate the word ‘a.’ We’ll accept that ‘a’ means only one. But just as a — one —
train can have many cars, or a — one — circus can have many elephants, so can a — one — policy or
Affirmative plan have several results. We implement only one plan, but it happens to have more than
one effect.

"In point D, the gentleman claims we abused the word ‘comprehensive.’ His definition is on target,
but his analysis is not. We abolish one hundred percent of all grand juries now existing. Our plan
comprehensively treats the grand jury system; you can’t include more than 100 percent!

"Consider point E, where we’re told we violate the term ‘in.’ The Affirmative prefers the definition of
‘within’ as opposed to ‘throughout.’ In general, that’s the more useful definition. After all, if you have
a hornet trapped in your car, it would be more accurate to say it’s within your car rather than
throughout your car. The Reasonability standard applies here. The plan abolishes grand juries within
the U.S., so we’re topical. In fact, we forbid grand juries to be reestablished anywhere throughout the
United States in the future, so we even meet the defective Negative definition.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter11.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，11/17(W)

"Finally, we will grant subpoint F, that topicality is an absolute voting issue. But we meet all the
Negative objections reasonably well. So we must conclude that the Affirmative plan passes the
threshold, and is absolutely topical."

Can you explain extratopicality in greater detail?

The Affirmatives’ power of fiat allows them to do anything they like in their plan. In most instances,
the points of the plan that put the resolution into effect will be clustered together in the mandates
plank. But various other support planks — finance, enforcement, and administration — will also
exist. They are vital for the plan to operate, but they are NOT absolutely required by the resolution.

All the Affirmative advantages (or solvency points, if the harm / inherency / solvency analysis is
used) should be produced from the mandates. The resolution, as embodied in the mandates of the
plan, should produce the advantages. Any benefits produced by the support provisions is invalid; it is
an extratopical advantage.

This shows the clear difference between nontopicality and extratopicality. Nontopicality concentrates
on the plan, and argues that the plan doesn’t go far enough to put the resolution into effect.
Extratopicality concentrates on one advantage, and argues that the plan goes too far beyond the
resolution.

A clear example: let us suppose that the resolution deals with space exploration rights. The
Affirmative plan has a large number of finance methods, producing oodles of cash. Their plan will
expand NASA’s exploration of outer space, and will also devote any excess funds to reducing the
federal deficit. So far, everything is legitimate. But the 1AC case claims two advantages: an increase
in knowledge from space exploration, and economic health resulting from trimming the federal debt.
This second advantage is extratopical, since it could be achieved without adopting the resolution.

Extratopicality is rarely argued; most Affirmative cases draw their advantages from the resolution.
Extratopicality is, however, often a good argument to make against the extra advantages tagged on to
the end of a modified comparative advantage case; this case form has been discussed in Chapter 3.

Who argues extratopicality?

Again, the Negative must raise the issue, since there is an Affirmative presumption on all topicality
matters. Ideally, 1N will bring up the point in his Constructive speech, as part of his point-by-point
refutation of the case. The best point to argue extratopicality is at the start of refutation for a specific
advantage, before covering the subpoints. If the Affirmative is using a traditional needs case form, the
Negative speaker may wish to save his topicality argument until the solvency point (one of the few
times 1NC will have something to say about solvency). Since solvency is usually placed near the end
of Affirmative case, though, 1N risks running out of time before he gets to this vital argument; he
may prefer to argue extratopicality at the start of his speech as an overview, much like nontopicality is
handled.

Sometimes the Second Negative speaker must handle this argument. It is possible that the Second
Affirmative Constructive will claim additional advantages from the plan: some of these might be
extratopical. The 2NC speech, in this case, should start out with an overview to point out the
extratopicality before the speaker presents his plan attacks. The Negative team can’t wait until 1NR to
present this argument, since that would entail a new argument in rebuttal.

An extratopicality argument may also arise in the Second Negative Rebuttal! If the Affirmative

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter11.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，12/17(W)

attempts a turnaround of a disadvantage, 2N may be able to argue that the new advantage doesn’t
flow from the resolution and thus shouldn’t count on the Affirmative side. This tactic was discussed
to some degree in Chapter 9. The 2NR speaker should claim that this extratopicality analysis is not a
new argument but an extension of earlier analysis. Overall, applying extratopicality to a turned
disadvantage is a weak response, but it may be the only tool Negatives have available against some
arguments.

What happens when the Affirmative has an extratopical advantage?

Even debate experts argue about that. There are three viewpoints about what occurs when the
Negative wins an extratopicality challenge:

ONLY THE ADVANTAGE IS LOST. This is the majority viewpoint among debate scholars. In this
reasoning, extratopicality is not an absolute issue. The advantage is dropped from the debate; it cannot
count in the Affirmative’s favor. But the Affirmative can still win the round if they have other
advantages that outweigh the Negative D-As. Of course, if the Affirmative had only one advantage,
they are in deep trouble. The plan remains intact, so the plank that produced the invalid advantage can
still function — and any disadvantages linked to that plank remain valid.

THE OFFENDING PLAN PLANK IS LOST. A minority of judges hold that whatever parts of the plan
produce an extratopical advantage must be discarded; it is assumed that Congress will not pass these
laws. The invalid advantage is discarded along with the planks, of course. The remainder of the plan
must stand or fall on its own merits. Most likely, this will severely damage Affirmative solvency,
making it very hard for them to win the debate. Disadvantages linked to the discarded plank may or
may not be counted by the individual judge.

THE PLAN IS LOST. Some judges take the position that the entire plan is tainted by the plank that
creates an extratopical advantage. They will ignore all the effects of the plan. The Affirmative loses
all solvency, and thus will lose the debate.

It is important to realize that you may not know beforehand what position your judge will take on
extratopicality. The best strategy for Negatives is to argue with the most common position: that the
specific advantage is lost. If the judge takes a more serious view of extratopicality, that will work to
your benefit.

What is the structure of the extratopicality challenge?

A three-point structure is probably best. The Negative will argue that the Affirmative has the burden
of topicality: all their advantages must flow from the resolution. The second point, the violation,
explains why this particular advantage is extratopical. The final point, the impact argument, argues
that the advantage cannot count for the Affirmative.

Does this sound familiar? Yes, it’s very similar to the three divisions of the nontopicality challenge.
Remember to label and signpost the arguments!

OVERVIEW: THIS ADVANTAGE VIOLATES TOPICALITY BOUNDARIES.

A. AFFIRMATIVE POLICY MUST STAY WITHIN THE RESOLUTION.

B. THIS ADVANTAGE IS EXTRATOPICAL.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter11.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，13/17(W)

C. THIS ADVANTAGE MUST BE DROPPED FROM THE DEBATE.

Do extratopicality and nontopicality arguments overlap?

Yes, unfortunately, due to something known as effects topicality. This is a complex subject that is
difficult even for advanced debaters; skip past this section until you are certain you understand our
topicality discussion so far.

Effects topicality usually comes into play under a result resolution; it is rarely an issue when the
year’s topic is a process resolution (recall our discussion of these two varieties of proposition in
Chapter 3). Result resolutions require the Affirmative to put into place a plan to produce a specified
effect. This seems to give the Affirmative great freedom: they can tinker with policy near to the main
issues of the topic, or modify something at a great distance from the topic. When they choose the
latter course, effects topicality comes into play.

Let us suppose that the topic is "Resolved: that the federal government should guarantee adequate
housing for all U.S. citizens." Much of the debate season will be spent discussing federal aid to the
homeless and the inability of the poor to find decent shelter. Many Affirmative teams will sponsor
public housing initiatives and similar programs.

Some Affirmatives will be creative, however. Since poverty is the root of the problem, they will say,
the best course will be to end poverty. So their plan may improve the educational system, which will
guarantee better jobs for all citizens, allowing families to escape poverty and buy their own housing.
Or the Affirmative may take action to reduce the federal debt, arguing that the economic boom this
action causes will reduce poverty and thus reduce homelessness. Achieving the goal mentioned in the
resolution thus becomes a side-effect or peripheral result to the Affirmative plan.

Often, the Affirmative will claim a number of advantages. Thus, for the deficit-closing plan, they may
list improved foreign trade, improved foreign relations, and economic growth as advantages in
addition to curing homelessness. For the educational-reform plan, extra advantages might include
easing hunger (the poor are hungry too, and curing their poverty solves that problem as well),
improved medical care (smart children can go into research), and so on.

The Negative is doomed, if the Affirmative is allowed to create virtually any plan and argue that its
effects make the plan topical. It would be impossible for the Negative to prepare adequately; they
couldn’t possible anticipate the next Affirmative approach.

Indirect plans, "topical by effects" as the phrase goes, are usually considered illegitimate. Two
arguments are used to support this. First, topicality is supposed to be equivalent to the idea of
jurisdiction in a court of law. If a court lacks jurisdiction on an issue, it will toss a case out without
looking at its merits; similarly, if an Affirmative case is nontopical, the judge must vote Negative
regardless of any benefits. But we cannot determine if an effects-topical plan fulfills the resolution
unless it is first adopted — that is, we have to look at solvency before we can address topicality. The
conclusion follows just like an indirect proof in geometry: we know that topicality is an independent
voting issue; but, if effects-topicality is legitimate, then topicality is no longer independent; therefore,
effects topicality must be invalid.

The second argument invokes the fairness principle. There must be roughly equal ground for strategy
between Affirmative and Negative teams. But if effects topicality is allowed, virtually any plan —
relevant to the topic area or not — could conceivably have a topical effect. This makes Negative
counterplans and minor repairs invalid, since they would all risk being topical by effects. So fairness
dictates that effects-topicality be forbidden.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter11.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，14/17(W)

Fortunately, topicality challenges allow the Negative to defuse these squirrel cases.

NONTOPICALITY OF EFFECTS. The Negative can adopt two strategies to brand the effects-based plan
as nontopical. The first is a definition-challenge of the word "to" in its infinitive sense. Most effect-
based resolutions use this construction: to reform, to increase, to decrease, to change. The Negative
will argue that "to" in the infinitive sense means directly to bring something about, not indirectly or
piecemeal.

Alternatively, the Negative can argue the nontopicality of the Affirmative interpretation of the
resolution as a whole. The Negative will probably not read definitions here, but argue that the
Affirmative concept of the resolution permits effects-based plans, while a proper reading of the topic
would not.

What standards would be used for this latter approach? The Negative could argue at least that effects
topicality fails to set limits: since the Affirmative could do anything and have it affect the target
problem, there is no Negative ground. Secondly, effects topicality violates the meaning of topicality,
which is to act as jurisdiction. We should be able to know ahead of time if the plan is topical or not.
But relying on effects topicality means that the plan is topical only if the solvency works! Only if the
plan is tried out (by the judge’s granting an Affirmative ballot) can we really know if it works, and if
it’s topical. This makes a mockery of topicality as a procedural issue.

EXTRATOPICALITY OF EFFECTS. This can be used instead of or along with a nontopicality argument.
While the Affirmative probably claims one core advantage that is topical (the advantage required by
the resolution), the Negative can try mounting an extratopicality argument against the side-benefits.
The Negative will claim that these benefits don’t proceed from the resolution but rather from the
specific way the Affirmative sidles around the proposition. It would be possible to gain these benefits
without adopting the resolution; therefore the advantages are extratopical.

How should Affirmative respond to an Effects Topicality argument?

It’s always best for Affirmatives to minimize their vulnerabilities. That means, for starters, avoiding
plans which are effects topical. (On the other hand, there are some Affirmative debaters who enjoy
arguing topicality; they will prefer to run a squirrelly case just to provoke Negative topicality attacks
and shift the focus away from substantive issues. Ah, well, it takes all kinds of people to make a
debate community...)

Affirmatives are also free to argue that effects topicality is legitimate if not used to excess. What are
the limits of the Affirmative power of fiat, after all? They can act as the government and pass laws. If
we can’t consider anything beyond what laws are passed, then the Affirmative is doomed from the
start. Merely passing a federal law will not, by itself, alter anything: it is the process of how that
policy is implemented and enforced over time that may (or may not) have beneficial effects. So
Affirmatives have a legitimate reason to argue that they can’t be required to use only direct action in
their plans, for that means that Affirmatives could never win: either their plan wouldn’t work
(because it can only pass a law, and not look at how that law would function over time) — losing
solvency — or else their plan would work (but indirectly) and thus be "effects topical."

It is legitimate for Affirmatives to use effects topicality if an obvious and direct result of their plan
would be what the resolution requires. It’s not legitimate for Affirmatives to use an indirect,
roundabout method. The more steps the Affirmative plan uses, and the more indirect the path it takes,
the more likely the Negative team can make a winning challenge based on "effects topicality."

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter11.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，15/17(W)

Explain the reasoning behind the topicality justification argument.

The concept is this: the Affirmative case must tell us not only why the plan must be adopted, but also
why the resolution must be accepted. So the case must show why each specific term in the resolution
is vital. The burden of proof is not met, the Negative argues, until the Affirmatives show why every
possible non- resolutional approach to meeting the need must fail. It’s not enough for the Affirmatives
to argue against the status quo; they must argue against every possible status quo.

Thus, we see that justification has a focus unlike the other two topicality attacks: it considers the case
as a whole. The justification argument first appeared in debate in the middle 1970s. It never really
caught on in Michigan: in part because the Michigan view of debate is quite conservative, and in part
because justification works best with an alternative view of judging called the Hypothesis-Testing
paradigm, which we will discuss in a later chapter. Few judges are truly Hypothesis-Testers, and
many judges don’t understand justification arguments.

Of the judges who understand it, many just don’t like it. Justification puts a huge burden on the
Affirmative, as the explanation above shows. The Affirmative, in effect, is required to defeat all
possible Negative counterplans as part of their burden of proof! (Counterplans will be explained in the
next chapter). Of course, Negatives don’t stress that this is the effect of the argument. Be careful
using justification on the Negative; you will have to explain the theory behind it to the judge. If
you’re debating Affirmative, you must be familiar with justification theory in order to refute it.

How is a justification argument presented?

There is no official guideline as to which Negative debater presents this argument; it can appear as an
overview in either speech. Nasty debaters will save it for 2NC, arguing that they gave the Affirmative
as much time as possible, hoping the Affirmatives would justify the resolution in the case extensions.
If 1NC is planning to run a nontopicality overview, adding a justification argument cuts out too much
time needed for case refutation. The First Negative should never present a justification attack instead
of nontopicality; if both attacks are possible in a round, choose the latter, since it is stronger.

You will not be surprised to find out that the argument has a three-part form: standards, violations,
and impact. Two standards should be presented: that the case determines if the resolution should be
adopted, and that Each Word Has Meaning (our old friend the Meaningfulness standard, the same as
in nontopicality arguments).

Violations are listed in parallel, just as for multiple violations in a nontopicality attack. For each,
explain how the Affirmative never shows how an alternative approach could not work. You also must
provide evidence showing that the alternative approach is a plausible one. This may take the form on
inherency evidence (something other than the Affirmative plan is already solving the problem) or
disadvantage evidence (solving the problem through a different means would avoid a specific
hazardous side-effect).

The final point is the impact: justification is an absolute voting issue. It is part of the burden of proof
in supporting the resolution — the Affirmative must show that each term of the resolution is needed.

In outline form:

THE AFFIRMATIVE CASE FAILS TO JUSTIFY THE RESOLUTION.

A. THE CASE DETERMINES IF THE RESOLUTION SHOULD BE ADOPTED.

B. EACH TERM OF THE RESOLUTION HAS MEANING.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter11.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，16/17(W)

C. THE AFFIRMATIVE FAILS TO JUSTIFY [word 1].

D. JUSTIFICATION FAILURE IS AN ABSOLUTE VOTING ISSUE.

Can you give us an example of a justification attack?

You bet. The resolution is "Resolved: That financial support of all public elementary and secondary
education in the United States should be provided exclusively by the federal government." The
Negatives have saved their attack until 2NC:

"Before beginning my plan attacks, I want to present an overview on topicality. THE AFFIRMATIVE
CASE FAILS TO JUSTIFY THE RESOLUTION. I’ll begin with a little debate theory. POINT A: THE CASE
DETERMINES IF THE RESOLUTION SHOULD BE ADOPTED. It’s not enough for the Affirmative to
implement the resolution in their plan; they must support adoption of the resolution in its entirety.
This is part of their burden of proof.

"POINT B: EACH WORD IN THE RESOLUTION HAS MEANING. Each term was put there for a purpose.
We cannot afford to overlook any word.

"POINT C: THE AFFIRMATIVE FAILS TO JUSTIFY THE WORD ‘EXCLUSIVELY.’ The Affirmatives have
told us that the present funding of education is unworkable. They have not shown us that only 100%
federal aid is the sole answer. They have not even mentioned voluntary contributions, corporate
sponsorship of education, or government abandonment of public education altogether. No have they
told us why a federal-municipal partnership, with the federal government providing, say 95% of the
money, is doomed to fail. Their case has not justified this term. [Note: the Negative would also have
to read evidence here to show that one of these alternatives would potentially solve the Affirmative
harms]

"POINT D: THE AFFIRMATIVE FAILS TO JUSTIFY THE WORD ‘PUBLIC.’ The Affirmative speakers have
told us how their plan will greatly improve the quality of education and thereby improve American
society. They have not explained, therefore, why these benefits ought to be limited to only those
attending public schools. Yet the resolution requires them to justify this limitation — otherwise, the
word ‘public’ would not have been included.

"POINT E: THE AFFIRMATIVE FAILS TO JUSTIFY THE PHRASE ‘ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY
EDUCATION.’ We have been told that the federal government is richer than state and local
governments, that it has a greater tax base, and that it can collect and disburse funds more cheaply. If
true, then the federal government would do well to collect money for, and then pay for, many other
services we now fund through state and municipal government: garbage collection; police services;
sewer and road services; even public libraries. The Affirmative has failed to explain why the
resolution should be limited this way.

"Finally, POINT F: JUSTIFICATION IS AN ABSOLUTE AND INDEPENDENT VOTING ISSUE. It’s absolute
because it’s a yes-or-no question: either the Affirmative team has — or has not — justified these
terms. At this point in the debate, they have not. It’s an independent voting issue because, if they
cannot justify the terms, they haven’t fulfilled their burden of proof. They may have explained that
their plan is advantageous, but they haven’t supported the precise wording of the resolution, and that
is the Affirmative’s fundamental duty."

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter11.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，17/17(W)

How does the Affirmative respond to a justification attack?

If you can justify a term or phrase cited by the Negative, do so. Perhaps your case does show that
state and local governments are unable to deal with the problem; that’s enough to justify "federal," a
word that appears in virtually every resolution. Indeed, that’s one of the reasons why it is important
for the case to have strong Inherency evidence — that will become part of your arsenal to show that
the tools used under the present system simply do not work.

Secondly, if 2NC presented this argument, cry foul, just as you would do against a nontopicality
attack presented in that speech. If this issue is so important, you will say, it should have been raised
earlier.

Finally, and most importantly, argue against the legitimacy of justification itself. Deny that justifying
the resolution is part of the Affirmative burden of proof: you just have to justify your own plan as
desirable, and (assuming your plan is topical) that’s enough to show the resolution is desirable as a
whole. That undercuts the first "standard." You probably should admit the Meaningfulness standard,
but remind the judge that your plan incorporates every word in the resolution, and that is sufficient.

Some violation arguments will claim you don’t prove how any of hundreds of alternatives would be
just as good. Show the judge that if this sort of argument is accepted as legitimate, it destroys
Affirmative ground by requiring you to defend your plan against an infinite number of possible
counterplans. Tell the Negative that your team is willing to defend the plan against any formal minor
repair or counterplan, but until there is a reasonable alternative presented, you have no duty to
respond.

Some violation arguments will claim, instead, that the resolution sets limits and your case doesn’t
give reasons for staying within those limits. Violations D and E of the example above show this
argument in action. Explain to the judge that you’ve proven the benefits of the plan within the barriers
of the resolution, but you’ve seen no evidence that the plan could be extended further to equally
desirable effect. If the Negative wishes to present such evidence, you will point out, that would
confirm your harm, inherency, and solvency arguments and mean that the resolution at least must be
adopted.

Finally, on the impact argument: yes, you will tell the judge, justification is an absolute issue. But it is
by no means a voting issue. If a desirable plan incorporates the resolution, that justifies an
Affirmative ballot.

Introduction to Policy Debate

Copyright © 1990, 1993, 1996, 2002 John R. Prager
All rights reserved.
Permission is not granted to reproduce this document in whole or in part, in any medium.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter11.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，1/9(W)

Chapter 12

The Counterplan

What is a counterplan?

The resolution divides the terrain of argument between Affirmative and Negative teams. The
Affirmative is committed to supporting the resolution; the Negative is free to defend any policy that
is not the resolution. Usually, the Negative team will choose to defending the status quo as the
alternative policy. But sometimes, it may be more advantageous to admit that the present system
isn’t working — agreeing, to an extent, with the Affirmative — and to suggest a third course of
action: the counterplan.

Each year, more and more Negative teams are taking the counterplan option. At the same time, more
judges are becoming familiar with counterplan theory and are competent to judge a counterplan
debate. Since Michigan debate is quite conservative, the acceptance of counterplans as a legitimate
strategy is growing slowly, but Negative debaters should not fear that they will be misunderstood if
they choose to run a counterplan.

As we will see, throwing a counterplan into the debate shifts speaker duties considerably. The teams
still have the same burdens as they had before the counterplan, but which speaker covers which tasks
is very different. Many Negative teams win with a counterplan because their Affirmative opponents
are thrown off balance by the new duties. On the other hand, many Negatives who present
counterplans are poorly equipped to handle an Affirmative team who is prepared for the counterplan
approach.

A counterplan must be presented in the First Negative Constructive; delaying it to 2NC would leave
1NC with no effective arguments to present, and fairness requires that the Affirmative team be given
a Constructive speech to oppose the counterplan.

In form, the counterplan is very much like an Affirmative plan: it is very specific, with substructured
planks accounting for mandates, finance, and any other functions that the Negative wants to include.
The Negative will also present their own case analysis, suggesting the advantages that the
counterplan will produce.

