A Firm Foundation:

CX Debate Basics (Part II)

AN INTRODUCTION TO
POLICY DEBATE
- The Minnesota Urban Debate League -
Definition of Topicality
Topicality (abbreviated T): an argument
where teams debate the meaning of certain
words in the resolution in an attempt to prove
that the affirmative either is or is not debating
the topic.

Remember discussing fairness earlier?

Topicality is a guarantee that the affirmative
presents a case that the negative could
reasonably expect and prepare for given the
current resolution.
Again, the resolution:
Resolved: The United States federal
government should substantially increase its
exploration and/or development of space
beyond the Earths mesosphere.

Each word, phrase and clause of the

resolution establishes meaning within the
context of the debate.
 Another way of looking at it

Resolved:

United States. The

USFG
the
should
Topical
in (Scope of Resolution)
substantially

investment
increase
infrastructure its
transportation
Topicality & Presumption
The affirmative does NOT need to define the entirety
of the resolution in the 1AC.

Unlike the other stock issues, it is the negatives

burden to define what word they believe the
affirmative is violating in the resolution. Presumption,
in this instances, lies with the affirmative.

If the negative manages to show why the aff is non-

topical, they will often win the round without the judge
ever considering the aff case. For this reason,
topicality is often called an a priori issue.
Topicality Format
Definition: Define the word or phrase you would like
to argue (definition can come from dictionaries, legal
statute, international treaties and just about anywhere
else.

Interpretation: Why the affirmative use of the word

either meets or does not meet the definition.

Standards: Why listening to the case creates either a

fair or unfair debate (hint: it has to do with fairness).

Voters: Why the judge should or should not consider

voting against a non-topical affirmative on Topicality
grounds alone.
Writing a Case
The First Affirmative Constructive (1AC) presents the
affirmative case.

Observations (sometimes called Contentions)the

1AC is usually outlined in specific observations.

Observations make it easier for everyone (including

the judge) to identify the nature of the evidence being
read.

Order and congruity are important.

Specification
Plan Planksthe plan is usually broken into
separate plan planks.

Example of Plan Planks:

Plank One: An explanation of exactly what the federal
government should do (i.e. pass a law, abolish a law,
or create a program)
Plank Two: Fundingwhere the funds will come from
to pay for the existence of the plan.
Plank Three: Enforcementthe means in which the
plan will be imposed.

Be sure that plans and plan planks mirror the

language used by your plan/solvency advocate.
Fiat The Four Letter F Word
Fiat is Latin for the phrase let it be done.

Often describes as a magic wand that

allows the passage of the plan.

Should v. WouldFiat allows the focus of

the debate on should the affirmative plan
pass and not would the affirmative plan pass.
Normal Means
Normal Means is the general operating
procedures that the federal government
undertakes to pass legislation.

Funding and Enforcement are generally done

through Normal Means.
There are advantages to specifying exactly
where the funds are allocated from.
For example, budget trade-off advantage and
answers to disadvantages.
Normal Means
Two catch phrases that are used in plan text to
explain the implementation of normal means:
funding and enforcement guaranteed
funding and enforcement through normal means

These statements answer the question how much

does the plan cost?

These statements derive from the affirmative power

of fiat.
 Putting It All Together: A Sample Plan
Observation One: Inherency
US space programs are being cut in the status quo
Evidence (with Citation)

Observation Two: Harms

US scientific advances stagnate without robust space
program; harms should come with a significant impact
Evidence (with Citation)

Plan: The USFG will fund new space exploration (specify

program)
Language must reflect solvency evidence and overcome
inherent barrier
Observation III: Solvency
New space program solves for scientific advances (cards
must state that plan will solve for stated harms
Evidence (with Citation)
Additional Notes
Each contention can have multiple subpoints,
spinning additional inherency, harms and
solvency scenarios

Oftentimes, teams will create additional

advantages following from the cases
solvency (e.g. Case solves Sino-US
Relations (S); Sino-US relations key to
economic recovery (Adv.))
Flowing: Note Taking for the Argumentative
Flowing is a logical form of note taking that
allows an individual to keep contentions and
subpoints separate in order to understand
what has and has not been argued.

WARNING: There is no substitute for flowing.

You cant remember everything

Organization is the key to winning a debate

and flowing is the key to organization. Ergo
A few quick how tos on flowing
Practice Flowing takes time, repetition, and lots of practice.

Space Flowing requires a lot of paper. Put different arguments on

different paper (i.e. disadvantages, topicality, counter-plans, harms,
solvency)

Color Using different color pens helps distinguish between affirmative

arguments.

Abbreviate Nvr wrt cmplt sntcs. (A few common ones: (leads to);
(increases); (decreases); (changes); THISS (the stock issues))
Come up with your own shorthand if needed.

Prioritize First write the tag (main idea of the evidence), then write
the citation, then write any other important details.

Its easiest to understand seeing it in action.

 An example of flowing
Just the opposite is
I. Abstinence- The Bush
true: African
based education administrations
cultures have
is incapable of approach imposes
traditional values
U.S. religious values
slowing the which would be
on African cultures.
HIV/AIDS undermined by
epidemic in sub- condom-promotion. Ugandas success is
Abstinence-based primarily the result
Saharan Africa
programs are of its condom
A. It imposes a primarily responsible promotion efforts
culturally- for Ugandas not abstinence
biased view remarkable success promotion.
against HIV/AIDS The ABC approach
B. It has failed
Untrue: The ABC is confusing
where it has been because it sends
approach used in
tried mixed messages;
Uganda and
C. It undermines elsewhere combines education programs
abstinence could be more
condom-based
education and successful with
education straight-forward
programs condom use.
condom promotion.
Research
ResearchResearch

Google Alerts for topic area

Be Creative

Follow blogs (www.the3nr.com;

www.planetdebate.com; www.debatecentral.com;
www.abnormalmeans.com)

Write your own cases and arguments!

Questions?
PowerPoint available at http://minnesotaurbandebateleague.wikispaces.com/Curriculum