Policy Debate (also known as Cross-Examination Debate) is a form of speech competition in which teams of two debate whether or not a specific policy action should be enacted. See Debate for other types of debate competition.

High school policy debate is sponsored by the National Forensic League, the National Catholic Forensic League or one of the regional speech organizations. Collegiate debates are generally competed under the guidelines of the National Debate Tournament (NDT), the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA), or the National Educational Debate Association (NEDA).

Debate topics (resolutions) are selected annually by ballot of the coaches of affiliated schools, and a single topic is debated by affiliated students nationally for the entire season. Resolutions address a broad topic, such as Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the affirmative team generally is expected to present a policy option (plan) that is able to support the normative statement of the resolution. However, there are many different interpretations on what is and is not expected in debate.

Contents

1 Delivery 2 Theory 2.1 Burdens of the Affirmative 2.2 Negative Strategy 3 Judging 3.1 Stock Issues 3.2 Tabula Rasa 3.3 Policymaker 3.4 Gamer 4 Tournaments 5 Resolutions 5.1 Recent NFL high school resolutions 5.2 Recent CEDA-NDT intercollegiate resolutions 6 Event Structure

Delivery

Delivery in speeches will vary from league to league and tournament to tournament. In larger-circuit tournaments, many debaters will "spread." Spreading is merely a term for speaking very quickly. The top debaters in the nation will average about 320-330 words per minute.

Theory

Burdens of the Affirmative

Traditional debate theory states that the affirmative plan must fulfill certain issues, called the stock issues:

• Topicality: The affirmative case must affirm the resolution as stated.
• Harms: The affirmative must present a case that solves for a problem.
• Significance: The affirmative must present a case that includes evidence that the problem they are solving is significant.
• Inherency: The case must not already be in effect, and the harms must not already be solved for.
• Solvency: The plan must adequately solve for the harms stated.

Other external benefits that are created in addition to solving the harms addressed by the affirmative are called advantages, while these aren't required in order to fulfill the affirmative burdens they are often included in the affirmative case as well.

Often times debaters will point out the that the affirmative is required to fulfill all the stock issues by utilizing a table analogy which lists the four major burdens: Harms, Topicality, Inherency and Solvency as being analogous to table legs. Under this analogy Significance is said to be the tabletop since four table legs without a surface attached is obviously insignificant because it has no utility. If a table lacks any of its four legs (the other four stock issues) then it obviously isn't suitable since it will collapse under its own weight.

Negative Strategy

After the affirmative presents its case, the negative can attack the case with many different arguments, which include:

• Stock Issues : The negative can claim that the affirmative does not uphold any of the above burdens. Certain judges believe that the affirmative must uphold each of the issues, or they lose the round.
• Disadvantages: The negative can claim that there are disadvantages, or adverse effects of the plan, which outweigh any advantages claimed.
• Kritiks: The negative can claim that the affirmative assumes a certain mindset or assumption that should be rejected if the plan is passed. Kritiks are a reason to reject the entire plan without evaluating its policy. Some kritiks include ones against racism, centralized government or anthropocentric viewpoints.
• Counter-plans: The negative can reject the status quo in favor of a different policy action, which provides better advantages, or fewer disadvantages than the plan.
• Narrative: Narratives are emotionally delivered speeches generally given at the opening of a speech. They are usually personal in nature, and call for the judge to approve of a specific policy option based on a situation. A case that would solve for world hunger might include a narrative about a starving African child.
• Performance: A song, dance, or other method of expression other than rhetoric that is used in the round, usually with justification. For example, a dance about freedom may better represent freedom than actual discourse.

Judging

Judging policy debate can be challenging. The total time available is short, the issues are complex and the judge may have personal beliefs that cloud impartiality. Additionally, certain judges (who were generally debaters in High School and/or College) have been brought up in a certain mindset that favors certain arguments and styles over others. Because of this, it is customary for debaters to ask a judge what their paradigm is for judging. Judging paradigms include:

Stock Issues

A stock issues judge believes that the affirmative plan must fulfill all their burdens (see Stock Issues under Theory). If the negative proves that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected. Stock issue judges generally prefer a clear, eloquent presentation of issues in round, and dislike arguments that seem to not relate to the topic on the surface.