The need for detail means that counterplans must be created well in advance in anticipation of a
particular kind of Affirmative case. Indeed, a Negative team may have prepared a file of several
counterplans, allowing them to select the most applicable one for a wide variety of cases. The First
Negative Constructive will thus be partly scripted, and partly extemporized, for 1NC must still
grapple with the specific Affirmative arguments.

Additionally, the Negative may choose to combine a counterplan with other standard responses. Of
course, it is not always reasonable for the Negative to introduce a counterplan (thereby admitting the
flaws of the status quo) and then deny all the Affirmative’s harm and inherency analysis by claiming
that the status quo can solve all the problems. On the other hand, it is possible (though complicated),
when faced with several advantages in a case, for the Negative to propose a counterplan against
some of the advantages and use standard refutation against some others.

A legitimate counterplan has to meet three requirements: it must be nontopical; it must be

competitive with the Affirmative plan, meaning that both plan and counterplan cannot exist at the
same time; and it must be superior to the Affirmative plan, producing greater advantages overall.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter12.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，2/9(W)

Why must the counterplan be nontopical?

Since the resolution divides turf, the Negative can do anything except what the resolution specifies.
If the Negative proposed a topical counterplan, then both teams would be saying that the resolution
would produce beneficial effects — though they might disagree strongly as to what those good
effects would be. Since both teams are supporting the resolution, the judge will vote for the
Affirmative team, since those partners officially represent the resolution.

Moreover, the counterplan must be nontopical by the Affirmative team’s definition of terms from
1AC. The Affirmative’s definitions further divide the topic area by specifying what approaches are
topical and which are not. Even operational definitions show what (in the Affirmative’s viewpoint) is
topical, by the example of the Affirmative plan. The Negative accepts these definitions when
counterplanning, in effect saying, "Under this division of the topic area, our policy is superior."
Similarly, the Affirmative cannot propose alternative definitions in 2AC which would rule out the
counterplan already introduced; they must stick by those definitions already presented.

This means that it is almost impossible for the Negative to both run a counterplan and mount a
topicality challenge in the same round.

Some debaters suggest this strategy to combine the two: let the Negative argue that the Affirmative
plan is nontopical, and then counterplan with the Affirmative plan! Such an approach is very hard to
win. The Affirmative would argue that their plan is reasonably topical, and that the Negative was
supporting the topic by advocating the plan-counterplan. Additionally, the Negative team can’t argue
that their policy is superior to the Affirmative plan (since they are identical), and they can’t present
any PMAs or D-As. If the Negative wins, that means they must have proven the Affirmative plan to
be nontopical, so they could have won the debate on a nontopicality challenge alone, rather than
confuse the issue with a counterplan. Avoid this tactic if you are Negative.

How does the Negative create a nontopical counterplan?

There are three techniques that regularly appear from year to year. Each can be defended as making
the counterplan nontopical. They can also be combined, so the Negative may have two claims to
nontopicality — perhaps both a counteragent and a counterpolicy.

COUNTERAGENT. Usually the resolution proposes that the federal government initiate change. In a
counteragent counterplan, the Negative obliges some other authority to take action instead: state or
municipal governments, or a larger governing body, such as the United Nations, or a private sector
business or interest group.

The Negative has limited fiat power when proposing a counterplan. While they can mandate action
by governmental bodies, they have no power to force private sector agencies — corporations, labor
unions, etc. — to take action to advance the counterplan. Of course, the Negative could have the
government pass laws requiring private sector industries take certain actions, but that may make the
plan topical.

Also, remember that the federal government has at least three parts: the Congress, the executive
branch of the Presidency, and the federal judiciary. Most people would agree that the national
independent regulatory commissions, such as the FCC, are units of the federal government as well.
The Negative cannot manipulate any of these if they wish to promote a counteragent plan.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter12.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，3/9(W)

COUNTERPROCESS. This involves a different means of putting the plan or counterplan into effect.
Most resolutions, especially result-oriented ones, contain a verb such as "establish," "implement," or
"adopt." The Negative counterplan would not take action directly — instead, it may propose to study
the problem area before taking action, or to put a plan into place only if a national referendum
approves it. Many Negative teams try using the entire Affirmative plan as their counterplan, but
delaying or diverting implementation by the counterprocess.

Overall, this is a weak strategy. The study counterplan is usually based on the Negative’s argument
that all current studies of the problem area are flawed. Affirmatives will respond that this is an
artificial strategy to avoid making a decision, and that it is unreasonable to balance the Affirmative’s
limited debating time against the resources of an unlimited study panel. They will probably persuade
the judge that sufficient evidence exists to support preliminary acceptance of Affirmative harm,
inherency, and solvency arguments, and that a study could take place after the Affirmative plan was
adopted, allowing for later revisions if the policy was not working perfectly. The referendum ploy
invites the Affirmatives to argue that — given the harms shown in the case — of course the voters
will vote "yes" to implement the plan.

COUNTERPOLICY. This is probably the strongest approach: the Negative takes some sort of
action other than that mandated by the resolution. Thus, if the proposition called on the federal
government to "reduce inflation," the Negative could take action designed to increase inflation, or to
reduce poverty, or to improve worker productivity, or any of a number of actions.

Why is the counterplan required to be competitive?

The counterplan must be a reason to reject the resolution. The Negative must prove that the benefits
of the plan and the counterplan cannot exist at the same time. This requirement of competitiveness is
perhaps the least understood part of counterplan theory.

The judge, faced with two alternatives to the status quo, is in a position akin to that of a legislator
presented with two bills, either of which could potentially become law. The hypothetical
congressperson is a rational, well-meaning individual, who wants to pass laws that will produce the
most good. He could vote in favor of either bill, and reject the other; or he could try to find a way in
which the two bills could be merged into one law, gaining all the advantages of both.

The same standard applies to debate. A rule called permutation theory allows the judge to see if the
Affirmative plan and Negative counterplan can be merged into one unified proposal in order to gain
the advantages claimed by both teams. If this is possible, then the Affirmative will win the debate.
This is because the unified policy will contain the Affirmative plan as a subset, and thus will put the
resolution into effect. Since the Affirmative has therefore proved that the resolution is worth
implementing, they must win. Therefore, the Negative must argue that the two proposals cannot exist
at the same time, to avoid the dangers of permutation and the Affirmative victory it assures.

There are five common tactics that the Negative can use to prove that the plan and counterplan are
unable to exist together. Not all are equally convincing. In order of the strongest to the weakest,
these techniques are:

MUTUAL EXCLUSIVITY. The two policies cannot exist at the same time for structural reasons. Perhaps
the Affirmative plan mandates action by the federal government, while the Negative counterplan
abolishes the federal government. Or perhaps one policy wants to strengthen our commitment to
NATO, while the other wishes to remove the U.S. from NATO. The key to establishing mutual
exclusivity is to show that the two proposals are opposite in their intentions.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter12.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，4/9(W)

Some Negative teams try to sneak around the competitiveness requirement by specifically outlawing
the Affirmative plan. This is an abuse of the mutual exclusivity argument. There must be some
rationale presented as to why the counterplan should reject the resolution. In essence, the counterplan
must justify denying the resolution, much as the topicality justification arguments of the last chapter
claim that the plan must justify adopting the resolution.

NET BENEFITS or DISADVANTAGEOUS DOUBLE ADOPTION. The Negative here argues that, while
both policies could conceivably be passed into law at the same time, the Negative counterplan is
preferable to the joint policy.

Let’s look at an example used in the booklet Understanding the Counterplan by Walter Ulrich
(1986; Kansas City: National Federation of State High School Associations). The resolution requires
changes in the educational system. One Affirmative plan would ban driver’s education classes for
high school students, arguing that students in those classes are permitted to get their drivers’ licenses
at an earlier age, but their immaturity leads to an increased number of accidents. The Negative
counterplan in response was to raise the driving age. The Negative argued that this also kept students
off the road until they were mature (thus restraining the accident rate), and at the same time retained
the educational benefits of driver’s education classes (which the Affirmative would ban). The
Negative thus showed that double adoption of both plan and counterplan was less desirable than the
counterplan by itself.

More commonly, Negatives demonstrate net benefits by showing a disadvantage that derives from
the Affirmative plan and would persist under a combined plan; only by adopting the counterplan
alone could the disadvantage be avoided.

RESOURCE COMPETITIVENESS. This approach argues that both policies require the same limited
factors: money, personnel, medical facilities, or whatever (the specifics will depend on the case and
the resolution). There’s not enough of this resource, says the Negative, to enable both the
Affirmative and Negative plans, and therefore they cannot operate at the same time.

Some Negatives try to make their counterplan artificially competitive by using the same funding
methods as the Affirmative plan, thus claiming resource competitiveness. Affirmatives should not
allow the Negative to get away with this. If the Affirmative can prove the federal government has
other financing methods which would allow sufficient money for both plans, permutation theory will
allow a joint policy to exist.

PHILOSOPHICAL COMPETITION. The Negative argues that the two policies are philosophically
opposed (though perhaps not contradictory), and thus should not be adopted simultaneously. This is
a fairly weak argument, since the government often supports policies that are inconsistent with each
other; for example, the federal government may host a conference on international disarmament at
the same time new nuclear weapons are being manufactured. Generally, the results of the policies,
and not their underlying rationale, are more important when determining competitiveness.

REDUNDANCY. There is no reason to adopt both policies, the Negative claims, because they each
target the same problem. This position argues that duplicative efforts to solve a single problem are
wasteful and inefficient. This, too, is a weak argument. We can never be certain beforehand that any
government program will work perfectly well, the Affirmative will reply, so it may be useful to have
a backup program to make sure the problem is solved completely. Instead of being wasteful,
redundancy may be desirable. The parallels with everyday life make this argument compelling for
the Affirmative: that’s why some cars have airbags, seat belts, and padded dashboards — they are all
redundant features designed to minimize damage to passengers if the vehicle is involved in a
collision.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter12.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，5/9(W)

Why must the counterplan be superior to the Affirmative plan?

To answer this question, we must ask: what happens to presumption when the Negative abandons the
status quo and suggests a counterplan? As you will recall from earlier chapters, presumption says
that the status quo, while not perfect, is at least familiar — and therefore the Affirmative must show
that their plan will be significantly better than the status quo before they may win.

Debate theorists disagree as to what happens when the Negative abandons the status quo. There are
three views of what happens to presumption when the Negative turns to a counterplan:

NEGATIVE LOSES PRESUMPTION. Since the Negative abandons the status quo, the policy that has
been before the judge the longest gains presumption — and that is the Affirmative plan. The
Negative must prove that their counterplan is significantly better than the Affirmative plan in order
to win. Analogies with government procedures seem to affirm this rule. In Congress, for example,
the counterpart of a counterplan would be an amendment to a motion; the amendment passes only if
the majority of congresspeople think that it would be preferable to the original motion. In the
courtroom, the defendant can plead extenuating circumstances (insanity, self-defense) to avoid being
convicted for an act he has committed — but the burden of proof then shifts to the defendant, who
must prove that these unusual circumstances existed at the time of the crime. By analogy, then, the
Negative takes up a burden of proof to show that their counterplan is preferable to the plan. The
majority of judges probably adhere to this viewpoint, but most are willing to hear argument on one
side or the other of the issue.

NEGATIVE RETAINS PRESUMPTION. Some debate theorists say that presumption must always be
against the resolution, regardless of the Negative’s strategy. The burden of proof is not something
that can shifted from side to side like a volleyball. By this reasoning, the Negative need only show
that their proposal is just as good as, not necessarily better than, the Affirmative’s plan.

THE LESS RISKY POLICY GAINS PRESUMPTION. Presumption is a measure of risk. It favors the
status quo initially because the hazards and problems of the present system are reasonably well-
known, compared to the uncertainties of the Affirmative plan. Therefore, some theorists hold that
when a counterplan enters the debate, presumption flows to the policy which has the least amount of
risk naturally involved. There is no certain way to assign which plan has the less natural risk. Some
suggested guidelines indicate that a proposal is less risky when: (1) it makes a minor change; (2) it
alters an unimportant policy; (3) it uses a level of government closer to the individual citizen; (4) it is
easily reversible if unexpected problems arise later; and (5) it has considerable reliable evidence in
support. Depending on the proposals introduced in the round, then, the judge following this line of
reasoning may assign presumption to either team, and thus require the opposing team to prove their
policy is the better one.

What does this mean for Negative teams? First, you may prefer to argue that your side retains
presumption when you introduce a counterplan, either because your proposal is less risky, or because
the Negative always retain presumption. At the same time, you will want to persuade the judge that
your proposal is better than, not merely as good as, the Affirmative plan; so, even if you lose the
theoretical argument on presumption, you still may win the debate by proving that the plan is inferior
to the counterplan.

What sort of advantages does the Negative propose?

The Negative has pretty much a free hand at choosing what advantages if will sponsor. Since they
are not handicapped by the resolution, counterplan advantages can range far beyond the topic area.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter12.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，6/9(W)

Many Negatives believe that they must solve the Affirmative harms in order to win. That is not the
case. If the Negative advantages include the Affirmative advantages as a subset, of course, it is easier
to see that the counterplan is superior to the plan; this is called capturing the Affirmative advantage.
But the Negative can also win by ignoring the Affirmative’s case analysis to a good degree and
solving bigger harms for more people elsewhere.

But, you may wonder, what is to prevent Negatives solving some massive harm which is not relevant
to the topic area, and then winning because they have the bigger advantage? Perhaps the Negatives
will end world hunger, saving millions of lives each year. Regardless of the resolution being debated,
few Affirmatives would be able to match that advantage. It doesn’t seem fair.

No, it isn’t fair, and so it isn’t allowed. Just as Negatives can protest when Affirmative advantages
are extratopical (see the previous chapter), the Affirmatives can have the judge overlook Negative
advantages which are extracompetitive. All the Negative’s advantages must flow from plan mandates
that are in opposition to the resolution. Negatives cannot claim advantages to plan spikes, finance
points, or any other matters that are not germane to the topic area any more then the Affirmative can.
Any extracompetitive advantages — those caused by counterplan planks that are not in direct
competition with the Affirmative plan — must be dropped from the debate.

How do speaker duties change when a counterplan is presented?

1AC.
The First Affirmative Constructive remains the same, obviously, since the counterplan has not been
introduced.

1NC.
Begin with a Negative philosophy conceding that change is desirable, but denying that the resolution
is acceptable. Handle definitions; usually, you will agree to Affirmative definitions, but you may
wish to introduce some of your own. Then cover the Affirmative case arguments. Selectively accept
or refute harm and inherency issues; you can freely accept Affirmative arguments if the counterplan
solves the harms. Be as brief as possible, for there is a lot of territory to cover.

Present the counterplan. Remember, it should have nearly the same detail as the Affirmative plan.
Demonstrate that the counterplan is nontopical. Use a structured and labeled argument; you might
even identify this as "Negative contention one."

Demonstrate that the counterplan is competitive. Again, a structured argument presented as

"Negative contention two" would be best. Make it clear to the judge what standard for
competitiveness you are using.

Argue that the Negative retains presumption. This will be contention three.

If the counterplan will solve all or part of the Affirmative harms, your next point should demonstrate
solvency. The argument may be labeled NEGATIVE COUNTERPLAN MEETS THE AFFIRMATIVE NEED.
Of course, if you are ignoring the Affirmative harms, this point should not be included.

Present the additional advantage(s) that the counterplan achieves. Each advantage must have three
parts: (1) That there is a significant benefit to be gained, or a significant harm to be avoided; (2) That
the Affirmative plan does not achieve this advantage; (3) That the counterplan achieves or retains
this advantage. Note that you can argue that the counterplan retains certain benefits of the status quo
that the plan would discard. The structure of each advantage is modeled on the same form we
discussed in Chapter 3: the 1-2-3 points are precise parallels to need, inherency, and solvency

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter12.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，7/9(W)

arguments.

An alternative form for the new advantages is to argue disadvantages against the plan. Each would
have the same structure as a conventional disad, with one exception: instead of arguing that the disad
is unique to the plan over the status quo, you will argue that the disad is unique to the plan over the
counterplan. At this point, you’re not really interested in defending the status quo any more — but
any disadvantage which applies to the plan but not to the counterplan is an additional reason for the
judge to reject the Affirmative’s viewpoint.

Finally, refer back to the Negative philosophy to conclude your speech.

2AC.
Begin by covering the case. Rebuild and extend harm and inherency, if necessary. You will not
extend as fully as you usually do on those issues that the Negative team has granted. However, if you
can extend your harms into areas that the counterplan cannot cure, or you can extend inherency to
thwart the counterplan’s solvency, you should do so. In general, you should not spend more than two
or three minutes reaffirming your case structure.

Next, you may choose to argue that the counterplan is topical. This argument, if won, assures a
victory for the Affirmative, since the Negative would thus be favoring the resolution. You should
only present the topicality argument if the counterplan is reasonably topical, of course.

You may next choose to argue that the counterplan is noncompetitive. Show that with minor
modifications, both plan and counterplan could exist at the same time. Or it may be that the
counterplan is artificially competitive (by stealing Affirmative funding or outright banning the
Affirmative plan). Or perhaps the counterplan and plan are competitive on a temporary of limited
basis only. For example, the Negative may propose abolishing state and federal governments
altogether, arguing that local governments and private enterprise can together take care of the
problems; the Affirmative could respond that this dismantling can and should be done slowly, and
therefore we can adopt the Affirmative plan now to get its advantages while society makes its
progress toward the counterplan ideal.

Next, you will argue that the Negative team loses presumption. Tell the judge that the Negative can
win only by proving a clear and significant advantage over the Affirmative plan. Explain why this
should be so; perhaps the reasoning given a few paragraphs ago will help here.

Refute the additional Negative advantages (or Negative disadvantages against the plan). You may
challenge them as extracompetitive, as well as arguing need and inherency issues.

Finally, present Counterplan-Meet-Need (solvency) and Counterplan-Disadvantage arguments.

These should be modeled on the structure we discussed in Chapter 6 for 2NC plan attacks. You
should try to retain time to present at least one counterplan D-A.

2NC.
You must respond to any new arguments that were introduced in 2AC. Since your partner already
began arguing topicality and competitiveness, you may safely leave those for his upcoming rebuttal.
Similarly, 1NR will rebuild the Negative counterplan advantages. However, if the Affirmative
challenged any of your advantages as extracompetitive, you will want to refute that argument before
rebuttals begin. Take a strong position on those points.

Next, go to the counterplan plan attacks: the Counterplan-Meet-Need and Counterplan D-As that
2AC presented. Refute them. You will want to take a more substantial stand than 1AR normally
takes against Negative plan attacks. Don’t just say that the D-A lacks an impact, for example, but
read evidence to deny that an impact exists. You should take no more than four minutes to handle

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter12.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，8/9(W)

these crucial arguments.

This leave you half of your speech to present PMNs and D-As of your own. In presenting
disadvantages, it is even more important than usual to prove that the D-A is unique to the
Affirmative plan. So make sure to include subpoints proving that the counterplan does not fall victim
to the same disadvantage. Likewise, if both the Affirmative plan and the Negative counterplan are
attempting to solve the same problems, your PMN arguments must show that Negative solvency still
accrues even if Affirmative solvency fails. Disadvantages assume even more importance in a
counterplan round than in a debate where the Negative supports the status quo: every disadvantage
becomes an additional reason to reject the Affirmative plan because the net benefits of the Negative
proposal are superior. Thus disadvantages not only help weigh the issues in the debate, but they also
help prove competitiveness of the two proposals.

1NR.
Your partner should have covered any completely new issues that arose in 2AC. This leaves you free
to go back and rebuild the analysis of your first speech, in the same order it was presented:
Affirmative case; then counterplan formalities (topicality, competitiveness, presumption); then
solvency for Affirmative advantages, if used; then Negative advantages. Drop arguments as needed;
your time is very short. Probably the safest place to drop points is against the Affirmative case.

1AR, 2NR, and 2AR.

These three speeches have to carry everything that is vital — an immense burden to the speakers.
Only clear organization will make that possible. All speakers should follow this order in the issues
addressed:

1. Plan attacks against your policy.

2. Advantages presented by the opposing team.

3. Formal requirements of the counterplan (topicality, competitiveness, and presumption).

4. Plan attacks against the opposing policy.

5. Your own advantages.

This allows you to end your speech on the strongest issues in your favor — your own case structure
and the flaws in the opponents’ case.

How is a counterplan recorded on a flowchart?

Organization is the key to success here. A poorly organized debate will be a mess to flow and
impossible to argue. Other things being equal, the judge will tend to favor the team that most clearly
organizes its arguments.

The best way to flow the counterplan debate is to start a complete new flowchart to cover
counterplan issues. Thus, the counterplan itself will be recorded where the 1AC plan usually is
placed; counterplan plan attacks will be put where 2NC plan attacks would normally be found;
1NC’s counterplan advantages would take the place of the 1AC case, and so on. Be sure to label the
columns carefully so you know which speaker presented which arguments.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter12.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，9/9(W)

How does the judge decide who wins a counterplan debate?

The judge begins by weighing the formal requirements of the counterplan. He should base his
decision on the arguments presented, not on his personal beliefs. So, even if he thought the
counterplan was topical, he should not base his decision on topicality if the Affirmative never argued
the issue.

Topicality is the starting point. If the Negative counterplan is topical, Affirmative wins. If the
Affirmative plan is nontopical, Negative wins. If both teams violate the topicality barrier (very
unlikely), the Affirmative will probably win (because one team — the Negative — is supporting the
resolution, even if they didn’t mean to do so, and a victory for the resolution means a victory for the
Affirmative team).

Assuming topicality doesn’t determine a winner, the judge will next consider competitiveness. If the
Affirmative and Negative plans could exist together, the Affirmative wins. Otherwise, the judge
mentally drops any extracompetitive Negative advantages and extratopical Affirmative advantages
from the round; they won’t enter into his final decision.

To evaluate the net desirability of the Affirmative plan, the judge considers the Affirmative
advantages. Their value is reduced by whatever extent the Negative argued against need, or showed
the counterplan could cure the harms, or showed the Affirmative plan failed to provide solvency.
Also subtracted from this side is the harm caused by any plan disadvantages.

