8/12/2011. Facts (observations) compare with. some code (standard) resulting in a. Final Conclusion. Status Quo the existing state of things

Transcription

1 DEBATE ISSUES What is debate actually about? What is the terminology? How is it structured? FORENSIC REASONING Facts (observations) compare with some code (standard) resulting in a Final Conclusion DEFINITIONS Status Quo the existing state of things Negative (Opposition) Supports the status quo Affirmative (Government) advocates a change in the status quo 1

2 BASIC ASSUMPTIONS Presumption it is presumed that we will continue the way we are heading unless we get a good reason to change The Burden of Proof the requirement to overcome presumption a burden of proof you have the burden to prove your argument Burden of Rejoinder you have the burden to respond to your opponent s arguments not just advance your own Proposition/Resolution what is being debated Prima facie case a case that, prior to debate, provides sufficient reason to uphold the resolution PROPOSITIONS/RESOLUTIONS/STATEMENTS Questions of Fact True or False? Questions of Value Good or Bad? Questions of Policy What to do? STOCK ISSUES IN A POLICY DEBATE Significance Harms Inherency Problem Cause ILL BLAME Topicality Solvency Fairness Solution CURE/ COST/BENEFITS IMPORTANT: The Affirmative must win ALL stock issues to win the debate; Negative only has to win ONE. 2

3 CASE VS. PLAN Case: The reason we need a change Here s what we are discussing (Resolution and Definitions), which is what we agreed upon prior to the debate (topicality) We contend that there is a Problem (Harm) that is Significant enough to be addressed, it s Inherent in the Status Quo so it won t go away by itself Plan: Here s how we will solve the we identified in the case Here s the plan Here s support that it will solve the Here are additional benefits that will occur because of this plan EXAMPLE: SCHOOL BOND Case: Harm: Children aren t graduating with the education we think they need. Significance: Test scores are low for large numbers of students; affects all or most schools. Inherency: The reason is that the school districts don t have enough money Not enough teachers, materials, etc. Facilities are inadequate and need repair Plan: Details: Tax residents, build more schools; lower time needed to become a teacher Solvency: Research shows that more schools, more teachers mean students learn more TOPICALITY Primarily used in academic debate Discusses whether the Affirmative has been fair to the Negative Is the Affirmative s case topical? Does it adhere to the stated topic of the debate? CASE 3

4 CASE THE PROBLEM: HARMS & SIGNIFICANCE Harm: Is there really a (harm) that needs to be addressed (cured)? Significance: Assuming there is a harm, how bad is it? Quantitative significance give me numbers Qualitative significance INHERENCY Where does the lie? What is the cause? What is producing the harm? The exists because of WHAT? Structural Inherency Attitudinal inherency Existential inherency CASE PLAN (OF ACTION) How will we solve the s identified in the case? Planks: Agency: Who will oversee the plan to make sure it works? Mandates: What, specifically, will the plan do? Pass a law that XXX? (What will be mandated?) Enforcement: What will happen if the plan is not followed? Funding/Staffing: Where will the money/staff come from? PLAN 4

5 PLAN ADVANTAGES (PLAN EFFECTS) What are the benefits of adopting the plan? What proof can be provided to show that it will solve the? (Does the Plan meet the Advantages?) Are there any additional advantages of adopting the plan? ( subsidiary effects ) Note: Lack of any additional advantages to the Affirmative plan does not equate to the Affirmative not meeting its prima facie burden. ALTERNATIVE FORMATS FOR ARGUING POLICIES Comparative Advantages Case Develops the position that in comparison with the current system, the proposed system has more benefits STRATEGIES FOR REFUTING POLICY ARGUMENTS DEFENSE OF THE PRESENT POLICY SYSTEM: We can choose either the proposed new policy or the present policy, and the present system is better than the proposed change MINOR REPAIR: Status quo can be fixed with minor repairs; admits that there may be some s with the status quo, but a minor repair could mitigate the harms STRAIGHT REFUTATION: Defeat Affirmative arguments; show, through use of evidence and reasoning, that the affirmative is unable to meet the burden of proof on the issues, is non-topical, or just wrong COUNTER PLAN: We ve got a better idea (but must be non-topical in academic debate) NEGATIVE 5

6 DEFENSE OF PRESENT POLICY The (Alleged) Problem does not exist is insignificant is declining over time is the lesser of two evils (Aff plan) (value comparison test) The Present System is solving the can solve the, given sufficient time solves the most important (given that the SQ is the lesser of two evils) has philosophically sound principles The Proposed Plan (Aff) will not solve the (alleged) is (will be) not as effective as the present system has more (significant) than advantages does not have as many benefits as the present policy and, in fact, has more REPAIR OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM The Problem exists, although it is not as serious as is claimed The Present System is not the cause of the can be fixed with minor repairs The Proposed Plan (Aff) will not solve the (alleged) is (will be) not as effective as the present system, when repaired has more (significant) than advantages does not have as many benefits as the present policy and, in fact, has more STRAIGHT REFUTATION The Problem has not been proven (evidence/reasoning is flawed, untrustworthy, non existent) harmful The Present System the cause of the or has not been proven to be incapable of removing the causes is not the only cause of the The Proposed Plan (Aff) has not been proven to solve the or produce the advantage(s) workable or enforceable has not proven that the advantages will outweigh the 6

7 COUNTERPROPOSAL The Problem has not been proven (evidence/reasoning is flawed, untrustworthy, non existent) harmful The Present System the cause of the or has not been proven to be incapable of removing the causes is not the only cause of the The Proposed Plan (Aff) has not been proven to solve the or produce the advantage(s) workable or enforceable has not proven that the advantages will outweigh the 7