Tabula Rasa

From the Latin phrase that translates to clean slate, tabula rasa judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. Tab judges expect for teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. While a generalization is unfair, most tab judges will be comfortable with fast speeches, along with counter-plans, disadvantages, and kritiks. However, it is best to ask a tab judge on his or her preference in regards to specific types of arguments.

Policymaker

Policymaker judges tend to take the theoretical viewpoint that they are the "policymaker," and as such, they vote for the side that presents the best policy option. Typically, Policymakers vote heavily on disadvantages and counter-plans, and may not vote on kritiks or topicality arguments.

Gamer

Gamer judges are becoming more popular, especially among college debaters who judge High School rounds. As the name suggests, these judges believe that debate is a game, and any argument that forms a coherent syllogism is "fair play" in round. Gamer judges will have no qualms about voting for a policy that vaporizes the moon, disbands the U.S. government, or any other policy action that would normally be considered "absurd."

Tournaments

Most high schoolers will debate in their local leagues. The most prestigious debate tournament is the Tournament of Champions where debaters are required to receive two bids in order to qualify. Bids are gained at national tournaments such as the Berkeley and Stanford Invitationals.

Resolutions

Recent NFL high school resolutions

• Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially decrease its authority either to detain without charge or to search without probable cause. (2005-2006)

• Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a foreign policy substantially increasing its support of United Nations peacekeeping operations. (2004-2005)

• Resolved: The United States Federal government should establish an ocean policy substantially increasing the protection of marine natural resources. (2003-2004)

• Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase public health services for mental health care in the United States. (2002-2003)

• Resolved: The United States federal government should establish a foreign policy significantly limiting the use of weapons of mass destruction. (2001-2002)

• Resolved: The United States federal government should significantly increase protection of privacy in the United States in one or more of the following areas: employment, medical records, consumer information, search & seizure. (2000-2001)

• Resolved: The federal government should establish an education policy to significantly increase academic achievement in secondary schools in the United States. (1999-2000)

• Resolved: The United States should substantially change its foreign policy toward Russia. (1998-1999)

Recent CEDA-NDT intercollegiate resolutions

(2004-2005) Resolved: The United States federal government should establish an energy policy requiring a substantial reduction in the total non-governmental consumption of fossil fuels in the United States.

(2003-2004) Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enact one or more of the following:

• Withdrawal of its World Trade Organization complaint against the European Union’s restrictions on genetically modified foods;
• A substantial increase in its government-to-government economic and/or conflict prevention assistance to Turkey and/or Greece;
• Full withdrawal from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization;
• Removal of its barriers to and encouragement of substantial European Union and/or North Atlantic Treaty Organization participation in peacekeeping in Iraq and reconstruction in Iraq;
• Removal of its tactical nuclear weapons from Europe;
• Harmonization of its intellectual property law with the European Union in the area of human DNA sequences;
• Rescission of all or nearly all agriculture subsidy increases in the 2002 Farm Bill.

(2002-2003) Resolved: The United States Federal Government should ratify or accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:

• The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
• The Kyoto Protocol;
• The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;
• The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
• The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.

(2001-2002) Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase federal control throughout Indian Country in one or more of the following areas: child welfare, criminal justice, employment, environmental protection, gaming, resource management, taxation.

(2000-2001) Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its development assistance, including government to government assistance, within the Greater Horn of Africa.

Event Structure

The exact procedure of the debate may vary depending on the sponsoring body. The order of speeches is invariant. The speeches description, and the speech times (under NFL rules) are as follows:

First Affirmative Constructive Speech (abbreviated 1AC)	8 minutes
Cross-Examination of First Affirmative by Second Negative	3 minutes
First Negative Constructive Speech (1NC)	8 minutes
Cross-Examination of First Negative by First Affirmative	3 minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive Speech (2AC)	8 minutes
Cross-Examination of Second Affirmative by First Negative	3 minutes
Second Negative Constructive Speech (2NC)	8 minutes
Cross-Examination of Second Negative by Second Affirmative	3 minutes
First Negative Rebuttal (1NR)	5 minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR)	5 minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR)	5 minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR)	5 minutes

In college debates, constructive speeches are nine minutes, and rebuttals are six minutes.

In addition to speeches, policy debates may allow for a certain amount of preparation time, or "prep time," during a debate round. NFL rules call for 5 minutes of total prep time that can be used. College debates typically have 10 minutes of preparation time. The preparation time is used at each team's preference; they can use different amounts of preparation time before any of their speeches, or even none at all.