The judge then similarly whittles down the benefits of the counterplan. Reducing the advantages by
Affirmative arguments against need, plan solvency of Negative harms, and counterplan-meet-need
arguments, then subtracting the value of counterplan disadvantages gives the net benefits of the
Negative policy.

If one proposal is clearly better than the other at this point, it will win. Otherwise, the judge turns to
matter of presumption. Based on the arguments presented in the debate, he will decide which team
needs to have a greater advantage. Once that decision is made, the debate is won if that side has
presented a policy with greater net benefits.

All this just goes to prove that the judge has to work very, very hard in order to develop a decision in
a counterplan round. The key to getting high speaker scores — and often, the winning ballot — is to
take extraordinary care to be organized. The final rebuttal for your side should strongly emphasize
why prior arguments win the counterplan for your side, whichever side that might be.

Introduction to Policy Debate

Copyright © 1990, 1993, 1996, 2002 John R. Prager
All rights reserved.
Permission is not granted to reproduce this document in whole or in part, in any medium.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter12.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，1/13(W)

Chapter 13

Advanced Theory

What do you mean, advanced theory? Don’t we have enough theory already?

Debate theory is an ongoing process. Each generation sees something new develop. Cross-
examination and the comparative advantage case format became part of high school debate in the
1960s; justification arguments first appeared in the 1970s; and the newest concepts — which we will
be examining in this chapter and the next — came to the forefront in the 1990s.

Two factors drive the evolution of debate theory. First is the quest of Negative debaters to expand
their repertory of tactics. High school debate resolutions have become broader in scope over the last
few decades. This has enlarged the range of possible Affirmative cases and, some experts contend,
handicapped Negative debaters. Negatives are forced either to research an immense number of
potential cases or to fall back increasingly on generic arguments. But the potential research burden is
so vast that it’s impractical for most schools, making the first option undesirable; and judges tend to
favor case-specific over generic arguments, making the second option undesirable, too. So what are
Negatives to do? What they have done is to seize new theoretical tools that can be used against a
broad range of Affirmative cases.

The second factor promoting the evolution of debate theory has been the spillover from collegiate
debate. Colleges and universities began experimenting with non-policy debate some twenty years
ago. Policy debate still flourishes at the college level, too. It was inevitable that some of the
experiments being tried in collegiate debate would find their way to high-school contests, since
college debaters often serve as judges — and sometimes, as coaches — for high- school teams.

It is important to realize that this experimentation with debate theory is not a threat to you. Much of
the advanced theory we will look at in this chapter is just a strategic application of concepts you have
already learned. If you are a novice debater, it is highly unlikely that you will encounter such tactics
as counterwarrants in the course of a debate round. Even varsity debaters will rarely meet with issues
in advanced theory. And — in those rare instances when your opponents initiate an advanced tactic,
the experimental nature of their strategy will force them to assume that the judge is unfamiliar with
it. They will have to explain their reasoning in precise detail to make sure they’re understood — and
this explanation will also make their argument and theoretical basis understandable to you, too.

Okay, how does the Negative strategically apply the concepts they already know?

There are three techniques that are immediately accessible to the Negative: developing shell
disadvantages, reassigning speaker responsibilities, and using conditional arguments.

Shell disadvantages.
A policy debate is really a conflict between the arguments of the Affirmative case against those of
the Negative case. But the Negative is handicapped under the traditional style of presentation. The
disadvantages of the Affirmative plan are usually the most important parts of the Negative case —
yet those are not presented until the very last constructive speech. The 1AR will blow off the D-As
with simple refutation: "No link, no brink, no impact, and anyway, the Affirmative advantages
outweigh the D-A." All of the great 2NC substructure is discarded. In reply, the 2NR speaker could
spend time rebuilding each D-A in detail; but he or she doesn’t really have the time, since all the
other important arguments in the round also have to be covered in this brief speech. So the

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter13.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，2/13(W)

disadvantages are also slighted in the final rebuttals. And that’s a pity for the Negatives, because the
D-As may be the most telling arguments in the round. Because so much more time in the round is
given to the Affirmative case than to the disadvantages, the Affirmative’s arguments receive a
psychological advantage in the mind of the judge.

The shell disadvantage (sometimes called a skeleton disadvantage) attempts to remedy this situation
by bringing out disadvantage arguments early. They are initially presented during the First Negative
Constructive, either at the start or near the conclusion of the speech. A shell D-A is developed just
like any other disadvantage: it has a link to the Affirmative case, one or more internal links, a claim
of uniqueness, and a clear impact. The distinction is simplicity: the structure is deliberately
simplified to comprise only major points; and the evidence is very brief. The First Negative labels
the shell disadvantages "D-A number one, D-A number two," and so forth; he does not explicitly call
them "shell D-A number one."

The response to the shell D-A will have to arise in the Second Affirmative Constructive; if the
Affirmative waits until 1AR, their responses become new arguments in the rebuttal and will be
discarded. Since 2AR wants to get on with the usual business of rebuilding case arguments, he is
likely to give only the usual brief responses to the shell D-A: "No link, no threshold, etc." Some
2ARs will spend the time to give reasonable, substantive responses to the shell disadvantages, of
course, along with making these refutation responses.

The Second Negative Constructive then has responsibility for carrying the argument forward. He
will adapt to the strategy of the previous speaker. If the 2AR gave lots of solid responses, the D-A
will probably be dropped at this point. That’s okay; a good Negative team can afford to lose the
occasional disadvantage. But if 2AR merely followed the usual 1AR pattern of weak refutational
claims, then 2NC will turn to his work with gusto. He will go back to the original D-A structure from
1NC and fill in with additional evidence and substructure, spreading and extending his partner’s
initial arguments. For every Affirmative challenge — "No link," perhaps — he will provide one or
more reasons backed up with evidence to show there is a solid link between the plan and the
disadvantage. Most important of all, he may tie in new impacts flowing out of the disadvantage.
Remember, since this is a constructive speech, the 2NC speaker is not limited to merely parroting
arguments that have been already presented; he is permitted to advance completely new positions. Of
course, the Second Negative will not devote the entire speech to expanding shell disadvantages; he
will also present his own original plan attacks.

This strategy puts intense pressure on the First Affirmative Rebuttal. It is intended to put pressure on
1AR. Sure, the speaker has to refute the new plan attacks. But against the disadvantages that
originally arose as shell D-As, the First Affirmative is allowed no new responses. The Affirmative
side has already staked out a position on those arguments in 2AC. Some leeway will be given to
accommodate the Negative extensions, but the Affirmative cannot bring up any novel substantive
positions. And that’s what makes this strategy so fiendishly effective! If, for example, the chief 2AC
argument against a shell D-A was that it has a weak impact, and then 2NC extends the initial
argument to demonstrate a strong impact, 1AR can only reply by trying to reaffirm the "weak
impact" claim, which is no longer credible.

The shell D-A strategy not only operates to get a Negative case developed early in the round, but it
also forces the Affirmative to commit to a certain position on the disadvantage early as well.
Additionally, by introducing an argument in the First Negative and following through in the Second
Negative Constructive, the shell D-A links the partners into a team strategy in a way we have not
seen before.

The only way that Affirmatives can avoid the potential trap of a D-A shell is for the Second
Affirmative to refute it soundly in 2AC — to give multiple substantive answers rather than to rely on
presses and refutation without evidence.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter13.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，3/13(W)

Reassigning speaker responsibilities.

Conventionally, the First Negative covers case stock issues — need and inherency — leaving the
Second Negative solvency and disadvantages. But it must be stressed that this is a convention, not a
law fixed in stone. We have already seen in previous chapters that 1NC will sometimes address
solvency by dissecting the Affirmative arguments. And the very existence of shell D-As suggests
that plan attacks need not be the exclusive property of the Second Negative.

In truth, Negatives are free to distribute their speaker responsibilities as they like. The conventional
way is very effective as an instructional vehicle for beginning debaters, and it allows the maximum
time for developing an in-depth spread on all the stock issues for veteran debaters. But sometimes
your strategic needs may not make this the best possible approach. Perhaps the specific need claim is
something that’s fundamentally true, and the Affirmatives are going to win that stock issue even if
you read your best evidence; or perhaps the inherency claim is something you’ve never heard of
before, and you know you don’t have anything to defeat it. Or perhaps the Affirmative case is so
squirrelly that the First Negative wants to present about five minutes of topicality and justification
arguments, forcing him to drop some other issues.

All these conditions can be accommodated by flexible reassignment of speaker duties. Either
Negative speaker can initiate arguments on any of the stock issues during his constructive speech,
with the exception that most judges — as we learned earlier — will accept topicality challenges only
if they arise in the First Negative Constructive.

Negatives varying the usually assignment of speaker duties should take note of three special
considerations. First, you should be very careful to let the judge know that this is a deliberate
strategy, not a product of misunderstanding the usual speaker assignments. This can be done by
beginning 1NC with a road map of the two constructive speeches, telling both the judge and the
Affirmatives which stock issues will be covered in which Negative speech.

Second, reassigning speaker duties requires absolute mastery of organization. All arguments against
the Affirmative case should use the outline structure and argument labels from the case. The
Negative speaker should present all case arguments in a cluster, traveling once down the outline,
rather than taking random potshots at points in the case and alternating them with plan arguments.
And please use consistent numbering between the speeches! If the First Negative presents two
PMA’s and one disadvantage in his speech, then the Second Negative’s first PMA should be
numbered "PMA Three," and the first new disad in 2NR should be "Disadvantage Two."

Third, make sure that the division of duties maximizes your effectiveness by maximizing the number
of issues you cover. Second Negative should initiate new arguments rather than repeat and extend
positions which arose in the First Negative’s speech. This error — of wasting the constructive
opportunities of 2NC — is the one that most often bedevils debaters experimenting with this strategy
for the first time.

One technique that has proved very effective is the Emory Switch, a strategy that was first employed
by debaters from Emory University. The Emory Switch merely exchanges speaker responsibilities
between First and Second Negatives, insofar as that is possible. Thus, First Negative will present
plan attacks PMAs and D-As), and cover topicality if that will be an issue in the round; the Second
Negative will cover need and inherency, and (possibly) attack the case-side solvency arguments. The
disadvantages developed in 1NC are not shell D-As — they will be fully-developed plan attacks.

The Emory Switch has notable benefits. It allows the Negative to establish its case early in the
debate. It gives the Second Affirmative no clue to what case-side arguments will eventually be
contested by the Negative; consequently, 2AR has to run as many extensions as possible, knowing
some of them will be wasted. By waiting until both Affirmative constructive speeches have passed
before challenging case issues, the Negatives gain the opportunity to detect any cracks in the

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter13.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，4/13(W)

complete Affirmative analysis — and the greatest chance to sit back and plan a strategy against the
Affirmative case.

There is a tradeoff in adopting the Emory Switch. Although the Negative gets plan objections on the
record early — in 1NC — there is little time to develop penetrating case-specific arguments. Thus,
most of the plan attacks will be relatively weak, generic positions. And the importance of the
Affirmative case may be reinforced in the judge’s mind, since so great a period elapses before it is
contested by the Negative. The Emory Switch is a powerful and effective strategy, but it probably
should not be used by all Negative teams every round. Rather, it should be reserved for those rounds
when, after hearing the Affirmative case, you realize that you aren’t likely to develop great case-
specific plan attacks but could benefit from a deeper analysis of case issues. To have this option
open, though, means that both Negative speakers need to be equally adept at presenting case and
plan attacks.

How does the Affirmative team respond to the Negative’s reassigning speaker duties? They do what
Affirmatives always do: refute everything the Negative says, and rebuild the Affirmative case as
needed. In 2AC, the speaker will begin by covering topicality, then any plan attacks (in depth), and
then rebuilding and extending case arguments. If nothing was attacked on case side, extensions are
still important. The First Affirmative Rebuttal will cover plan attacks, topicality, and then case
arguments, but will put the greatest stress on refuting arguments that first appeared in 2NC, for the
Affirmative has never had a chance to answer those. There really is no major change in strategy for
Affirmatives, just a change in emphasis; keep calm, and you will find you can adapt to Negative
tactics gracefully.

Conditional arguments
By conditional arguments, we mean arguments that are presented but not fully endorsed unless or
until some conditions are met. As we have seen, Negatives like to pose dilemmas for the Affirmative
team. Often, though, in trying to build a dilemma, Negatives have to present mutually contradictory
arguments. We have already met some of these earlier in this text: for instance, Negatives may argue
that the plan is so poorly constructed that it would never solve the harms, and then also argue that
when the plan solves the harms, undesirable consequences will arise. A little thought reveals that
these arguments cannot both be true. Indeed, Affirmatives might be able to destroy one or both of the
arguments by pointing out the contradiction. So Negatives try to use conditional argumentation to
make these contradictions more acceptable. "We don’t think the plan will work," they may say,
introducing the PMA, "but if the plan does work — if you, judge, grant solvency to the Affirmative
— then this disadvantage which outweighs the case benefits will also occur." The Negative is asking
that the disad be considered only after solvency has been decided, and then only if solvency falls
Affirmative.

Virtually any argument can be made conditional or contingent on the decision of other issues. But
Negatives seem to get special joy out of applying conditional arguments to inherency issues —
especially conditional minor repairs and conditional counterplans. The Negative first relies on a
defense of the status quo to win inherency. But if the status quo is proven to be faulty, then they will
invoke the conditional counterplan.

Unfortunately, once Negatives learn they can advocate conditional arguments, some abuse the
privilege. Your author once judged a round in which the Negative argued (1) that the harm claimed
by the Affirmative wasn’t really bad, but good, so there was no need established; (2) and the status
quo is better at getting this good thing, there is a disadvantage to replacing the present system by the
Affirmative plan, (3) but, conditionally, if the Affirmative wins the need issue by proving this thing
really is bad, then the status quo could minimize its occurrence more than the plan could, so there is
no inherency; (4) but if the status quo really can’t minimize the occurrence of the bad thing, then
here is a conditional minor repair that would work; (5) but if the Affirmative proves the minor repair
doesn’t work, then this conditional counterplan will capture the Affirmative advantage and provide

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter13.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，5/13(W)

additional benefits as well; (6) and, if the counterplan is not needed, here is a conditional
disadvantage that applies to the Affirmative plan and is unique relative to the status quo and the
minor repair, although not to the counterplan; (7) but, if the counterplan is needed, here is a
conditional disadvantage that is unique to the plan relative to the counterplan (though the
disadvantage would also accrue under the status quo). You will not be surprised to learn this round
was a confusing mess to judge. The Affirmative remained calm; ultimately, the Negative team
became disoriented by the interwoven layers of their own hypothetical arguments, dropped a few
crucial positions, and lost the round.

It is not settled in contemporary debate theory whether conditional positions must be resolved at the
end of the round. Many judges and debate theoreticians believe that the Negatives have a duty to
condense their arguments to a well-defined, internally consistent position by the conclusion of 2NR.
Such a viewpoint requires the Negatives either to drop conditional arguments or to affirm them by
dropping contradictory arguments. But this opinion is far from universal: other debate experts have
no reservations about voting for a Negative team that may have contradictory positions outstanding
at the end of the round.

More conservative judges may disapprove of conditional arguments altogether, or may dislike some
conditional arguments. In particular, a few judges are biased against conditional counterplans,
believing that if the Negative team is willing to jettison the presumption of the status quo, they
should have the conviction to stand behind arguments fully. We will look at judges’ reactions to
advanced theory more fully when we examine judge paradigms a few pages from now.

Is there anything else devious that can be done with counterplans?

Sure! Usually Negatives present counterplans in order to demonstrate a nontopical policy alternative
that is superior to the Affirmative plan. Much of the debate in the round would focus on the
counterplan’s merits. But sometimes the Negative will present a counterplan with a different aim in
mind: to make a disadvantage unique. That is, the Negative will present a disadvantage that applies
both to the status quo and the Affirmative plan — but, since the counterplan abandons the status quo,
the disadvantage must be counted as a unique hazard of the Affirmative plan.

Let’s look at an example. Under a resolution calling for federal intervention in public secondary
education, the Affirmative calls for the federal government to be the sole source of funding for
public education. The Negative wants to argue that federal funding will lead to federal control of
schools, and that anything which interferes with local control of education will destroy a vital
relationship in American communities. However, since the federal government currently sends a
trickle of money to public schools, the Negative can’t plausibly argue that any federal funding is
disastrous. The crafty Negatives, though, first introduce a counterplan banning any federal funding
for public schools. The disadvantage they introduce later applies to the plan and to the status quo, but
not to the counterplan; the counterplan has made the disadvantage unique.

Of course, such a counterplan introduced for tactical reasons still has to prove itself in its own right:
it must be nontopical, competitive, and at least as beneficial as the Affirmative plan in order to win.

Counterwarrants were mentioned several paragraphs ago. What are they?

The concept of counterwarrants originated in college debate, and has begun to seep into high school
debate as well. They are very controversial, and may be rejected by many judges in states where the
style of debate is conservative.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter13.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，6/13(W)

At the heart of counterwarrant theory is the logical fallacy known as hasty generalization. To explain
that will require some background. Philosophers have identified two broad methods of reaching
conclusions from data. Deductive reasoning is the process used in mathematics and formal logic:
from a limited set of assumptions (sometimes called axioms) and a set of rules, an investigator can
outline a series of steps leading to a specific conclusion. Anyone who has worked with proofs in
geometry class will be familiar with the process.

However, outside the formal systems of mathematics and logic, we cannot be so rigorous. We are
forced to fall back on inductive reasoning (also called inference) to establish the truth or falsity of a
statement. We repeatedly compare new data with the statement to be tested. Every datum that
supports the statement gives us greater confidence that the statement is true. Each supporting
instance provides a warrant — a support for belief — with respect to the statement being
investigated. However, even a single example that is opposed to the statement would serve to prove
it false. The obvious implication here is that inductive reasoning never provides us with complete
certainty, since there may always be a disconfirming example just outside our view.

Does this mean that inductive reasoning is bad reasoning? Far from it! Science operates by inductive
reasoning; in fact, all generalizations ever made about the real world are grounded in inductive
reasoning.

Let’s take an example. You want to know if all men are irritable if they are awakened from a sound
sleep by having ice water dumped on their heads. So you fill up a bucket and set out to test this
conclusion by experiment. After — oh, let’s say twenty or thirty trials — you will have accumulated
lots of evidence that men are downright cranky when awakened in this manner. Although you cannot
have absolute confidence that the statement is true, the fact that you have only confirming examples
gives you increased confidence that the conclusion really is true.

Now let’s consider another example. This time, you’re testing the statement ALL BOOKS ARE DICTIONARIES.
Again, you look for examples, and this time you visit the public library. The first book you see —
that really big one on the reading stand — yes, that’s a dictionary. You wander around the reference
shelves and pull out a book at random; yes, by chance this one’s a dictionary too, though it’s written
in French. Having taken two samples, you leave the library, confident that the conjecture is probably
true.

But, of course, it is false. All books are not dictionaries; relatively few books are dictionaries.
Because we considered only a small set of atypical (not typical) examples, we went astray. This is an
example of hasty generalization, the use of inductive reasoning to reach a conclusion based on too
few examples. In this case, we examined only two books; that’s not a sufficiently broad base for the
conclusion we are testing. Looking at just a few more books would probably have been sufficient to
give a counterexample to refute our hypothesis.

In policy debate, the Negative counterwarrant strategy claims that the Affirmative case is a single
atypical example of reasoning under the resolution. The Negatives further suggest that considering
other examples would lead to rejecting the idea that the resolution was generally true. Finally, they
then present several alternative examples of topical Affirmative cases and plans, and demonstrate
that each of these cases is, indeed, a bad idea. Each of these alternative cases gives a reason why the
resolution should be rejected: a counterwarrant. Thus the Negative contends that, as a general
principle, the resolution should not be adopted.

If the Negative wins this debate, they have not done so by confronting the Affirmative case set
before them. Rather, they have shifted the focus of the debate from the specifics of 1AC to the
resolution itself. Indeed, the Negative in a counterwarrant round may never address details of the
1AC’s case and plan. The Negative will argue that its ultimate duty is to oppose the resolution, and
that counterwarrants serve as the ultimate test of the resolution’s truth or falsity.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter13.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，7/13(W)

The primary argumentation for this position must fall on the First Negative. He will need to explain
to the judge what a hasty generalization is, to argue that 1AC constituted a hasty generalization on
the merits of the resolution, to propose the counterwarrant cases and plans, and to show the fatal
flaws in the counterwarrant examples.

The Affirmative team — primarily the Second Affirmative Constructive — will likely need to adopt
four approaches when faced with a Negative counterwarrant attack. First, they will argue that
through its failure to grapple with issues of the Affirmative case, the Negative grants the stock issues
to the Affirmative. Second, Affirmative teams will argue that the counterwarrant approach is
illegitimate. Since the Affirmative has the initial duty to determine (through their choice of
definitions, case, and plan) the range and limits of the resolution, then at the conclusion of 1AC the
resolution and the Affirmative plan are identical. Unless the Negative offers a topicality challenge
(which is impractical, considering the time 1NC must devote to the counterwarrant arguments), there
is no ground for concluding that ANY other cases and plans can be fit within the umbrella of the
resolution; the Negative has to argue against the Affirmative policy or concede the round.

Third, the Affirmative will argue that a single desirable plan — such as their own — is sufficient to
establish the legitimacy of the resolution. No matter what the topic being debated, anyone can devise
a bad topical plan and case. Simply omitting enforcement provisions, or providing inadequate
funding, or using an incompetent administrative agency will suffice to make any plan undesirable.
But the existence of bad ideas, the Affirmative will argue, does not mean that no idea is good. This
argument, if carried throughout the debate, can undercut the legitimacy of the entire Negative
strategy.

Fourth, the Affirmative will present a conditional argument: if counterwarrants are accepted as valid
Negative strategies, then the particular alternative cases the Negative provides are not legitimate
counterexamples of the resolution. At this point, 2AC would use any tactics available to cast doubt
on the legitimacy of the counterwarrant cases. One key argument will be topicality: Second
Affirmative will present nontopicality challenges to show that the counterwarrant cases are outside
the resolution. It is vital that 2AC makes sure any topicality arguments do not apply equally well to
the Affirmative case! Additionally, 2AC will examine the Negative’s reasons for rejecting the
counterwarrant cases as undesirable. If the "flaws" in the counter-cases are each different, then there
is no reason to believe that these weaknesses derive from the resolution; rather, the Negative
themselves may have engaged in hasty generalization by choosing atypical, flawed examples. If all
the counterexamples share a similar "flaw" that is not shared by the Affirmative plan, that again
suggests that the "flaw" is an artifact of the Negative’s selection process rather than a problem
stemming from the topic. If the "flaw" applies to the all the counterwarrant cases as well as to the
Affirmative case, then the Affirmative can treat this as a generic disadvantage applied to the
Affirmative case; they will argue that the D-A is not significant, not bad, and certainly outweighed
by Affirmative benefits.

Several potential problems should be obvious at this point. Speaker responsibilities beyond 2AC are
undefined. Most of the debate theory we have grown to know is jettisoned. With the abandonment of
1AC’s case structure, the debate may fall apart into a morass of disorganization unless speakers on
both sides work especially hard to structure their arguments. The complex theoretical nature of the
arguments make this a risky strategy for Negatives unless they know the judge is extraordinarily
competent. For these reasons, among others, use of counterwarrants should be approached with
extreme caution.

I like the notion that debaters can tell the judge that some sorts of arguments, such
as counterwarrants, are or are not acceptable. Is this a part of advanced debate?

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter13.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，8/13(W)

Oh, yes. As we have seen, debate theory is constantly in a state of change. Debaters cannot be sure
that their judges are aware of the latest vogues in theory. Rather than risk the judge misapplying an
argument, debaters will make claims about the relative merits of arguments and theoretical positions.
Such decision rules have become hallmarks of contemporary debate.

As the name suggests, a decision rule is a proposed guideline which, if followed, will help the judge
choose which side ought to win. We can classify decision rules into two broad categories: those
which defend or attack elements of debate theory (which can be called theoretical decision rules or
formal decision rules) and those which assign rankings to the impacts of Affirmative need arguments
and Negative disadvantages (which we shall call valuative decision rules).

We already have seen a few examples of formal decision rules. Look back at the material we have
covered in the chapters on topicality and counterplans. The standards of a nontopicality challenge —
which suggest that definitions of a particular type should be preferred over those of other types —
are theoretical decision rules. So is the argument that nontopicality ought to be a voting issue. And
so is the argument that the Negative loses presumption in a counterplan round. Formal decision rules
make a claim about how debate theory should be construed, and back this claim up with reasoning. If
the judge accepts the decision rule, it is likely to have a significant influence on which side wins the
debate.

The principal lesson of advanced debate is this: all debate theory is tentative and mutable. Debaters
may use formal decision rules to argue in favor of, or in opposition to, conventional theory as it has
been explained in this book. Additionally, debaters may argue in favor of new theoretical structures
— those beyond the scope of what we have covered — which can form the basis of winning debates.

There are three things you may have deduced already about theoretical decision rules. First, they are
tools that can be used as readily by the Affirmative as by the Negative. For example, the Affirmative
team can argue that nontopicality is a reverse voting issue — since it takes up so much time, and has
a potentially devastating effect on the Affirmative if the issue is lost, and since the Negative has
staked their whole credibility on this claim that the Affirmative is cheating, then (Affirmatives may
say) if the Negatives later lose or drop their nontopicality claim, the decision of the debate should go
Affirmative regardless of the other arguments in the round. In another example, Affirmatives could
argue that existential inherency is a legitimate approach, or that inherency should not be a voting
issue in debate; winning this argument would mean the Affirmative could still win the round even if
they lost or failed to present inherency positions.

Second, decision rules become grounds for debate as the round progresses. Just as Affirmatives and
Negatives will dispute whether reasonability is the best standard for evaluating definitions, so can
any formal decision rule become a topic of conflict between the sides. Indeed, it would be possible
for one side to refute a decision rule offered by the other by proposing that all decision rules are
invalid — which itself is a decision rule; your author has never seen this attempted, thank goodness.

Third, formal decision rules tend to require analysis by the sponsoring team more than they require
evidence. Mind you, if you can find a quotation from a debate authority which adds support to your
theoretical position, that is helpful. But a greater emphasis is placed on the reasons why a particular
element of debate theory should or should not be accepted, and that requires articulate analysis by
the side proposing the rule. It’s often not enough to say that a certain debate authority endorses a
theoretical position; it’s more important to show why this theoretical position would improve debate.

Okay, I think I see what you mean about nontopicality being a type of decision rule.
Are there any other regular types of formal decision-rules?

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter13.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，9/13(W)

Yes. In the 1990s a new form of debate argument emerged, called the kritik. Usually, a kritik is a
Negative argument that claims the Affirmative approach has overlooked a crucial gap in our
understanding of the world, or that the Affirmative performance in the round is damaging to the
conduct of debate. Kritiks have become increasingly important to advanced debate in recent years,
and the subject is too complex to explain fully here. We’ll devote the next chapter to them.

What about valuative decision rules?

The other type of decision rule takes some inspiration from value debate, which we briefly
mentioned in the first chapters of this text. Debaters also call these decision rules moral imperatives,
because they represent moral or ethic rules that is it necessary ("imperative") to follow.

Valuative decision rules identify a particular value — a abstract principle of goodness — as being of
superlative importance. Among the values often encountered are freedom of expression, human life,
individual liberty, social justice, political equality, and democracy. This is by no means a complete
list; there are hundreds of potential values which may be applied. The valuative decision rule will
then weigh the proposed Affirmative plan against the Negative’s case (disadvantages plus the status
quo or counterplan). The team proposing the decision rule will argue that the alternative which best
supports the specified value must be judged superior.

When valuative decision rule arguments used, they will commonly be appended to the solvency
argument of the Affirmative case or to the impact claim of a Negative disadvantage. Most debates
are decided, after all, by assessing the cumulative unique merits of the Affirmative plan and
weighing them against the evils noted in the disadvantages. Often this presents a puzzle to the judge,
who has to balance fundamentally different things: saving lives versus the risk of economic
catastrophe, for example. The valuative decision rule is designed to guide the judge in making that
decision. If the Affirmative team proposes that human life is the highest value, for example, as part
of 2AC’s extension arguments on solvency (and assuming this argument survives all through the
debate), then no economic disadvantage would suffice to outweigh the Affirmative advantage of
saving lives. If the Negative proves that human freedom is the ultimate value, then a disadvantage
which shows the Affirmative plan crushes human freedom would be likely to outweigh any potential
Affirmative advantage.

Obviously, valuative decision rules require evidence. Debaters will find it useful to gather quotations
from philosophers and religious authorities to prove that particular abstract principles are important
or unimportant.

As with formal decision rules, valuative decision rules can be used as tools by both sides in the
round. To be consistent, though, each side should probably limit themselves to proposing only one
value as preeminent during a debate. If both sides present a valuative decision rule, then a portion of
the later debate will be devoted to comparing those two values to convince the judge that one should
be preferred over the other, and to disputing whether the plan promotes or impedes the values in
question.

Valuative decision rules are an attempt to draw some of the theory of value debate into policy debate
rounds. At the time this book was written, there appeared to be an effort to look to value debate
theory for a framework for arguing valuative decision rules; you may get further insight by
consulting a textbook on value debate.

Are judges receptive to theoretical arguments such as these?

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter13.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，10/13(W)

There is dispute within the judging community over the issue of judge intervention. How much
should the judge’s opinions, preconceptions, and biases enter into the final decision of the round?
This becomes especially important in the upper echelons of debate, where debaters are more likely to
argue theoretical positions. What happens if one side argues in favor of a new theory that the judge
dislikes? But even in novice rounds, we must consider: what should happen when a team advances
an argument that the judge finds unreasonable, unethical, absurd, or offensive? To what extent is it
proper for a judge to disregard such arguments, even if the other team fails to oppose them?

Those who oppose judge intervention say that judges have an obligation to remain as divorced from
the debate process as possible. When issues of debate theory come under dispute, they believe, they
should be settled just as issues of fact: the side which better supports the point by evidence and
reasoning should win the issue. These experts acknowledge that every judge will bring some
preconceptions to the round, particularly in determining how much proof is needed to refute an
argument. However, they contend that training in advocacy is best served by taking effort to consider
all arguments valid until refuted, and by never rejecting any debater’s effort out of hand.

Nobody seems to be in favor of giving judges free reign to decide debates based on personal feelings
about the debaters or about the issues in the resolution. But there are some judges who feel that
limited intervention may be occasionally appropriate. These experts see their role as both arbitrator
and educator: the judge’s responsibility is not just to weigh what is said, but also to teach debaters
that there are boundaries to what is acceptable in argumentation. Such judges may favor particular
approaches to debating, or may give less importance to particular issues of theory and substance that
emerge in the round, based on their conceptions of what debate ought to be.

Debaters are caught in the middle. They don’t like the risk that an interventionist judge will
arbitrarily reject something they say. But many are also reassured by the framework provided by
debate theory, and they are uncomfortable that a noninterventionist judge may accept unreasonable
substantive and theoretical arguments proposed by their opponents. But all debaters agree they need
to know how a judge responds to debate — to know his preferences in debating style. Knowing this,
debaters would have the option of judge adaptation: of adjusting their styles to conform with the
judge’s preference.

You certainly are within your rights to ask the judge before the round begins whether he is an
interventionist. Even more helpful, you may ask what the judge’s preferred paradigm is. Of course,
what you do with this information is up to you. Some coaches prefer their debaters to accommodate
judge preferences as much as possible; others insist that their debaters maintain a certain style
regardless of the judge.

What are judge paradigms?

Originally, the word "paradigm" (PAIR-ah-diym) applied to a model: for instance, the models of
how verbs are conjugated in a foreign language. In his 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), Thomas Kuhn used the term to apply to a model
of thinking — a conceptual structure into which new facts are placed, and a structure that may be
threatened when new facts fail to fit well. Kuhn’s concept has stirred great interest in many fields,
and it was natural that the concept of paradigms be extended to competitive debate in the 1970s and
1980s.

There are six judge paradigms which have widespread currency today, as well as an assortment of
others which have not yet gained broad appeal. Knowing the judge’s paradigm gives you insight into
his view of high school debate, and lets you know to what sorts of arguments he may be receptive or
hostile. In order of increasing liberalism, the common paradigms are Skills, Stock Issues, Policy-

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter13.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，11/13(W)

Making, Hypothesis Testing, Tabula Rasa, and Games-Playing.

THE SKILLS PARADIGM. The skills judge favors the team which exhibits the better speaking
abilities. The issues which emerge in the debate have a secondary importance, and theoretical
arguments get even lower ranking. This viewpoint is often the one taken by judges new to
interscholastic debate. Debate theory assumes lesser importance to them because they may have had
only limited exposure to traditional theory. Such judges may not know what a "paradigm" is.

For the skills judge, the decision will be influenced by the debaters’ eloquence, use of a measured
speaking rate, application of concrete examples, vivid imagery, and appropriate analogies. He may
not be receptive to arguments which lean heavily on theory, such as topicality, conditional
arguments, counterplans, counterwarrants, and formal decision rules. Disadvantages with reasonable
real-world impacts are likely to be favored over counterintuitive D-As or those that reach extreme
conclusions.

From the debater’s perspective, the skills judge is the most likely to be interventionist. He may reject
any of the substance of the round in order to give the decision to the more articulate debaters.
Contemporary debate, marked by an increasing reliance on theory and a drive for faster speaking
speeds, tends to give a hostile reception to the skills judge. This is unfortunate. By limiting our use
of laypersons as judges, we risk severing debate from any connection to the real world and to the
community which sponsors debate as an educational program in the schools. So if your judge prefers
the skills paradigm, you should welcome this as an opportunity to adapt to the same critical
viewpoint that will evaluate all your public speaking once you leave high school.

THE STOCK ISSUES PARADIGM. This is the conventional approach described in the earlier
chapters of the book. Most judges who have been involved in debate for a few years understand (but
may not prefer) the stock issues approach, making this the fundamental perspective given to
debaters. Emphasis is primarily on the issues of need, inherency, solvency, and disadvantages, and
secondarily on extratopicality and nontopicality. But counterwarrants, justification arguments and, to
a lesser extent, counterplans fit uneasily into the stock issues framework, and some judges will reject
them. While most judges will accommodate valuative decision rules, formal decision rules that ask
the judge to reject conventional stock issues theory may not be accepted.

THE POLICY-MAKING PARADIGM. This approach to debate sees the judge in much the same
position as a legislator who needs to choose between voting for a bill or voting for an amended
version of the bill. In deciding the debate, then, the judge will be casting a ballot in favor of the
policy proposal which has the greater obvious merit. The policy-making judge thus expects to see a
contrast between two competing proposals. One is the Affirmative plan. The other will be whatever
alternative the Negative favors instead of the plan: perhaps the status quo, perhaps the status quo as
modified by a minor repair, or perhaps a counterplan. No matter which is chosen, the Negative is
expected to support a single policy alternative and to commit themselves fully to it. Conditional
arguments, especially conditional counterplans, are usually seen as inappropriate by the policymaker
judge.

Stock issues arguments need to be adapted for the policy-making judge. Need and solvency
arguments are still essential. However, the policy-making paradigm will often allow a relaxed
approach to inherency, perhaps accommodating existential inherency. When a problem arises,
lawmakers tend to look for new legislative solutions rather than to examine the ability of current
practices. Only if the Negative chooses to defend the status quo will the capabilities of the present
system be subject to intense examination.

In balancing Affirmative advantages versus Negative disadvantages, the policy-maker will often use
the tools of risk assessment. The impact claimed by the Affirmative will be modified by the
percentage likelihood that the plan will work; thus, if the Negative’s solvency arguments convince

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter13.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，12/13(W)

the judge the plan will work only about half the time, and the Affirmative claims that their plan can
save ten thousand lives a year, then the plan benefits are assessed at 5,000 lives (50% of 10,000)
saved per year. In response, the Negative claims that the plan will lead to a world war, killing off a
quarter billion people. On the other hand, the Affirmative is able to cast sizable doubt on whether
war would actually take place; the judge, evaluating the impacts, decides that there’s only a 0.001%
chance the disadvantage would actually occur. So the net impact of the disad is 0.001% of 250
million, or 2,500, lives lost. The net advantage seems to be for the Affirmative; they will win this
round if no other arguments are outstanding.

The policy-making paradigm is cool to nontopicality arguments and definitely hostile to

counterwarrants (which fail to focus attention on the policy proposals active in the round) or
justification (which suggests alternative policies but fails to commit to any of them). Valuative
decision rules may be accepted; formal decision rules are likely to be rejected as an impediment to
looking at the worth of policies.

THE HYPOTHESIS-TESTING PARADIGM. This view of debate tries to mimic the research
methods of the scientist. In this perspective, the resolution is a hypothesis to be proven true or false,
and the Affirmative plan is a datum that will test the hypothesis. The emphasis thus shifts away from
the specifics of the Affirmative plan to a consideration of the whole resolution. Much of the burden
of proof is shifted to the Negative here: if the Negative can suggest any counterexample that shows
the resolution should not be adopted, they will win.

Surprisingly, shifting this burden is fair, because hypo-testing also allows the Negative a wide range
of tools to cast doubt on the resolution. The Negative is free to claim that there is no need for change,
that the problem is not inherent, and that the plan will not work. But, since the Negative only has to
prove that a single counterexample to the resolution exists, the Negative partners are not required to
be mutually consistent; contradictory and conditional arguments are perfectly acceptable.

Similarly, the whole spectrum of topicality becomes available. Justification arguments, which
suggest alternatives to the specifics of the Affirmative plan, are valid for hypothesis- testing judges.
So are counterplans, which advocate alternatives to the resolution. And counterwarrants, which test
the resolution itself rather than the plan specifics, are best suited for evaluation by a hypothesis-
testing judge.

Shifting emphasis to the resolution from the case has one implication for Negative disadvantages:
only generic D-As can gain judge acceptance. A disad which is linked to the particular funding
mechanism used by the Affirmative plan may be a reason to reject this particular plan, but not a
reason to reject the resolution as a whole; and the hypo-testing judge is interested in the whole
resolution. Generic plan attacks, which would apply to all or virtually all plans under the resolution,
are thus important tools for the Negative. Case-specific arguments will generally be rejected.
Counterwarrants work especially well as Negative tactics in front of a hypo-tester judge.

THE TABULA RASA PARADIGM. The Latin phrase tabula rasa means "blank slate." The tabula
rasa judge will judge the debate based on the arguments the debaters offer, both on substantive issues
and theoretical issues. This judge is explicitly noninterventionist. If both sides in the round seem to
think, for example, that inherency is a voting issue, then he will vote on it. If one side claims
inherency is a voting issue and the other side denies it is, the judge will look to whatever side
provides the best reasoning and evidence to decide what debate theory will be valid during this round
— and then he will apply the theory to determine the results of the debate.

Potentially, then, the tabula rasa judge will accept any new element of debate theory you wish to add
— or will reject any element of conventional theory you want to discard. Decision rules are a must
here: you need to propose formal decision rules to assure the debate theory you prefer will be used.
But valuative decision rules may also be useful in determining the winner of substantive issues if the

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter13.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，13/13(W)

debate is not won on theoretical grounds.

Remember: the tabula rasa judge knows that debate theory is elastic, and he is willing to bend and
stretch to accommodate the theory that the debaters want. You can manipulate the judge’s view of
debate in order to get the victory you want. How can you resist?

THE GAME-PLAYING PARADIGM. Yes, there’s one step even more liberal than tabula rasa.
The games judge views debate as a contest with arbitrarily imposed rules. He also believes that any
rule has the potential to hurt one side or the other of the round. So he rejects all rules except those
that the debaters ask for.

In terms of theory, this is identical to the tabular rasa position: the judge will adapt to any theory that
both sides seem to agree on. If sides disagree about an element of theory, he will use the arguments
presented during the round to decide what theory will be. However, it goes beyond this, too, to the
procedural rules that govern debate. The judge may not be willing to enforce the rules of conduct
which normally are in place at tournaments. He may permit more than one questioner or witness
during cross-examination; he may permit debaters to interrupt one another’s speeches; he may permit
alterations in the time limits of speeches. To the games judge, no rule should be accepted on its face;
any rule is subject to being questioned and rejected.

Rounds conducted before game-playing judges can be very liberating: debaters are treated as free-
willed entities best able to decide what debate should be, fully able to choose the structure, theory,
and substance of the debate round. Other debaters are intimidated by the lack of structure. Other
debaters use the lack of fixed structure as a license to plunge the debate round into chaos. The games
paradigm has unique risks and rewards. You have been cautioned!

Introduction to Policy Debate

Copyright © 1990, 1993, 1996, 2002 John R. Prager
All rights reserved.
Permission is not granted to reproduce this document in whole or in part, in any medium.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter13.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，1/20(W)

Chapter 14

The Kritik

Is the kritik another example of advanced debate theory?

Definitely. The kritik has its roots in German philosophy from the 18th century onward, especially in
the writings of G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) and Martin Heidegger (1889-1976). The application of
this style of reasoning in debate further borrows from "post-modern" academic writing, notably post-
structuralist literary criticism, deconstruction, and the Critical Legal Studies movement. This is all
heady, cutting-edge radical stuff. It won’t surprise you to find out — as we’ll see later — that the
theory of the kritik is not yet well developed, and is poorly understood by many judges.

Even the word we will use is tentative. "Kritik" is the German word for the English "critique," and
both words are pronounced the same way. But debaters already use "critique" to mean the
assessment a judge gives after the round, and so many debate authorities use the German spelling to
distinguish the new term from the old one. But some experts use the English spelling, instead, so
don’t be confused if you encounter that variation during research in speech journals and Internet
debate sites.

The use of this type of argument within debate circles is fairly new. Kritiks appeared on the college
debate circuit in September 1991. By the spring of 1992, kritiks had already spread to high school
policy debate, and specifically were being used in Michigan high school debate by Fall 1992.
Clearly, the kritik is a strategic approach which has not yet had time to mature. It is unclear whether
the high school community will ultimately accept or reject these arguments. This is history being
made as you watch: the last major revolutions in debate theory were the introductions of justification
in the 1970s and judging paradigms in the 1980s, so we are due for another challenge to debate
traditions. Moreover, even if your school’s squad does not encourage kritiks, other schools
throughout the state are using them and may try to use them against you to gain a competitive
advantage, so it is in your best interest to have a basic understanding of kritik theory.

What is the kritik?

Kritiks are philosophically-based arguments which question fundamental assumptions underlying the
arguments, positions, or presentation of one side in the debate. Since the kritik asks for the judge to
evaluate the round based on the evaluation of the kritik, we can consider these arguments to be
varieties of (formal) decision-rules. Generally, the kritik is a tool for the Negative team against the
Affirmative — but there are instances where Affirmatives can apply the kritik, too. Authorities
suggest that successful kritiks have five characteristics:

1. The kritik questions the fundamental assumptions of the round. It looks at issues lurking
within the presentation of one side of the debate, rather than taking the presentation at its face
value. The result of this is that the debate shifts away from policy discussion, often toward
discussing questions of fact or value.
2. The kritik is generally presented as an absolute argument. It demands a yes-or-no response
from the judge, rather than an impact which is weighed against other arguments.
3. The kritik may be non-unique. The side presenting a kritik may indulge in the same "hidden
assumptions" for which it is kritiking the opposing team. They will argue, however, that a
decision on the kritik can mean a lost debate only for the opposing team.
4. Kritiks are non-comparative. The kritiks only questions and objects. It does not seek to

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，2/20(W)

present an alternative. At most, a kritik can suggest a vague realm of alternatives but not
specify which one should be selected. A "kritik of capitalism," for instance, may urge that
capitalism be rejected, and the Affirmative plan’s capitalistic underpinnings would be rejected
as well. But the Negative presenting the argument would not have to urge for a specific
replacement for capitalism, such as fascism or socialism.
5. Kritiks are a priori (Latin: "from the beginning") voting issues. Since they represent
fundamental considerations on which presentations are built, they demand to be evaluated
before substantive issues such as inherency, topicality, or disadvantages are considered. If the
bedrock of those arguments is faulty, as the kritik suggests, then we can discard the arguments
without looking at them in detail.

Negatives will find that kritiks have some features in common with more conventional arguments.
Often, the argument embedded in a kritik could be recast, using the same evidence, as a counterplan,
disadvantage, topicality challenge, or a response to one of the Affirmative’s stock issue burdens.
Strictly on its own, though, the kritik should be distinguished from any of these. It’s not a
counterplan, because it’s absolute and non-comparative. It’s not a disad, because it’s not unique and
it’s a priori — it must be evaluated before disadvantages. Topicality arguments also claim to be
absolute and a priori, but they are also unique and comparative where kritiks are not.

It should be obvious from this discussion that kritiks are naturally generic arguments. They do not
look at the details that the other side has presented, but rather at the core reasons underlying the
opposing case, or style and diction of the presentation.

Help! I don’t think I’m understanding this at all.

If you are new to the concept of kritiks, everything we’ve discussed so far might have been very
confusing. Let’s try looking at kritiks another way. Many — not all, but perhaps most — kritiks can
be viewed almost like a type of disadvantage argument. However, while the traditional disad says the
plan, if put into effect, would have serious, harmful side-effects in the real world, a kritik says that
the way the opposing team (usually Affirmatives) have presented their arguments is having a bad
effect on the process of debate or on the participants — debaters and the judge — in the round.
These bad effects are so serious that the judge ought to give the offending side a loss.

A great analogy is available to us: the use of fraudulent evidence. Suppose that the Negative team
can conclusively prove the Affirmative team made up evidence used in the 1AC, or altered the
content of a real quotation. The Negatives will ask the judge for a decision in their favor, on the
grounds that fraudulent evidence destroys the intellectual foundations of debate. In response,
Affirmatives might try strategies similar to "minimizing the link" of a disadvantage, arguing that the
violation was relatively minor ("Really, it’s only one card," they might say, or "We got this from a
handbook, and we didn’t know the handbook editors were not ethical.") Or Affirmatives might try to
limit the impact of the violation, much like they would do against a disadvantage ("Throw out the
bad evidence, sure, but remember the evidence we had in our extensions. That’s still valid, so we can
still win our inherency position and the debate.") How will the judge decide this? When it is proven
that one side in a debate is using fraudulent evidence, virtually all judges will give that side the loss,
even if that side did the superior job of debating. The issue of debate ethics is more important than
the game-world issues of argumentation and fiat, and judges feel it’s more important to punish the
unethical side with a loss rather than award to the same debaters a victory based on their legitimate
evidence. Indeed, it could be argued that, by using bogus evidence, the Affirmative has robbed even
their valid evidence and argumentation of its credibility.

Okay, now let’s see how this serves as a model for a kritik. The Affirmative propose a plan that will
be brought into effect by the federal government of the United States (no surprise there — almost all

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，3/20(W)

resolutions require federal action). In response, the Negative team proposes a Kritik of Statism. By
proposing federal action, the 1NC says, the Affirmatives are implicitly saying that government is
legitimate — they are endorsing the idea of government. (Note that this is the equivalent of a plan
link argument in a disadvantage; this is the trigger for the rest of the kritik). But — 1NC goes on to
claim — government should not be reflexively assumed to be legitimate. Governments are
necessarily coercive: they force people to do things they don’t want to do, and this destroys human
freedom. Governments become tools, therefore, for one class of people — the rulers — to oppress
and control their fellow citizens, to silence their voices. And even worse, governments aren’t real.
"Government" is merely a fiction, a word we use to describe a collection of people all believing and
acting together; as far as natural rights go, individual persons have more rights than a make-believe
concept such as "government" whose primary purpose is to deprive real people of their freedoms. Of
course, the Negative speaker provides evidence for each of these crucial points. (This becomes the
equivalent of the internal links of a disadvantage — the detailed description of what proceeds from
the trigger). Finally, we come to the "impact" of the kritik: 1NC says that blind acceptance of
government stifles our ability to conceive of other options. It numbs us to the alternatives. The
impact is felt in the debate round, as the debaters become programmed by the language of
"government" to be more accepting of government rights over peoples’ rights. What is the recourse?
The only alternative to passive acceptance of "government" — which has just been shown to be evil
— is to reject the idea of government unless it can prove its worth. And the way to "reject
government" is to reject the Affirmative approach, which is tainted throughout by the passive
acceptance of government. So the judge is urged to vote against the Affirmative, not based on the
merits or demerits of the plan, but because the way the Affirmatives present their ideas requires a
rejection.

I admit, the analogy between a kritik and a disadvantage is not a perfect one — but there are enough
similarities to give the new student some idea of what kritik argumentation is like. A kritik focuses
on a hidden assumption made by the opposition (in the example, the assumption is that government
is a legitimate way of carrying out actions). It exposes that assumption, and argues that the
assumption is a mistaken or an evil one (in the example, all the "government is bad" analysis serves
that purpose). Finally, the kritik tries to have an impact on the round by arguing the mistaken
assumption must be rejected, even though that means rejecting all the arguments of the opposing
side.

Are kritiks good arguments to use?

Let’s postpone the question of whether kritiks are strategically wise for a moment. Instead, consider
the question: Is the kritik a legitimate strategy in high school debate? In other word, should it be
permissible to develop and run kritiks?

That really is something that needs to be decided from round to round, but I would argue the answer
is yes — at least for Negatives. And there are several ways to arrive at this conclusion. First of all,
the Negative team’s only duty is to clash with the Affirmative at some point. Sure, most Negatives
will argue on the basis of the traditional stock issues, but they are not confined to those. Topicality
attacks and counterplans are not really relevant to stock issues analysis, yet Negatives can win on
that basis. Counterwarrants and justification arguments shift the debating ground away from the
Affirmative team’s specific arguments and examine the naked resolution. In many cases, kritiks just
carry this one step forward, and look to the assumptions embedded within the resolution, or within
the Affirmative’s style of presentation. Negatives can argue that, if the resolution itself is based on a
flawed assumption, then nothing flowing from the resolution need be debated, since it, too, will be
flawed.

Another argument on legitimacy: One position that is central to many (but not all) kritiks is the

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，4/20(W)

rejection of fiat in favor of other issues. Fiat power is a mythical, utopian concept. No matter what
arguments are presented in the round, we’re just playing a game in debate. The judge does not really
have the power to modify the status quo if she votes Affirmative. The only people really affected by
what occurs in the debate round are the four debaters and the judge. Think back to our example of
evidence falsification in the previous section. The moral there is that when issues arise that affect the
legitimacy of the debate activity itself, we are accustomed to overlook all arguments in the round and
decide the debate on other grounds. Those who favor kritik arguments claim they have something of
the same legitimacy to overlook the topic issues of the debate round in favor of examining the
validity of the debate experience.

A final argument on legitimacy: A number of highly regarded debate theorists begin with the
premise that judges should listen with an open mind to any arguments debaters present, and evaluate
them on their merits without regard to preconceptions. While this looks like a plea for debate
evaluators to avoid judge intervention, the argument really has more radical implications: judges
ought to be (at least initially) receptive to all theoretical positions which may arise in the round. In
other words, tabula rasa and games-playing judge paradigms are the only truly legitimate judging
philosophies. Anything else imposes the judge’s opinions of "what debate ought to be" on the round,
and forecloses some arguments either team might want to make; in turn, that may mean that before
the round begins, some teams will be doomed to lose because the judge will not accept their favored
argument.

While not all debate judges accept this reasoning (and there are arguments against it), there is a
growing consensus within the debate community that debate theory is not written in stone, but that
theoretical arguments should be evaluated as they arise. And that, ultimately, is why kritiks are
legitimate arguments for debaters to explore.

Now answer the other part: Are kritiks strategically wise?

Although kritiks might be legitimate arguments to develop, that does not mean debaters are
automatically going to win the round by running one. Just because an idea is new does not mean it’s
good. (Hey! Isn’t that what Negatives are saying all the time?) If you, as an advanced debater, want
to run a kritik argument, you have some massive obstacles ahead of you. Your coach may be one: the
more time you spend playing with abstruse philosophical arguments, the less attention you’re going
to devote to the real issues of the resolution. Your coach may forbid you to develop kritik arguments
until you have mastered the topic area first.

Second, you must consider: how much do you want to win? Because kritiks are novel types of
arguments, and foreign to the experience of many judges, you can expect to lose some debates even
though you know you ran a solid kritik that was not effectively refuted by the opposition. Perhaps
the judge didn’t understand the argument, or she rejected it out of hand. Perhaps the kritik isn’t even
discussed clearly on the ballot. You should not try to run a kritik unless you have the maturity to
handle an unjust decision against you.

Third: Can you handle the research burden? Most kritiks arise from philosophical issues, and
philosophy makes for very difficult reading. A few of the lesser-read (and more expensive) debate
handbooks now include kritik arguments and evidence, but even that material makes for dense
reading. And you won’t understand handbook kritiks thoroughly enough to handle refutation unless
you do independent study. I don’t care if you’re a genius debater, researching a single kritik
argument is gonna put you so deeply into ponderous and subtle reasoning that you may be
overwhelmed. At the very least, you will feel like a novice again, exploring an alien dimension of
argument for the first time. It’s an exciting — but demanding — experience. Decide early whether
you want to make that kind of commitment.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，5/20(W)

What are some examples of kritiks?

What follows is an exploration of some of the kritik arguments which may be developed and
presented in the course of a debate season. The list is worded to show how kritiks may be applied
against the Affirmative, but — as we mentioned earlier — some of them can be reworked to apply
against Negative arguments, instead. This list includes common generic kritiks that can appear from
year to year; each specific debate resolution will also open up certain other potential kritik arguments
specific to the annual topic.

This list is not (repeat: not) a recommendation to use any of the suggestions. It should be clear from
the preceding paragraphs that, although I think kritiks are legitimate, I have doubts as to whether
they best fulfill the educational mission of high school debate.

ANTHROPOCENTRISM
Aristotle was wrong: man is not "the measure of all things." Focusing too much on human needs and
problems prevents our appreciating the essential oneness of life and thwarts a transformation to
biocentrism or ecocentrism. Inasmuch as the concept of privacy is usually construed only to mean
relationships between humans, a concentration on this issue destroys our ability to put human
concerns on an equal footing with those of nonhuman animals, or plants, or other aspects of the
natural world. And yet those larger concerns are obviously more important. Human rights and values
are "socially constructed" — they are phantoms with no real meaning outside each society. The
relationship of people within the ecosystem is not a social fiction, though, but an immediate concern
that is being ignored, endangering us all.

AUTARCHY
A key element of responsible government is reliance on public input and understanding. A
government that is not responsive to its people is tyrannical. But this responsiveness is best
understood as a process — the due process of democracy — rather than as a result.

Because the Affirmative plan is implemented by fiat, it serves as a model of despotic rule rather than
of democratic due process; the plan is a ukase, or edict, rather than a legitimate policy proposal.
Implementation in this way serves to numb the debaters to the value of their democratic heritage; the
Affirmatives should lose because they hurt the cause of the democratic process.

CAPITALISM
The thesis of this kritik is that capitalism is evil. It dehumanizes people, because it does not think of
them as complex, individual persons but rather as "consumers" to be manipulated into making
purchases or working for minimal rewards. The capitalist ethic reduces people to things, which flies
in the face of centuries of moral philosophy. Promoting capitalism frustrates our efforts to look
beyond the capitalist mentality, and thus must be rejected. Plans which operate within the capitalist
system are corrupt and evil, and must be rejected so we can transcend the impulse to treat all things
and all people as commodities.

COMMUNITARIANISM
Many debate approaches are grounded in the need for collective action on behalf of the community.
The kritik of communitarianism begins with the obvious statement that there is no such thing as
"community" — there are only individual people, separate by nature, who choose to cooperate for
mutual benefit as they see fit. Failure to recognize individuality is both offensive (reducing people to
socialist, robot workers or to drones in the Borg Collective) and counterproductive (discouraging
individual efforts to excel). Arguments which give priority to the group over the individual set up a
mindset which hurts people and hurts the quest for the common good. For this reason, arguments
based on common good, communitarianism, or decreases in individual rights (such as privacy) taint

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，6/20(W)

the whole position and merit rejection.

CULTURAL IMPERIALISM
This kritik applies to a number of international resolutions. The United States is trying to impose its
values on other nations. That’s wrong, because there’s no grounding for belief that U.S. values are
superior to those of other nations. This argument is the same as the Kritik of Ethical Imperatives
(discussed below), by argued at the level of relations between nations. You should not be surprised
to see this position argued — perhaps with slight variations — under different names: Kritik of
American Exceptionalism, Kritik of Hegemony, or Kritik of U.S. Nationalism. All of these will
make the same point: The U.S. believes itself to be uniquely special. Promoting this idea — asserting
"American leadership" — is just a grand way of covering up American bullying and American force.

DEMOCRACY
Advocates say that one of the key reasons for U.S. intervention in other nations is that it reinforces a
climate of peace that bolsters democratic traditions. This would seem to be a good thing, right? This
kritik says no. Democracy is predicated on the belief that the opinions of hundreds of people are all
more likely to be correct than the opinions of one person. Is there any evidence that this has ever
been the case? Instead, we see that the prejudices of the majority become the policies of the
government; those citizens who have overcome these prejudices are isolated from power. Elected
officials inevitably cultivate special interests which can deliver votes to keep them in power.
Democracy is the most oppressive form of government, because the lone voice of dissent is helpless
against the tyranny of the majority.

DETERMINISM
We assume that every event has a cause. But have we ever know the complete list of causes for even
one event, anywhere, at any time? Even if we did, we cannot prove that causality is a universal truth.
There may be some spontaneous lapses from the rule of cause and effect. In fact, modern physics has
determined that some interactions between subatomic particles violate our common notions of
causality, at least for a brief time. If causality cannot be relied on at the micro-level, then it may not
be true on the macro-level, either. We must reject anything which may be untrue, so notions of
causality have to be discarded. However, that implies that all causal claims in debate (inherency,
solvency) must be rejected, unless the team proposing them can prove that causality is real.

DETERRENCE
Threats are morally equivalent to violence. If it is wrong to do something, then it is just as wrong to
intend to do that thing, meaning it’s wrong to sincerely threaten to do it. (A concrete example may
make this clear. It’s wrong to kill. Therefore it is wrong to intend to kill — even if you are stopped
— and it’s wrong to sincerely threaten to kill — because that just publicizes your evil intention).

But sincere threats are the keystone of deterrence policy. If it is wrong to use nuclear weapons in war
(and almost all philosophers believe it is), then it is wrong to intend to use nuclear weapons and
wrong to threaten to do so. Thus, possessing nuclear weapons is in itself a passive threat and thus
morally wrong. The implications for debate are as follows: the team that is relying on the existing
framework of nuclear deterrence and arms-control treaties is supporting a morally untenable, or even
evil, position. Their arguments must be rejected as tainted.

But deterrence is not only nuclear. Is it wrong to let an innocent person suffer, or even starve?
Everyone says yes. If that is so, then it is wrong to impose economic sanctions on a nation if those
sanctions might result in starvation or deprivation. By the logic above, even threatening economic
sanctions is equally as wrong. An Affirmative plan or Negative counterplan which relies on
economic punishment if a nation refuses to cooperate with the plan is morally tainted and must be
rejected.

ETHICAL IMPERATIVES

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，7/20(W)

This kritik springs from the term "should" in the resolution. The realm of "ought" is divorced from
the realm of "is." Just because we can do something does not establish that we should do it. Two
thousand years of philosophical speculation have not allowed us to discover any single moral truth or
ethical rule. To claim otherwise is to commit "the naturalistic fallacy": the false deduction of rules
from mere facts. Since there is no legitimate ground for arguing values, worth, or needs — or the
policies derived from them — the Affirmative side of the debate rests on the false premise that
proving effective action could be taken is sufficient to prove it should be taken.

EVIDENCE
Think of the advertisements you have seen on television or in print: "Four out of five dentists
surveyed recommended <product X>," and so on. These all demonstrate a flaw, a logical fallacy,
called an appeal to authority. The listeners or readers are encouraged to suspend critical thinking and
to follow blindly the recommendations of a supposed expert. If you pick up almost any reference
book on logic, propaganda, or rhetoric, you will find a discussion of how the appeal to authority is an
invalid argument.

Now consider debate. The chief way opposing teams "prove" their arguments is strictly by an appeal
to authority! In other words, the use of a widely-recognized form of corrupt argument is central to
our activity.

This can be used as a particularly insidious kritik. After the Affirmative presents their case, the First
Negative explains the fallacy of the appeal to authority. The Negative position would be that the
Affirmative use of "evidence" corrupts the development of critical thinking skills in the debaters and
in the judge, programming us all to accept advertising messages at face value. Since the appeal to
authority is invalid, not only must we wipe all the Affirmative evidence out of the debate, we must
also erase the Affirmative arguments, since they were developed within this corrupt framework.
Only by rejecting the Affirmative (with a loss in the round) can we score a victory for logical and
critical thinking.

But wait: Affirmatives can try this too, if they’re willing to go out on a limb. They would have to run
a very straightforward, mainstream case, relying on commonly known flaws in arms control policy.
And — this is important — they present no evidence in 1AC. If the Negatives fall into the trap of
pointing out the lack of evidence, and (worse yet, for them) read evidence of their own, then the
Affirmatives make essentially the same argument described in the paragraph above, calling on the
judge to reject the Negative stance. On the other hand, without evidence, how can the Affirmative
win? This must be explained by 2AC: if we cannot trust quotations from so-called experts, then we
can only fall back on personal experience. That’s why the case was so mainstream in the first place,
in the belief that the judge (who has had considerable life experience) will recognize the merits of the
1AC based on his or her personal life. That gives the Affirmative two ways to claim victory: either
because the kritik invalidates the Negative approach, or because the judge’s experience tells him or
her that the Affirmative is basically true.

FEMINISM
This is another kritik which would likely be presented by the Affirmative under certain resolutions,
in response to a Negative disadvantage based on feminist principles. However, it is also marginally
likely that Affirmatives may adopt a case based on a feminist view of the topic area, and that would
provide the Negatives a link to this kritik.

The kritik claims that the "critical feminist" stance is intrinsically divisive and incoherent. Feminism
claims there are inescapable differences between men and women in modes of thought and in being.
At the same time, feminism purports to believe in equality across gender lines. In practical terms, it
makes that goal of cooperative equality unattainable, by denying that men’s thoughts and feelings
have parity with those of women. Indeed, rather than abolishing hierarchies, critical feminism merely
wants the womyn’s position to be given precedence. The only way to work toward the ideal of

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，8/20(W)

equality is to reject the mindset of critical feminism. Accepting arguments based on a feminist
perspective would undermine that effort, so the team adopting the feminist position must lose the
round of debate.

INDETERMINISM
The world is a clockwork; every action is a consequence of past events via immutable physical laws.
Even individual choices are the result of electrical current flows in the human brain, and those
currents are the result of precisely determined chemical reactions. Any being which knew the state of
every atom in the universe at any one particular moment would be able to calculate the course of
events, everywhere, to any future point in time, with absolute precision. The fact that no real person
has the perfect knowledge to make such predictions does not refute the conclusion that the future is
predestined. The future is already determined by the present, but veiled from our knowledge. Free
will is an illusion based on this ignorance. In terms of debate, there’s no use proposing alternatives
(such as the Affirmative plan) if the course of future events is already determined.

INDUCTION
Deductive reasoning is a dead end. Its conclusions give us no new information. Consider the classic
example of a syllogism: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal." Now,
the deduction is valid according to the rules of logic, but whether it is true depends on how well the
premises (the first two sentences) correspond to the real world. Valid and true deductions already
have their conclusions implicit in the first premise; we must already know that Socrates is mortal
before we can truly make the claim that "all men are mortal."

But inductive reasoning, or generalizations, do allow us to discover new truths. Consider the possible
conclusion, "All crows are black." The way we prove this is by induction — we look at crows, and
each one we see that is black makes us a little more certain that the generalization is correct; each
serves as a confirming example. Of course, any single counterexample will disprove the inductive
conclusion, so the more examples we look at, the greater our confidence in the conclusion. As a
counterpoint to this, drawing conclusions from just a few examples is unrealistic, since the likelihood
of finding a counterexample in just a few trials is low.

Now, all acts of induction are innately uncertain, since we may not have found the rare exceptions to
the rule. Somewhere, for instance, there may be an albino crow that nobody has ever seen. Therefore
any claim from examples is suspect and must be rejected. As a debate kritik, this argument suggests
that any causal or empirical claim (harm, inherency, solvency) must be rejected, because it is based
on too small a sample set to test the claim adequately. Or, to take it one step further, the Affirmative
case itself is just a single example which is unable to prove the general truth that the resolution
should be adopted.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
A branch of legal thinking called Critical International Relations Theory has posed a number of
challenges to conventional interpretations of how countries interact with one another. Many of the
ideas from CIRT could be developed into plausible debate kritiks. Here, we’ll examine four:

Nations do not exist. This is sometimes called the Kritik of Geopolitics; it also shares a lot of
argumentation with the Kritik of Security we will discuss a bit later in this document. The thesis:
Nation-states are merely human conventions. There is nothing an observer can point to in the real
world to show where the borders of one country must end, or to distinguish a person as being from
one nation rather than another. Indeed, all of human history has shown that national borders are
fluid, and nations arise or disintegrate freely. The distinctive quality of nation-states is that they
allow citizens to reject non-citizens as "alien" or "foreign," and thus somehow subhuman. Anything
which perpetuates the myth of the nation-state thus perpetuates this "us vs. them" mentality which is
the ultimate source of all war. Since the Affirmative team has bought into the nation-state myth,
rejecting the myth requires rejecting the Affirmative position.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，9/20(W)

"Foreign policy" is oppressive. To assume that other nations can be bullied, intimidated, or cajoled
is to assume that other nations cannot legitimately have a difference of opinion with the United
States. In other words, the ways of living chosen by other nations are implicitly rejected; anything
that is not American is necessarily inferior. This is the vilest form of nationalism, because it rejects at
the very outset all opinions of all other nations and peoples.

Anticommunism equals oppression of belief. People have the innate right to be wrong. American
policy that is aimed at opposing communism denies the remaining communist nations their natural
right to choose, even if that choice would be misguided. Worse, if communism is truly suppressed,
then we will lose the opportunity for the errors of communism to be exposed in the free marketplace
of ideas. Thus, anticommunist actions will only serve to cloak communism in shadows, rather than
truly neutralize it. Finally, it is but a tiny step from being opposed to communism to being opposed
to communists — that is, a move from opposing a viewpoint toward opposing, and oppressing,
people because of their beliefs. Note: Although we used anticommunism as an example in this
paragraph, any U.S. foreign policy program which is pursuit of a specific philosophical goal would
generate a parallel argument. In many cases, this could be combined with a kritik of rhetoric — for
example, if your opponents argue that fundamentalist Islamic movements pose a special danger for
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Foreign aid is immoral. At best, American foreign aid works much as a lollipop is used to pacify a
crying infant. A better analogy might be that foreign aid is a form of bribery, through which the
American government convinces another nation to do something which may not be in its best
interests — at least, to do something the receiving nation would not have done without the bribe.
Even worse, foreign aid now is predominantly in the form of loans and loan guarantees, and the
receiving nation is often formally required to spend the loans on purchases of American goods. This
means that "foreign aid" is really a marketing tool to ensnare other nations in a web of debt, making
them captive clients for American big business. The term for this is economic imperialism. Any plan
or counterplan providing foreign aid must be rejected.

MATERIALISM
I know I exist, because I can directly perceive my own mind at work. In a sense, I can recognize my
own identity, my ego. It’s not enough to say that I can sense things in the world around me, for I
know my eyes, ears, and other sensory organs can be easily deceived. But because I can sense my
own thinking processes directly, I am sure of my own existence.

I’m not so sure about anything else. I’ve experienced visual illusions and dreams before, so I know
that at least some of my experiences are not "real" to other people. I have read scientific reports of
people who have had electrodes planted in their brains who suddenly "taste" a familiar flavor, or
"hear" sounds, or even "experience" hallucinations, all triggered by a particular trickle of current
through their brains. Perhaps these illusions are more extensive than I have realized. It’s possible that
the world of my perceptions is all illusion. Maybe no other people or things exist, and I’m one of
those test subjects being zapped on an experimental table — or a disembodied brain in a vat.

As a debate kritik, it is clear that there’s no motive to take imaginary actions to help nonexistent
people; only if the opposing team can prove that the material world of our perceptions is real, and not
a hallucination, do they earn the right to have their arguments considered on their merits.

NORMATIVITY (traditional version)

All values are relative. All values are merely preferences: when you say that "privacy is good," you
are expressing your personal belief, just as "pizza is good" really speaks about your preference, not
the intrinsic qualities of pizza.

Whenever you give one value precedence, even by using the word "should," you establish an
oppressive power-structure that disenfranchises dissent. But debate is really a conversation between

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，10/20(W)

four debaters and a judge, and the lesson we need to come away with is that dissent is valuable, for it
allows us to investigate alternatives. Before we can look at the game-world of debate, with its
imaginary concepts such as "fiat," we need to look at how the debate acts on those five people
involved in the debate round. Proposing arguments grounded in "norms," or moral rules, is offensive
to the personal growth of these five people, and should be rejected. Affirmatives ought to lose,
because they set oppressive value-norms by telling people what they "should" do.

NORMATIVITY (postmodern version)

Normative statements — those dealing with values, obligations, or "shoulds" — assume that human
beings are free-willed, politically effective individual beings. But in reality, political power is held
by impersonal bureaucratic forces not subject to democratic control. Trying to decide what should be
done is both useless and deceptive (it masks the political impotence of individuals). The only way to
free ourselves from the illusion that political action is worthwhile — or even feasible — is the
rejection of proposals which call for political action, such as the Affirmative plan.

NUCLEAR DISCOURSE
This is becoming a staple in some debate circles — so much so that the argument is sometimes
referred to as the "nuke-speak" kritik. This is a variation on the kritik of rhetoric discussed below.

Reality, it is argued by some post-modernists, is socially constructed. What this means that the limits
of what we perceive as possible or desirable are bounded by what we as humans acknowledge in our
thinking and our discourse (broadly, our writing and speech). Talking about nuclear war or nuclear
weapons, in this view, allows us to think about mass murder intellectually, without engaging our
emotions or our moral sense; in turn, such talk desensitizes us to the prospect of using such horrible
weapons. Any team that brings up the idea of nuclear war in a debate round is actually making such
war more likely, by making the prospect of nuclear war less "unthinkable." For this crime against
human interests, the team talking about nuclear war should lose.

A variant of this argument is sometimes called the Kritik of Technostrategic Discourse, and that
particular variation may be more generally useful under some resolutions. Any talk about the
technology of arms or arms control promotes a viewpoint of power as the ultimate end of
international relations, this kritik says. But highlighting power issues just heightens the risk that
competing interests will worry that their power will erode, promoting conflict between the parties.
So talking about technological weapons promotes further conflict and increases the danger that such
weapons will actually be used.

PATRIARCHY
Political and governmental decisions, particularly at the federal level, are almost always being made
by men. Thus the governmental establishment is a means to perpetuating the second-class citizenship
of women (or "womyn") — not only in the United States, but throughout the world. By working
within the system, the Affirmative blinds us to the possibility of breaking free from male
domination. Rejecting the Affirmative allows for change.

In years dealing with foreign affairs, there is the prospect for a Feminist Kritik of International
Relations to be developed from the traditional Kritik of Patriarchy. The concept here is that any
consideration of international relations is really gendered discourse, because it is heavily dependent
on masculine ideas of military strength and weaponry. The foreign relations process is tainted with
the masculine ideals of "how things are done": rationalism, causal reasoning, and certainty. A
masculine view of international relations makes war inevitable — it’s a testosterone thing. Acting
through conventional tools of international relations means a confirmation of the global patriarchy
that oppresses women. This is not to argue that a gynocentric method of international relations would
necessarily be better. No, the argument here is that using the conventional tools makes it impossible
for us to believe in (far less use) a feminist approach.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，11/20(W)

Finally, there is also a Feminist Kritik of Arms Control that develops from the same root precepts as
the issues above. The whole idea of "control" in the phrase "arms control," it is argued, resonates
with a masculinist viewpoint. It buys into the dominance and submission perspective which
underscores all relations between the sexes within our patriarchal system. It denies the opportunity
for engagement and the use of a mutual, evolutionary dialogue among all parties to reach a
conclusion that satisfies everyone. Anyone talking about "arms control" is promoting a masculine
agenda, and a gender-based oppression of the feminist viewpoint — and that approach should not be
permitted to succeed.

RATIONALITY
Proof isn’t enough. Reasoning alone is sterile. Rational thinking breeds rationalizations. There is no
compelling argument that tells us we need to act only on purely logical grounds. So any arguments
based on logical and rational grounds — in fact, the act of argumentation itself — need to be
rejected. Since the Affirmative case is grounded in rational reasoning, it cannot be accepted.

Supplemental note: Even though the kritik of rationality has won debate rounds, I don’t think it’s
workable. If reasoning and argumentation themselves are to be distrusted, doesn’t the Negative cut
its own throat by presenting the kritik as a well-reasoned, rational argument? And if we reject
reasoning, doesn’t that mean the judge can still vote Affirmative on some other grounds, such as
emotion?

RHETORIC
Language can hurt. The language of oppression does violence to self-esteem, even if the oppressed
people do not witness it. Using language or concepts that reflect racism, sexism, or other biases is
unacceptable even if nobody in one of the maligned groups is on hand to take offense, for it
desensitizes all participants to prejudice. This examination of language must even extend to the
words used in the evidence read by the opposing teams in a round of debate. Sensitivity toward
people who face discrimination requires that we overlook the arguments presented in the round and
punish the side using offensive language with a loss; anything less than that is an endorsement of
oppression and bigotry.

Supplemental notes: You should take notice that this is one kritik which can be used by Affirmatives
against Negative rhetoric as well as vice versa. On the face of it, this argument looks like it is an
appeal to political correctness: the side that uses the wrong language ought to use. But this kritik has
probably won more rounds than any other mentioned on this list. Debaters have won by noting that
their opponents’ word choice uses the word "black" instead of "African American," for instance; on
the China policy resolution, arguments which suggested that Asian culture was inferior to western
culture, or that there was a "yellow peril" (even if not expressed in those words) providing a military
threat to the United States were subject to the kritik of rhetoric.

Arguments that deal with certain segments of the world population (such as those living in the
Middle East, those living in Asia, those described as "terrorists", or those living in "rogue states")
could trigger a rhetoric kritik. Of course, failure to provide special mention of any of these groups
can also trigger a rhetoric kritik, on the basis of "perpetuating the Western pattern of ignoring
disenfranchised peoples." Political correctness being as aggressive as it is, one can build a kritik
based on the mere mention of these groups (because mentioning them underscores their "special"
status and denies them inclusiveness within the general population), or based on the failure to
mention them (because that just reinforces society’s effort to exclude these people). However, even
though you can conceivably run this kritik every round, it is best saved for clearly abusive situations.

REALPOLITIK
What is called "political realism" in foreign relations — also known by the German term Realpolitik
— is the theory that power and immediate material interest should dominate over all other
considerations. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains it this way: "Political realism is a

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，12/20(W)

theory of political philosophy that attempts to explain, model, and prescribe political relations. It
takes as its assumption that power is (or ought to be) the primary end of political action, whether in
the domestic or international arena. In the domestic arena, the theory asserts that politicians do, or
should, strive to maximize their power, whilst on the international stage, nation states are seen as the
primary agents that maximize, or ought to maximize, their power. The theory is therefore to be
examined as either a prescription of what ought to be the case, that is, nations and politicians ought
to pursue power or their own interests, or as a description of the ruling state of affairs — that nations
and politicians only pursue (and perhaps only can pursue) power or self-
interest." (www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/polreal.htm)

A Kritik of Realpolitik argues that political realism, which is the dominant mode of international
relations these days, justifies mutual suspicion between nation and inevitably leads to a failure of
arms control. If all nations are striving to achieve advantage over one another, then any action will be
perceived as a play for additional power at the expense of other countries. Suspicion breeds paranoia
and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. At the same time, by ignoring moral and ethical issues,
realpolitik promotes immoral actions in the international arena. The argument claims that plans (or
counterplans) acting through the normal mechanisms of international affairs, or cases which deal
with the "threat" posed by other nations, entrench the viewpoint of political realism and make us
unable to envision alternatives. Because political reason is an amoral vacuum, the debaters operating
within that framework must lose.

RIGHTS
Much of this analysis derives from the Critical Legal Studies movement, which challenges
conventional legal theory by "critiquing" (in the same sense debaters "kritik") standard
interpretations of fundamental legal doctrine. Under many resolutions, it’s likely that Affirmatives
may start talking about rights — such as the right of security, or the right to life. That opens the
Affirmative to a kritik about the nature of so-called "rights." Of course, Negatives are not immune to
this, either; they may well propose disadvantages grounded in various rights. Many attempts at using
valuative decision rules can also become links to this kritik.

Rights are legal fictions. Nobody naturally has a "right" to anything; even life itself is something we
sustain only at the sufferance of other human beings. Government arbitrarily creates rights. This
leads to several problems. First, the more we talk about rights, the more they begin to seem real
things, not just abstract concepts; this process is called "reification" (REE-if-a-KAYshun). As rights
begin to seem more real, people seem less so, in violation of the moral rule called the categorical
imperative, which says that people are to be valued above all things or ideas.

Second, the proliferation of rights just leads to more conflicts with other rights that already exist, and
there is no way to decide which rights should have precedence. Third, when rights do inevitably
collide, society gives priority to the people who are already in control — so "rights talk" tends to
further disenfranchise and disengage minority opinions, women, and other less-dominant voices in
the social structure. The idea that reality is socially constructed can also apply here. In the debate
round, the side advocating rights should lose, in order to rid our culture of its futile and harmful
obsession with "rights" and to create the possibility of breaking out of current power-structures.

SCIENCE
Many Affirmative plans will rely on scientific data and reasoning for justification, and some
resolutions intrinsically deal with science, medicine, or technology. It is just as likely, though, that
Negatives will defend medical and scientific research as issues which could be put in jeopardy by the
Affirmative plan. Any approach which seems supportive of science and technology can trigger the
kritik of science.

The kritik of science argues that reliance on scientific data and reasoning is bad, because science is
defective both in its methodology and in its conclusions. Scientific methodology is mechanistic,

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，13/20(W)

reductionist, and empirical; it views each part of the world as a cog in a great machine, and assumes
that truth about these separate parts is equally true about the whole. Science treats human beings as
the sum of their actions derived from nerve impulses, thus destroying the humanity of people. This
explains why science ignores all human values as irrelevant. The upshot is that the workings of
science become so aggressively amoral as to become immoral; turning away from human values in
order to pursue deeper knowledge inevitably results in actions that offend human values. Consider:
invention of terror weapons, experimentation on animals and unwilling humans, and even recent
cloning experiments were all done in the name of pure science, without regard for the consequences.

But look also at science’s conclusions, rather than its methodology. The scientific method is always
open to reinterpretation of its data. Any conclusions, especially those of a causal nature, are always
tentative. Often they are invalidated by later experiments or by new hypotheses. Scientists readily
admit that the answers given in textbooks a decade ago are now known to be false. Each generation
of scientists impose a new world-view on the scientific enterprise, which in turn changes the
interpretation of research data; this was the central argument of Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions, a groundbreaking book on the sociology of science.

The conclusion is that use of science is bad for people, and it provides incomplete or incorrect
answers to problems. That justifies rejecting the argumentation of whichever side in the round is
relying on science.

SECURITY
The thesis here: The idea of "security" only serves the interest of the state (the government, the
nation). Preservation of the state becomes a value, in the minds of political leaders, which outweighs
the interests of the people who live in the state. We have seen how this path leads — to oppression of
people who dare to criticize the state or its leadership, and the establishment of a hierarchy where
those who claim to defend the security of the state are given greater importance over others. In moral
terms, since a nation is arbitrarily defined anyway, the concept of national security elevates a fiction
over the real needs of real people — an argument similar to the one developed on Statism, below.
The impact of the kritik is that the debaters who base their arguments on "security" are establishing
an oppressive power-structure and should lose the round in order to restore the proper emphasis of
people over fictional institutions.

SOCIAL CONTROL
It is an innate property of organized society to establish a network of social control over a nation’s
population. If there is not constant pressure to resist the trend, the net of social control will expand
— usually, but not always, through the direct action of government. This is bad, for as social control
expands, individual liberties diminish, and the core value of freedom itself is extinguished. Social
control is innately (or, as philosophers would say, "deontologically": by the nature of its existence)
evil.

The Negative kritik argues that the Affirmative plan will end the constant pressure against social
control, and set us on the slippery slope toward tyranny. It does this by reinforcing the institution of
compulsory education, which is the primary means by which society cages and confines adolescents
— who are seen as dangerous, pre-human creatures. Affirmative case argumentation may actually
feed this argument, if the Affirmative position is that education is important in instilling social rules,
civic engagement, and good conduct in students.

STATISM
Liberty is the natural and preferred condition of human beings, and it should not be taken away
lightly. Government is evil, because it is intrinsically coercive. Cooperating with government makes
you an accomplice to evil. Any debate argument which involves governmental action — for
instance, any Affirmative plan — is tainted, because it consolidates the evil that is government and
blinds the debaters to the alternative, which is doing away with government altogether. Since fiat is

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，14/20(W)

unrealistic, the Affirmatives should lose because they are promoting coercive, statist power
structures.

TERROR TALK
This is yet another variation on the Kritik of Rhetoric. One man’s "terrorist" is another man’s
"freedom fighter." We have been conditioned to have an emotional response to the idea of terrorism
— a response that short-circuits rational assessment. We can have no conception of people laboring
under such great oppression that they resort to violence as their only means of calling attention to the
situation. Instead, we label such people "terrorists" and use the fear that term evokes as justification
for considering those people as less than fully human. Using the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" is
an attempt at psychological manipulation of the audience — and an attempt to cover up the fact of
true injustices afflicting these people. Obviously, then, debaters who start using these buzzwords
should be chastised for their attempt to manipulate the debate process, and their arguments must be
rejected in order to free us to develop a positive and inclusive future for all people.

THREAT CONSTRUCTION
Any time we start talking about "security" and "conflict," we are being divisive. The very concept of
security requires us to imagine an "other" — some group of people who are distinct from "us" — and
then to construct for these others the role of "enemy." Even when we acknowledge privately that
these are only potential enemies, we have still formed the mental picture of them as opponents. In
other words, talking about security threats makes us consider other people as enemies, and then treat
them as enemies, so that they respond by becoming enemies. Critics say that this process of
constructing threats actually encourages war, because we are predisposed to take heroic action to
vanquish our enemies, even though those people are usually only opposing us in our own minds. In
debate, the team that begins talk about security threats is actually poisoning our minds, blinding us to
the possibility of a truly universal community where nobody is excluded as an "other."

TREATIES
The problem with treaties is that they presume the legitimacy of nation-states and the legitimacy of
government — so a combination of ideas from the International Relations and Statism kritik can be
applied here. In addition, treaties between nations create a "policy lock" — the commitments they
represent becoming a barrier to any changes in future international relationships. The treaty itself
begins to be treated as more important than the needs of the citizens (indeed, that’s what some
people are saying today about the ABM Treaty). Moreover, this effect of treaties serves to bar future
generations from making their own decisions about how they are to be governed; instead, they are
coerced by the words written on paper by long-dead statesmen. A plan which relies on treaties, or
Negative arguments in support of existing treaties, just reinforces this damaging role treaties have on
foreign policy.

Can you give an example of a fully developed kritik?

Sure. What follows below is the text of a Kritik of Determinism, just as a First Negative speaker
would use it in her constructive speech. Of course, the complete brief for the kritik would consist of
even more material than this: there would be answers to all the expected Affirmative responses.

You will notice, however, that the argument as a whole doesn’t ever use the word "kritik." That’s to
avoid alienating any judges who have a bias against debate jargon.

Notes to the debater using the kritik are highlighted in colored text at the start of the argument. Those
comments would not normally read aloud in a round of competition.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，15/20(W)

KRITIK OF DETERMINISM

{Note: You might find it best to present this as an "observation" at the start of 1NC. Don’t label it a "kritik,"
since some judges are afraid of that word. On the other hand, if the Affirmative presses the point, admit it is
one. No big deal.

"Causality" (kaw-ZALL-ih-tee) is the relationship of cause and effect. Don’t confuse this with the word
"casualty." "Determinism" is the idea that what will happen in the future is precisely and predictably a result of
what has happened in the past. A deterministic view of the world suggests that the universe acts like a
clockwork, and that all future history is already decided. This kritik challenges that viewpoint.

Adapt this brief to the time limits you face. In addition to the A, E, and F points. you will need to present at
least one of points B, C, and D in the 1NC. The points you omit may be useful as extensions in later
speeches. Of course, if you have time, read the entire brief.}

Observation: Deterministic causality should be rejected

A. A deterministic world-view is a hidden assumption of the Affirmative case.

Analysis: Determinism sees the universe as a clockwork mechanism of cause and

effect. By presenting arguments based on causality, the Affirmative tacitly
endorses this world-view. The Negatives see this viewpoint as fundamentally
flawed, and we are clashing with the Affirmative on the basis of this unstated
assumption.
B. Deterministic causality is an unproven assumption.

Determinism is unproven
Alfred C. Ewing (Lecturer in Moral Science and Reader in Philosophy, Cambridge
Univ.), The Fundamental Questions of Philosophy, 1962, p. 216: "Yet we must
emphasize that the principle that every event is completely determined by causes
has not been proved, and is not clearly self-evident. We cannot even conceive a
way in which determinism could be plausibly worked out in detail for the mind,
and even if true of the material world, doubtful as this may be nowadays, mind and
matter are sufficiently different for us to have no good grounding for concluding
by analogy that it is true of mind."

Causal reasoning is circular reasoning

John Passmore (prof. of philosophy, Australian National Univ.) in The Great
Philosophers, edited by Bryan Magee, 1987, p. 149: "To say that the same causes
must always have the same effects because nature is uniform is just to say, or so
Hume argues, that they must have the same effects because they must have the
same effects. This gets us absolutely nowhere."

A simple sequence in time does not establish causality

Bryan Magee (senior research fellow in the history of ideas, Kings College, Univ.
of London), The Great Philosophers, 1987, p. 149: "It does not save the situation
to say: ‘We know that Event A is the cause of Event B because B always and
invariably follows A.’ Day always and invariably follows night, but neither is the
cause of the other. Invariant conjunction, though it is all we observe, is not the
same thing as causal connection. It could be the case, by sheer coincidence, that
every time I cough you sneeze, but my coughs would not then be the cause of your
sneezes."
C. Conflict with free will justifies rejecting determinism.

Analysis: Determinism conflicts with the concept of free will, for if determinism is

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，16/20(W)

true, then all our actions — indeed, our thoughts and motives that give rise to our
actions — are the effects of causes in the distant past. We would have no choices.
Given that free will exists, determinism must be false.
Determinism and free will are mutually incompatible
Alfred C. Ewing (Lecturer in Moral Science and Reader in Philosophy, Cambridge
Univ.), The Fundamental Questions of Philosophy, 1962, p. 207: [According to
determinists:] "Every act of mine was determined by previous causes and
therefore, it may be argued, I can never be or have never been free at any given
time, because, whatever time I take, my actions then were determined by earlier
ones which I could not alter once they had been performed."
The conflict with free will justifies rejecting determinism
Alfred C. Ewing (Lecturer in Moral Science and Reader in Philosophy, Cambridge
Univ.), The Fundamental Questions of Philosophy, 1962, p. 211: "On the one hand
we have no right to expect that the common-sense conceptions of responsibility
will be exactly right; on the other, we should certainly be justified in rejecting
determinism if it were shown to be incompatible with any tolerable system of
ethics. Determinism after all cannot be proved, and we know some ethical
propositions, such as that it is wrong to ignore the interests of others, with almost
as much certainty as we know anything."

D. Conflict with recent scientific discoveries justifies rejecting determinism.

Analysis: Last century, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle became the cornerstone

of the branch of physics known as quantum mechanics. A simple implication of
this science — borne out in thousands of subsequent experiments — is that on the
atomic level events can and do occur without being caused, and equal causes do
not necessarily lead to equal results. More recently, the development of chaos
theory and complexity theory have proven that it is impossible to predict events on
the macro-level, since minute difference below any possible threshold of detection
will drive the system to produce results other than predicted. Mechanistic
determinism is invalid across the scale from the smallest to the largest events.

The principles of quantum mechanics prove that determinism is false

Dr. Michio Kaku (prof. of theoretical physics, City Univ. of New York Graduate
Center) and Jennifer Trainer (freelance science writer), Beyond Einstein, 1987, p.
50: "The French mathematician Pierre Simon Laplace took this one step further
and believed all future events (not just the return of Halley’s Comet and future
eclipses of the sun, but future wars and irrational human decisions) could be
calculated in advance if the initial motion of all the atoms from the beginning of
time were known. For example, determinism in its most extreme form states that it
is possible to calculate in advance with mathematical precision which restaurant
you will be eating in ten years from now, and what you will order. Moreover,
according to this view, whether we wind up in heaven or hell is determined ahead
of time. There is no free will."

Same source, pp. 50-51: "According to Heisenberg, however, all of this is

nonsense. Our fate is not sealed in a quantum heaven or hell. The uncertainty
principle makes it impossible to predict the precise behavior of atoms, let alone the
universe. Moreover, according to the theory, in the subatomic realm, only
probabilities can be calculated. Since, for example, it is impossible to know the
exact position and velocity of the electron, it is impossible to predict much about
the electron’s individual behavior."

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，17/20(W)

The principles of chaos theory suggests that determinism is false

Paul Davies (prof. of mathematical physics, Univ. of Adelaide, Australia) and John
Gribben (astrophysicist), The Matter Myth, 1992, p. 15: "It has been discovered
that so-called nonlinear effects can cause matter to behave in seemingly
miraculous ways, such as becoming ‘self-organizing’ and developing patterns and
structures spontaneously. Chaos is a special case of this: it occurs in nonlinear
systems which become unstable and change in random and totally unpredictable
ways. Thus the rigid determinism of Newton’s clockwork universe evaporates, to
be replaced by a world in which the future is open, in which matter escapes its
lumpen limitations and acquires an element of creativity."
E. Impact: Rejection of determinism has implications for policy debate.

1. Implications for the Affirmative

Analysis: If deterministic causality is untrue, then it becomes

unprovable that the Affirmative harms will persist, regardless of any
inherency evidence presented. Likewise, it becomes unprovable that the
plan will act to abate the harms, regardless of any solvency evidence
presented. The ability of the Affirmative to win either of these stock
issues is contingent on the truth or falsity of the hidden assumption of
determinism.
2. Implications for the Negative

Analysis: If determinism is proven untrue, the Negative must win,

because inherency and solvency evaporate. If, on the other hand,
determinism is proven to be true, then causal arguments become viable,
and the weight of Negative case and disadvantage arguments will be
applied against the Affirmative’s net solved harms.

F. Decision rule: The status of determinism becomes a voting issue in the round.

1. This is an absolute issue.

At the end of the round, determinism will need to be evaluated as either true or
false, based on the preponderance of evidence introduced. There is no leeway for a
weighed impact; an absolute, yes-or-no answer is required.

2. This is an a priori issue.

Because the validity of inherency and solvency rests on the issue of determinism,
the judge will need to evaluate determinism first, before stock issues and
substantive arguments are examined.

3. This becomes a voting issue for the Affirmative.

To win, the Affirmative must have valid inherency and solvency at the end of the
round. That can only be accomplished by defeating our objection to determinism.
Therefore the objection itself can be thought of as a threshold position the
Affirmative must pass before they are allowed to proceed further.

How does the opposing side respond to a kritik?

We’ll assume — as is usually the case — that the side initiating the kritik is the Negative, in the
1NC. That means the burden of responding to the kritik will be initially on the Second Affirmative
speaker.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，18/20(W)

Obviously, a kritik should never be ignored. The Negative team will usually be trying the win the
round based on the kritik’s decision rule, so you cannot afford to just drop the argument. If you don’t
understand what claims the opposition is making in the kritik — and, very often, kritiks are initially
presented as jumbles that simply don’t make sense — then you must use some time in cross-
examination to clarify the position. Sometimes, that will even reveal that the opposing team doesn’t
understand their own kritik argument.

There are four key strategic approaches in responding to a kritik. Each of them has several different
tactical arguments that can be used. The wise course generally is to use a variety of responses to kill
the kritik early in the round.

Option 1: Reassert a comparative policy framework for the round

Kritiks often get a lot of their persuasive strength because the Negative is asserting that they do not
have to meet the same standards that they set for the Affirmative, and that there is no near for the
kritik to engage in comparative policy analysis. "The kritik doesn’t have to give an alternative to the
plan," the Negatives say. "It’s enough that we show the plan isn’t as thoroughly conceptualized as
the ideal Affirmative team would want it."

That’s just absurd. Yes, the Negative might have a point if we were discussing philosophy in a
college classroom, but in a debate we’re locked into a competitive, comparative framework. So a key
tactic will involve rebuilding the focus of the debate where it belongs: on the comparison of policy
systems, rather than one-sided philosophical considerations.

Potential Affirmative responses are as follows:

z Social contract. We were invited to participate in policy debate at this tournament, so we need
to restrict argumentation to comparative policies which are traditional in this venue. By
accepting the invitation to debate here, we have mutually committed to deal with comparative
policy issues.
z Policy debate is an inappropriate forum for kritiks. Kritiks are not germane to the subject
matter of policy debate. A debate is not an open forum; there is no rule which says we have to
discuss everything which strikes any debater as an interesting idea. Consider: during
congressional debate on welfare reform, hoots of derision would meet a senator’s
philosophical objection that we must first understand the ultimate nature of material reality
before we can undertake any policy action. Similarly, for an interscholastic debating format at
the high school level, kritiks represent too abstract an argument for our consideration.
z "Permute" the kritik into an appropriate policy position. As we have observed already,
most kritik resemble defective versions of conventional policy arguments. For example, the
kritik of statism is very similar to an anarchy counterplan (but not abandoning the existing
governments of the status quo); a democracy kritik can be considered as a disadvantage linked
to democratization (just not a unique disad, because the status quo engages in democracy
promotion all the time). Respond to the kritiks as arguments in the conventional form, and
point out their deficiencies.

Option 2: Show the kritik is not compelling within the policy framework

Once the Affirmative shifts the debate back into a comparative policy-based mode, the next step is to
show that the kritik fails to be persuasive if viewed as policy issues. The last tactic we looked at in
the previous section — permuting the kritik — was already a step in this direction. Other arguments

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，19/20(W)

that the Affirmative team can make are:

z The kritik is fundamentally incoherent. It does not make an argument, and therefore
requires no response. Our opponents claim we’re doing something objectionable, but they
can’t seem to express their objections in a meaningful way. They should not be allowed to
reinterpret the kritik in later speeches: their initial presentation is so vague that they have
forfeited the right to build on it. (This claim is especially appropriate against mumbled 1NC
arguments that don’t seem to add up to any solid claim).
z The Negative advancing the kritik is fundamentally inconsistent. At the minimum, we
must insist that the Negatives advance no policy arguments which would themselves be
subject to the kritik. It makes no sense to argue that causality does not exist and also that the
plan would cause disadvantages, for instance; any Negative team trying to make both
arguments in the same round should lose all credibility for either.
z The kritik is illegitimate as an argument form. Within the policy framework of debate,
kritiks fail to offer an alternative, and therefore they may be ignored. Policy debate is the
weighing of contrasting policies: this gives no contrast, and so is irrelevant to the round.
z This kritik does not apply to this Affirmative case. The Negative bases their kritik on
exploring hidden assumptions of the Affirmative. We do not make the assumption that the
kritik is trying to refute. There is no link to the kritik.
z The kritik leaves holes to allow an Affirmative victory. The kritik asks us to rethink our
beliefs and hidden assumptions. Fine, but that still permits us to reconsider our positions while
the round is going on and decide that our initial position was right all along. "Rethinking"
doesn’t always mean rejecting everything which has gone before: it really just means a pause
for reflection. Fine, we’ve reflected — now let’s get on with life. (Some kritiks naturally have
such additional gaps which can be exploited as grounds for the Affirmative to bypass the
kritik. For instance, the kritik of rationality allows the Affirmative to win on purely emotional
grounds, even if rationalism is considered an unreliable guideline for the ballot).
z The non-absolute nature of the kritik allows for an Affirmative victory. Even if the kritik
is almost certainly true, there’s enough residual uncertainty for Affirmatives to win in the
absence of a competing policy argument. For instance, even if we’re 99% sure that
materialism is a false doctrine, that 1% chance that matter may exist still means the
Affirmative plan is desirable. That’s because the kritik gives no real challenge against an
Affirmative policy, just a challenge to the motives underlying the policy.

Option 3: Refute the kritik on its own terms

By now, you know how to debate. It’s time to put those skills to use. The arguments you will make:

z The kritik is untrue. Many kritiks are postulated on controversial philosophical grounds. Use
evidence and reasoning to clash with the issue.
z The fundamental assumption the kritik addresses is justified. Evidence and analysis,
again.

Option 4: Kritik the kritik

Turn the tables back on your Negative opponents. Their action in proposing a kritik implicitly
endorses the legitimacy of kritiks. You can use that implicit argument right back at your opponents.
The arguments you might chose to make:

z The kritik itself has "hidden assumptions." Those assumptions are subject to kritiking.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，20/20(W)

Many kritiks rely on post-structuralist, post-modern philosophical arguments which are very
controversial. This would, of course, require evidence specific to the particular kritik at hand.
z Kritiks lead to infinite regression. If all underlying assumptions need to be challenged, we
can never reach a meeting of minds between teams — there’s always some other assumption
in the way. The conventional debate round ends up in a decision one way or the other because
there is always some common ground both teams can agree on, but the Negative has
establishes the principle that every action of the Affirmative — the choice to speak in English,
the choice to obey the rules of debate — is potentially abusive.
z Kritiks are innately self-contradictory. The idea that "all assumptions must be questioned"
is itself an assumption which must be answered before the kritik is allowed to go forward. In
other words, the fundamental hurdle which must be passed is one Negatives set up in
introducing the kritik in the first place: they must show that their kritik is not vulnerable to the
perils of hidden assumptions.
z Kritiks are nihilistic. If everything is subject to being questioned, then there are no grounds
for believing anything. We are left staring into the void of paralyzing skepticism. That’s not a
tolerable situation. We can reject the nihilism of kritiks on two grounds: (1) emotional grounds
— it’s just too bleak to stare into the void; and (2) pragmatic grounds — paralysis stops us
from getting on with life. Reject the idea of the kritik and step away from the void.

Introduction to Policy Debate

Copyright © 1990, 1993, 1996, 2002 John R. Prager
All rights reserved.
Permission is not granted to reproduce this document in whole or in part, in any medium.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter14.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，1/6(W)

Chapter 15

Tournament Procedures

I’ve never debated before. Will I be matched against an experienced debater in the
tournament coming up?

There are several levels of competition in debate. The easiest is the Novice division, which is
reserved for students who have never debated in a judged round before September of the school year.
In Novice-division tournaments, first-year debaters will be matched only against first-year debaters.

Experienced debaters usually participate on the Varsity or Junior Varsity division. Each of these is
open to anyone; so a Novice could debate on the JV division, even though a JV debaters would not
be permitted to debate as a Novice. There are no formal distinctions between JV and Varsity
divisions, but coaches are encouraged to put their best students as Varsity debaters.

How are debate tournaments organized?

In Michigan, there are three types of tournament you may participate in: the league, the invitational,
and the state elimination series. Debate leagues usually meet periodically after school. Generally,
each league meeting gives you two or three rounds of debate. Your performance in the league is
recorded after each round. Most leagues extend to several dates; after the last day of competition,
awards are given to the debaters with the best overall records.

Invitational tournaments generally take place on a single Saturday, or over a two-day weekend
(Friday afternoon and all Saturday). You will usually participate in four to six rounds of debate over
this period. The best scores in the tournament qualify you for a trophy. For two-day tournaments, the
top competitors after the preliminary rounds are matched against each other in elimination rounds.

There are also various state elimination programs. Michigan sponsors two. The first is for Novice
debaters only. All schools participate who wish to may enter one team in the Novice Preliminary
tournament, which consists of four rounds of debate on a Saturday. The top schools then participate
against each other the following weekend until the best school is chosen. The other state program is
organized by the size school: the divisions are based on school size. Schools first participate in a
four-round District tournament against schools of similar size from the same geographic area. Those
schools with the best records advance to the state debate finals, a two-to-three day tournament held a
few weeks later.

Your school may belong to a national speech organization, such as the National Forensic League or
the National Catholic Forensic League, which will give it additional competitive opportunities. Such
organizations usually sponsor District tournaments allowing teams from all participating schools in a
geographic area to compete against each other. Those teams with the best records advance to the next
level of competition, which may be national in scope.

The basic entry in a debate tournament is the unit. Traditionally, the standard unit size is four people:
two Affirmative debaters and two Negative debaters. The Affirmative partners will stay together and
compete against Negatives from other high schools; the Negative partners will stay together and
compete against Affirmative pairs (from schools that the Affirmative doesn’t meet).

Many debate leagues and invitationals allow two-person units as well: a pair of debaters who are
expected to debate Affirmative and Negative in alternate rounds. Obviously, this swing or switch-
sides debating is not for everyone — only the best debaters should try it. Swing debaters are matched

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter15.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，2/6(W)

against other swing debaters, and not debaters from 4-person units.

When your coach registers your team for the tournament, each unit will be given a numerical code.
These numbers are assigned by random draw, so no school knows beforehand what school they will
be competing against. At the same time, you will be given a schedule of when the contests are to
take place, and a schematic, a table that assigns rooms and teams for each round. A partial schematic
is shown below.

Round 1 Round 2 Round 3

ROOM AFF NEG JUDGE NEG JUDGE NEG JUDGE

62 101 102 120 103 119 104 118

65 102 103 101 104 120 105 119

66 103 104 102 105 101 106 120

67 104 105 103 106 102 107 101

73 105 106 104 107 103 108 102

Assume that you are part of team 104. The Affirmative partners will go to Room 67 and stay there
all day; often schematics are designed so that Affirmative teams remain in place. They will face
Negative teams 105, 106, and 107 for the first three rounds. Their Negative teammates will move
from room to room as the day progresses — first meeting Affirmative team 103 in room 66, then
Affirmative 102 in room 65, and then Affirmative 101 in room 62.

For swing debaters, the schedule is more complex. Generally, debaters will receive a schematic
showing what rooms they are to debate in and what side they will represent for the first few rounds
of the tournament. Thereafter, the assignments will be posted on a sheet of paper in a public place for
all competitors to consult. The tournament administrators will have scheduled those teams with the
best records to compete against one another, those with fair records to meet teams with fair records,
and those with poor records to meet other poor teams. This method of matching competitors is
known as power-pairing. It is often alternated with power protection, which matches the contestants
with the best records against those with the poorest records, while those with average records are
again paired against each other. Power protection is used to guarantee that the very best debaters do
not eliminate each other from the competition, leaving second-quality units for the remaining
elimination rounds. Careful use of these two matching strategies ensures that the best two teams will
meet each other in the final round; often, this is a debate on an auditorium stage in front of a large
audience.

What happens when I enter the competition room?

When you enter the competition room, write your school code number, side, and the names of the
debaters on the blackboard. So the Affirmative team in the example above might write:

AFFIRMATIVE # 104
1A: Molly Malcontent
2A: Malcolm Molybdenum

Usually, the Affirmative team sets up their evidence boxes and chair on the left side of the classroom

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter15.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，3/6(W)

(as one faces straight ahead from the judge’s viewpoint), and the Negative customarily sets up on the
right. But this is a trivial matter. Speakers will stand to speak, either at or near their desk or from a
centrally located table or podium.

The timing of each speech may be done by an observer who is designated as timekeeper, or by the
judge. The timekeeper will display index cards with the remaining time (rounded up) exposed —
thus, a card numbered "8" will be shown for the first minute of each constructive speech. Usually,
cards will also indicate when 30 seconds and 15 seconds remain. If you are still talking when your
time expires, you may finish reading an evidence card or you may finish the sentence you are
speaking. The judge will ignore anything you say beyond these limits.

Novice debaters may find that they run out of things to say before their time has been completely
used. That’s okay. Conclude and sit down. Do not try to fill up the time by repeating arguments you
have already presented, or by rereading evidence that has already been presented in the round. For
Negatives, especially, the 2NC speech should not waste time by going over case issues (1NR will do
that fine!), and 1NR shouldn’t go over plan attacks (at least not in detail; see the reminder in Chapter
7).

One factor we have not yet mentioned is prep time. Both teams in the round are allowed a limited
amount — usually seven minutes — of preparation time between speeches. You are not obliged to
use all seven minutes. The timekeeper will keep you informed at regular intervals of how much prep
time has been used. Note that the allotment is seven minutes for each side throughout the debate —
not seven minutes for each debater, and not seven minutes before each speech!

After the debate, shake hands with your opponents. This shows good sportsmanship. If this was an
exceptionally well-argued round, make sure you tell your opponents how much you enjoyed the
challenge. You may then use any time before the next round is scheduled to reorganize your
evidence box or talk with your partner quietly. The judge is probably still working on the ballot, so
do not disturb him or her.

Avoid arguing with your opponents after the debate, either in the room or in the hallway. If possible,
avoid announcing what school you attend in the judge’s hearing. Schools are assigned code numbers
for a reason: the judge is not supposed to know what school the debaters are from. Some judges may
be biased for or against particular schools. Of course, if the other team announces, "Hi, we’re from
Prestige High School — where are you from?" at the top of their voices at the start of the round, it’s
impossible not to answer.

The judge will not announce the decision of the debate. You will find that out later after all the
rounds for the day have been completed.

Often the judge will present an oral critique: a few comments to each side to highlight the best and
worst points. Listen to what the judge says, and discuss the points with your coach later if you
believe the judge was very accurate or inaccurate. Never argue with the judge. You, or somebody
else from your debate squad, will be judged by this person again.

Are there any tricky procedures that can go on during the debate?

Something that hasn’t been mentioned so far is switching rebuttals. Either team may have the
partners exchange rebuttal speeches; all they have to do is inform the opposing team and the judge
beforehand. So if the Affirmative team switched rebuttals, one person would give the 1AC and 2AR
speeches, and the other debater would give 2AC and 1AR. Check with your coach about the rules for
switching rebuttals before you try it. ichigan rules, for instance, require that the team switching

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter15.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，4/6(W)

rebuttals must announce the fact before the round begins or risk losing the debate.

Affirmative teams sometimes switch rebuttals if an experienced debater cancels out at the last
moment. An inexperienced debater is slipped into the Affirmative slot to read the 1AC case. Since
this debater would not be up to handling the First Affirmative Rebuttal, the debaters exchange those
speeches. Officially, the judge will not criticize the team for this practice. However, in practical
terms, this improves the Negative position very well. The inexperienced debater is not likely to hold
up well in cross-examination and will not deliver a powerful concluding speech.

While the Negative team has the right to switch rebuttals, too, it doesn’t make sense for them to take
advantage of this opportunity. The Second Negative would be on his feet for sixteen minutes in the
middle of the debate for 2NC, cross-examination, and 1NR. It makes more sense for 1N to argue
case attacks in his two speeches, and for 2N to argue plan issues in both his speeches, than for the
partners to switch duties.

Don’t confuse switched rebuttals with switched cross-examinations. Either partner may conduct C-X
without informing the judge or opposing team beforehand.

What does the judge write on the ballot?

The ballot is a multiple-part form that the judge uses to record her decision on the debate. Before the
debate begins, she will record your names, school codes, the date, and other bookkeeping matters. As
the debate progresses, most judges record comments on speaking style and delivery for the
individual debaters. When the round is over, the judge will use her flowchart to decide which side
won the various stock issues. A good judge will explain clearly on the ballot why each issue fell to
one side or the other, and how that affected his decision. On the last line of the ballot, the judge will
note the winning team: Affirmative or Negative.

The judge will also assign speaker points for each debater. Each speaker will receive a score in the
range of 5 to 30. A 30 score represents the pinnacle of achievement for that division of competition.
Obviously, a 30 score for a novice division debate is not the same as a 30 for a varsity swing-side
debate, but it does represent a speaker who is at the top of his or her division. More than one speaker
can receive the same total. Usually, the team with the higher total of speaker points will win the
debate.

There are no formal guidelines for assigning speaker points. Most judges award points based on
speaker organization, refutation, analysis, reasoning, evidence, and delivery. Conduct and ethics will
also influence the scores.

The judge also assigns ranks — first, second, third, and fourth place — to the speakers. These ranks
allow comparison between speakers who have identical point totals.

The ballot automatically makes three copies. One will go to the Affirmative team, one to the
Negative, and the third is kept by the tournament administrator. Your coach will receive copies of all
the ballots at the end of the day.

How do conduct and ethics affect my speaker scores?

Debaters who are abusive or rude (especially during cross-examination) can expect to have their
speaker points reduced. Debaters who violate ethics — by prompting their partners during speeches,

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter15.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，5/6(W)

by fabricating evidence, or by heckling the opposing team — usually can expect to lose the round,
and the judge may ask the tournament director to disqualify the team from further competition.

Most coaches will try to discourage you from deliberately rude behavior. Every coach will take
severe and immediate steps if a student commits a breach of ethics. Dropping the offending student
from the debate squad is the usual sanction.

How does style influence my speaker scores?

A textbook is a poor way to learn effective delivery. Constant practice in the classroom with your
fellow students and your coach is the best way to improve your speaking style. But some general
comments are appropriate here:

The speed of delivery is a persistent issue among debate judges. Too often, the debater wants to
spread and re-spread his opponents’ arguments, resulting in a rate of speed so fast that words become
garbled and unrecognizable. Certainly debate delivery can be faster than everyday conversation, or
even faster than the rate acceptable for other speech competitions. And many judges disagree as to
what level of speed is acceptable. But if you cannot speak clearly at the rate you have chosen, or if
your arguments cannot be flowed by the judge and the opposing team, you are speaking too fast.

Poise and eye-contact also factor into your speaker point score. Adopt a confident, relaxed, and
sincere posture when you rise to speak. Use gestures if appropriate, but avoid flailing about wildly.
Since the speaking position is usually fixed, do not wander far from it. Make sure you can be heard
clearly by the audience, judge, and opposing team, but do not shout.

Style has its greatest influence on scores when the speaker adopts an annoying habit. The debater
who mumbles while staring downward at his flowchart, never looking at the judge, will receive poor
scores. So will the speaker who constantly sways from side to side, or swivels back and forth at the
hips. Again, these are factors which are best resolved by practice debates before your coach.

It probably should not need mentioning, but do not chew gum during the round, especially while
speaking.

Who gets trophies?

Most leagues and invitational tournaments give two sets of awards — individual and team — for
each division of competition. Individual trophies are awarded to the debaters who have the highest
total speaker points for the length of the tournament, with ties broken by the lowest totals of ranks
(since a rank of 1 is better than a rank of 4).

Team trophies are based on the overall performance of your team unit, Affirmative and Negative
together, in win-loss record. If ties exist, they are usually broken based on the cumulative speaker
points of all the debaters in the unit. Tournaments which offer elimination rounds may base trophies
on the preliminary round records only, or they may give team trophies only to those who advance to
eliminations.

The state elimination series does not give trophies away for the preliminary rounds, but they do
award very nice trophies to those who advance to the elimination rounds of state finals. Official
certificates are presented to debaters who qualify for the state final tournament or novice final
tournament.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter15.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，6/6(W)

Depending on your school’s policy about accepting valuable awards, you will probably be allowed
to keep any individual trophies you are awarded. Team trophies generally are donated to the school,
since there is no practical way to divide the award among two or more debaters.

How do I prepare for the debate?

Get a good night’s sleep beforehand, especially for a weekend invitational. You cannot be at your
best otherwise.

Before leaving for the meet, make sure you have everything you might need with you. Double check:
do you have your Affirmative case? Your evidence and briefs? Flowpaper, index cards, and extra
pens?

Speech competition is a formal activity. Dress in conservative good taste. That means skirts or
dresses for ladies, ties and jackets for men. Stop groaning! You want to take every chance offered to
impress the judge; wearing your good clothes is an easy way to accomplish this, especially if you are
competing in an after-school league debate. Dressing up gives you a psychological advantage as
well. Dressing in your everyday clothes seems to make you less determined; dressing in special
clothes gives you a certain focus and intensity that make you better at debate. So consider it
equivalent to an actor donning a costume before he goes onstage, and make the effort to look your
best. It will pay off.

Introduction to Policy Debate

Copyright © 1990, 1993, 1996, 2002 John R. Prager
All rights reserved.
Permission is not granted to reproduce this document in whole or in part, in any medium.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter15.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，1/7(W)

Chapter 16

A Summary of Key Points

Unlike the rest of this manual, this chapter is not written in a question-and-answer format. Instead,
we will concentrate on those matters which the debater most needs to remember throughout the
season. While this review should be especially helpful to the Novice, all debaters can profit by it.
Please take the time to re-read this chapter throughout the season as a reminder to follow these
precepts.

TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR A SUCCESSFUL AFFIRMATIVE SEASON

1. KNOW THE CASE. The case and plan are the creative work of the Affirmative team. You
should be familiar with all the evidence and arguments that make up the First Affirmative
Constructive. You must know the function and purpose of each element in your plan. Write
your own case, if possible, rather than have one written for you by your coach, a varsity
debater, or the staff editors of a handbook. If you don’t like something about the case or plan,
change it!
2. WRITE IT OUT. The entire First Affirmative Constructive speech should be in manuscript
form — typed, if possible. Putting it in a notebook or non-glossy page protectors adds an
element of style. Have several copies available in case one is lost.
3. PREPARE IN ADVANCE. Block out the Second Affirmative Constructive as much as
possible. Prepare extensions for all 1AC arguments. Anticipate Negative objections and
prepare responses for them.
4. KEEP THE FOCUS ON THE CASE. The glories of the Affirmative advantages should be at
the forefront of all your speeches. Use the 1AC case structure at all times; it’s a framework to
support you.
5. BE SPECIFIC. Don’t be vague or unclear. You might fool the Negative team once. You risk
fooling or annoying the judge.
6. PERSIST AGAINST OPPOSITION. Don’t drop a case just because there are arguments
against it. The perfect case doesn’t exist. Figure out responses to Negative arguments that beat
you.
7. DON’T RELY ON SECRECY. Don’t drop a case because "too many people have heard it."
Surprise is not an asset in the long run.
8. STAY TO THE CENTER OF THE RESOLUTION. Use a stock case, especially if you’re a
Novice; it gives you a solid grounding in the essentials. Varsity debaters should consider this,
too; you’ll never lose a judge because you’re running a mainstream case, but you will lose all
too easily with a squirrel approach.
9. EXPERIMENT. Try several cases during the course of the year; make sure your squad is
trying a variety of approaches. Narrow down to the strongest cases only as state elimination
debates approach.
10. KEEP YOUR CASE FRESH. Don’t stop researching. A solid basic knowledge is essential,
but you will have to refine your analysis to remain competitive throughout the season.
Innovate. Rewrite the case again. Upgrade your evidence. Polish your extensions.

TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR A SUCCESSFUL NEGATIVE SEASON

1. TALK TO YOUR PARTNER. Too often the Negatives fail to work as a team in the round.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter16.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，2/7(W)

Coordinate attacks. Ask for advice, or give advice when requested. Use a consistent Negative
philosophy that will bind your positions together.
2. TALK TO THE REST OF YOUR SQUAD. All the Negative debaters on the squad should
pool arguments and evidence that have been successful in winning rounds. They should go
over flowcharts and ballots of all lost debates in order to plan strategy if another squad-
member confronts this case again. Consult your squad’s Affirmatives, too! They have heard
case and plan arguments new to you. Develop those arguments into tools you can use to win
debates.
3. BLOCK OUT IN ADVANCE. Make sure you can retrieve any evidence card from your file in
a moment or two. Prepare briefs against every Affirmative argument you have heard twice or
more. Prepare plan briefs, too: D-As and PMNs complete except for the case links.
4. ORGANIZE YOUR SPEECH. The Affirmative has a ready structure to follow; you need to
seem just as organized if you are to be equally effective. Label each argument. Use numbers
and letters to define substructure.
5. ADAPT TO THE AFFIRMATIVE STRUCTURE. Occasional overviews in 1NC are
acceptable, but the main thrust of the speech should be on point-by-point refutation in the
same order that 1AC was presented. Don’t reorganize the Affirmative case structure. Don’t try
to give several overviews on case issues instead of point-by-point refutation.
6. CONTRAST WITH THE AFFIRMATIVE STYLE. Is the Affirmative case simple in structure
and delivered in a slow monotone? Then spread all your arguments to the maximum, and
deliver your speech in an up-tempo, brisk style. If the Affirmatives try a complex case with
fast delivery, try a centering attack on a few stock issues and deliver the speech in a slower,
more judicious style. The Affirmatives have to speak first; adapt your approach to make them
look bad by contrast.
7. EXPERIMENT. Try a variety of topicality arguments during the year. Try presenting shell
disadvantages in 1NC, or a counterplan. Have 2NC begin with a point-by-point refutation of
Affirmative solvency. Defend inherency with minor repairs instead of straight refutation, or
argue that the harm issue really isn’t a bad thing.
8. USE AFFIRMATIVE ARGUMENTS. There is no such thing as "Affirmative evidence." Use
arguments from one Affirmative case you’ve encountered against other cases in contrasting
sections of the topic area. Some plans will expand some government system while other plans
will limit the same system. The harm arguments for each of these Affirmative approaches will
cross-apply to the other case!
9. SHUN HANDBOOKS. Handbooks let you see the types of Negative approaches that are
possible, and they can be useful sources for obscure evidence. But don’t rely on handbook D-
A, harm, and inherency arguments to carry you through the season. It is especially important
to develop your own D-As and PMNs. Since they haven’t appeared in handbooks, no
Affirmative team will be prepared to refute them.
10. NEVER STOP RESEARCHING. As the season progresses, more and more Negative issues
open up. Negative teams discover existing government programs that could undermine
inherency positions, or find studies that mitigate harm issues. And almost any area of public
policy could be affected by the Affirmative plan, allowing for disadvantages far from the
center of the resolution. Nonstop research will keep you abreast of these developments.

SPEAKER DUTIES AND TIPS: A Summary for Novice Debaters

All speakers

z Evidence cards must contain (at a minimum) the author’s name and credentials (may be
omitted if a magazine or newspaper staff member is reporting facts); the article name, if a
magazine article; the magazine or book title; the publication date; and the page number. When
citing the evidence in a round, read just the author’s name and qualifications, magazine/book

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter16.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，3/7(W)

title, and date.

z Style is important. Remain poised and confident; project the image that your team is
"winning," even if you’re feeling lost. This doesn’t mean to be arrogant or sarcastic. A judge
finds it easier to vote against a team that projects a losing image, and judges really swat down
cocky teams. Stay calm and unflustered!
z Points are won by proving them — and "proof," in debate, means a combination of analysis
and evidence. You weaken the proof of your opponents’ arguments by showing their analysis
is faulty and/or their evidence fails to support the points. At the same time, tell the judge why
your own evidence and analysis are superior.
z When conducting cross-examination (Cross-Ex or CX), be simple, straightforward, and
honest. Do not interrupt needlessly, badger the witness, or be abusive. Remain in control. If
the witness is wasting time, press on. Above all, use the answers you get in your later
speeches.
z When answering cross-examination, be calm and self-possessed. Don’t evade. An honest
response when faced with a tricky or offensive questioner will make you look good and the
questioner look bad.

First Affirmative Constructive (1AC)

z This speech should be completely written out in manuscript form prior to the debate. Both
partners should be familiar with the arguments and evidence in the speech.
z Define any necessary terms of the resolution in the text of your speech, using dictionary or
legal citations, or use operational definitions through the Affirmative plan.
z The goal in this speech is to provide a plan which implements the resolution, and some
justification for why your plan is needed. This justification comes in the form of a prima facie
case. Whether your case structure is labeled TRADITIONAL NEED, COMPARATIVE
ADVANTAGES, CRITERIA, or some other form, it must always contain three elements:

1 Need: You must establish a significant problem with the

present way of doing things (the present system, or status
quo); or you must establish a significant potential benefit that
the status quo is not attaining.

2 Inherency: The status quo must be incapable of solving the

problem (or incapable of achieving the advantage) mentioned
in the need argument.

3 Solvency: Your specific plan must solve the harm or achieve

the advantage.

z Number and substructure the planks of the Affirmative plan. Read them slowly so the
opposing team and judge can record them.
z Signpost your arguments with consistent numbering and lettering. Use short labels that
summarize the main points you wish to make. If time permits, repeat the labels when
presenting them.
z Practice reading the speech, and if you can not deliver it in the allotted time at a slow or
moderate rate, cut out some of the material. Do not speak too fast just so you can cram another
quotation into the speech.

First Negative Constructive (1NC)

z As the 1AC speech concludes, take a moment to ask yourself: what are the harm and
inherency claims of the Affirmative team? Is the harm material (people are physically hurt) or
philosophical (rights are denied)? What type of inherency (structural, attitudinal, gap, or

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter16.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，4/7(W)

existential) is involved? Make sure you understand the case you are about to attack. If you’re
not sure about any point, have it brought out in cross-examination.
z Prep time: Use as little as possible before getting up to speak. Few debates are won or lost this
early in the round; your team will need the prep time for rebuttals, where most debates are won
or lost.
z Try to begin with a Negative philosophy that clashes with the Affirmative point of view: for
instance, status quo is better and more flexible, or another goal outweighs the Affirmative’s
goals.
z If you need to challenge Affirmative’s definitions or topicality, you should so near the start of
this speech. Challenge topicality if you believe that the Affirmative plan is not a legitimate
interpretation of the resolution.
z Follow the Affirmative case structure and adapt your arguments to it. When you have several
replies to a single point, structure and label your arguments as well. For example, in response
to Affirmative contention 1, begin by saying you have three responses; then present each,
numbering them as you go along.
z Remember to challenge Affirmative reasoning and evidence, then present your own, and argue
that your proof is superior.
z It’s better for the Novice to develop a few good arguments than many weak ones. The more
responses you offer, the more easily the gems are lost among the trash. "Spreading" is rarely a
wise idea for the Novice.
z There is no need to deny EVERYTHING in the Affirmative case; you can look foolish trying
to deny things that are obviously true. If you choose to grant a point, however, say so; don’t
just ignore it. Remember that it’s legitimate to argue that, although the point is true, it doesn’t
have the effect on the debate that the Affirmative wants to claim.
z Focus your speech on the need and inherency stock issues. Your partner will take care of
solvency. Of course, if the Affirmative lacks a solvency contention or the evidence used
doesn’t really prove the point, make sure the judge knows that!

Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC)

z Prep time: Try to use as little as possible. Blocking out likely Negative objections beforehand
and having standard responses to them will help. You want to save as much prep time as
possible for rebuttals.
z Was there a topicality challenge? Handle that first. Topicality is potentially the most damaging
issue to be raised against you, and you’ll want to justify your case to the judge right away.
z While you need to answer all 1NC arguments, it is vital that you do so within the framework
of the Affirmative case from 1AC. The most common fault of 2AC is to answer Negative
arguments as if the original case structure never existed. Instead, you should go point-by-
z point down the Affirmative case structure as it appeared in 1AC.
z If the Negative didn’t respond to your original analysis, you should "pull it across the
flowchart," pointing out to the judge that the point carries for the Affirmative. Similarly, when
the evidence supporting an argument is unchallenged, bring it through as well.
z When you get to a point that was attacked, cite the original claim and evidence (don’t reread
the evidence, but refer to it by author) before examining the Negative responses. Try to answer
each Negative response, using new evidence where necessary. If there are many Negative
points, you may wish to group several similar arguments together (but make sure you mention
them all, so the judge knows you’re not ignoring them), and then give your response(s) which
apply to the whole group.
z Whether countering Negative arguments or not, you should use prepared extensions to
advance the Affirmative case analysis. Build on your earlier work to make the case
undefeatable.
z Be sure to cover the entire Affirmative case, plus any extraneous Negative arguments. Going
into the next two speeches (the "Negative block" of 2NC and 1NR), the Affirmative team
wants to be solidly ahead.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter16.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，5/7(W)

Second Negative Constructive (2NC)

z Prep time: You should use none; be prepared to speak right after cross-examination of 2AC is
completed. You’ve had two full speeches to prepare. It’s often not necessary for you to have
flowed your partner’s constructive speech, but make sure you don’t have any argument which
will contradict his.
z Conventional division of labor is for you to present plan attacks and allow your colleague to
extend his case arguments in 1NR. This will require flowcharting your speech on a separate
page from the case arguments developed in the previous three speeches.
z Don’t try to organize your arguments in terms of the Affirmative plan planks. This is the time
to establish Negative ground: you choose the best organization for your attacks.
z Solvency attacks argue that the plan won’t work: that something is missing for it to function,
that people will avoid or thwart it, etc. These are usually called PMNs or PMAs (Plan-Meet-
Need or Plan-Meet-Advantage arguments). Number each separate argument (PMN1, PMN2,
etc.) and break them down into subpoints where necessary.
z Disadvantages (D-As or Disads) are arguments which say the Affirmative plan should not be
adopted because of it’s harmful side-effects. Again, if you are presenting several D-As,
number and signpost them. An effective disadvantage will be supported by solid evidence and
reasoning. Try to present at least one in every round; they allow you to argue that, even if the
Affirmative wins all other issues, the side-effects of the plan are so awful that the plan should
be rejected. Try to keep your D-As realistic, though: it’s better to present a solid argument
with limited impact than a truly horrible but unlikely disadvantage.
z There are three components to every plan attack, regardless of its type: A plan link, one or
more internal links, and an impact claim. Your PMAs and D-As must have these three parts at
a minimum.

First Negative Rebuttal (1NR)

z You have had your partner’s entire speech in which to prepare, so try not to use any prep time.
z Beginning debaters generally have more trouble with rebuttals than with constructives, and
this speech is where the problems start to show up. Perhaps the most common error is the
introduction of new arguments into the debate. Whoa! It’s too late. All new arguments must be
launched in constructives.
z On the other hand, the 1NR speaker shouldn’t feel that he can’t say anything new; that’s not
true either. The idea is to "extend" your original 1NC argument by refuting what 2AC had to
say about it. This means that you must show why your original argument still holds by
explaining why Affirmative answers were inadequate. Often this will require you to read
additional evidence or make a point that you did not make in 1NC, because the point only
became relevant when something appeared in 2AC that was not present or clear in 1AC.
z Do not "drop" your 1NC arguments. When 2AC ignored an attack, don’t you ignore it too! On
the contrary, pull it through and emphasize that the Affirmative seems unable to answer your
refutation. Since it was ignored, the argument becomes much stronger.
z If you spread too much in 1NC, you may discover that you lack the time to cover everything
and you must drop some of your own arguments. It’s best to mention those arguments which
you are choosing to drop, and they should be attacks of minor significance or issues which
you’re going to lose anyway. Remember, you don’t have to win every point for the decision to
go to the Negative team.
z Constantly summarize as you proceed through the speech. Show how your attacks, taken
together, conclusively pull the harm and inherency issues to the Negative side. At the end of
the Negative block, the judge should be firmly convinced that the Negative team is winning.

First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR)

z You may need a substantial amount of prep time for this speech, but be sure to leave some

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter16.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，6/7(W)

time for 2AR. It is often said that 1AR is the single most difficult speech in the debate, but
since 1AC is the easiest, this seems fair.
z By now, you should have flowed arguments in two places: the "case side" arguments of 1AC-
1NC-2AC-1NR, and the "plan-side" arguments of 2NC. The best strategy is to begin with the
plan side, since there has not been any Affirmative arguments established here. You will spend
2½ to 3 minutes discussing the plan attacks.
z Anticipate plan attacks and work out answers in advance as much as possible. Since you don’t
have much time, you will need to use short and powerful responses to defeat PMAs and D-As.
Do not try to "spread" the debate at this point — just give your best responses.
z Follow the Negative structure when arguing plan-side, regardless of how choppy or uneven it
may seem.
z If possible, try for a turnaround on any disadvantages presented. Argue either {1} that the so-
called disadvantage is really beneficial, so that it becomes a good side-effect of the plan, and
another reason to vote Affirmative ("turning the impact"); or else {2} admit that the side-effect
is bad, but claim that the present system is more likely to cause the D-A than the plan is
("turning the links").
z Having disposed of the plan, turn to the case. You should have 1 to 1½ minutes remaining. If
you can’t cover all the 1NR attacks, be sure to cover the most vital ones: those that could cost
you the debate. Topicality, if that is still an issue, must be covered! Make sure you pull across
something in the harm and inherency areas.

Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR)

z Begin with the case attacks; you will want to end on Negative ground (the 2NC plan attacks
that you established earlier). Make sure that you have time to get back to those plan attacks! A
time division of 90 seconds on case arguments, 2-1/2 minutes on plan attacks, and 1 minute for
a summary is usually ideal.
z It is vital that you have flowed 1NR on case side so that you can extend your partner’s attacks.
Do not drop the entire Negative case analysis.
z Be sure to extend on a Negative argument by refuting each response given in 1AR and
showing why the Negative analysis still holds. Again, this does not mean introducing totally
new arguments into the debate — it’s far too late for that now.
z Now is the time to summarize. Drop those Negative arguments which are weak, unimportant,
or hopeless, and concentrate on those you can win, rather than trying to cover every little point
in the debate.
z Always be on the lookout for shifts in the Affirmative position; point out that they are no
longer claiming what they were claiming in 1AC.
z Make it clear to the judge why a Negative ballot is justified. The Affirmative should lose if
they are not topical. They should lose if the Negative carries any one of the four stock issues:
harm, inherency, solvency, or disadvantages. Or they can lose if the Negative weakens harm,
inherency, and solvency enough so that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits of the plan.
Persuade the judge that the arguments the Negative is winning are good enough to pull stock
issues away from the Affirmative.

Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR)

z Your final chance. Some debates will already be decided at this point — you are already
winning, or you are so far behind that nothing will pull you through. But the debate is
probably closer than you think, and a good 2AR can make the difference.
z Start on the Negative ground: the plan-side arguments. If the 1AR stomped a plan attack,
extend on the original position just enough so you’re sure you win it. If the 1AR fumbled, do
your best to win the issue now. Spend about 2 minutes on plan attacks.
z Extend on 1AR answers by defending them against 2NR arguments. Show how your original
responses still are valid. Most judges aren’t receptive to major shifts in strategy in 2AR, since

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter16.htm 2011/11/25
w 页码，7/7(W)

the Negative doesn’t have any later chances to respond.

z Case arguments come next. About 2 minutes of your time should be spent here. Emphasize
where the Negative has dropped Affirmative arguments, ignored Affirmative responses
(repeating their earlier positions), or been guilty of contradictions.
z Pull forward the stock issues onto Affirmative turf, using the original 1AC case structure. As
the last speaker, you are the only one who has had to flow the entire debate. Conclude (in the
last minute) with an overall perspective: explain that the Affirmative obligations have all been
met and that no Negative attack remains strong enough to warrant rejecting the Affirmative
plan.

Introduction to Policy Debate

Copyright © 1990, 1993, 1996, 2002 John R. Prager
All rights reserved.
Permission is not granted to reproduce this document in whole or in part, in any medium.

http://webpages.charter.net/johnprager/IPD/Chapter16.htm 2011/11/25