Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

What is a policy debate

F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2011 7:33:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I see a lot of DDO members talking about "policy debates" and to not accept unless they know what a policy debate is. What is it? Anyone want to policy debate with me? Keep in mind, I don't know what it is so you'll have to tell me the rules.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2011 7:37:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Policy debate is a form of research-based speech competition in which teams of two advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government [though can be for state government, or foriegn governments]."

"Affirmative teams generally present a plan as a proposal for implementation of the resolution. The negative will generally prove that it would be better not to do the plan or that the opportunity costs to the plan are so great that it should not be implemented."

These are usually more source based.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2011 8:08:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I really do not like these debates, and most of the time won't read them. They are very uninteresting to me because it feels like two different debates going on at the same time in a very structured kind of way. I prefer to see participants "going at it". I am curious to know what others think.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2011 9:20:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/5/2011 8:08:04 PM, Double_R wrote:
I really do not like these debates, and most of the time won't read them. They are very uninteresting to me because it feels like two different debates going on at the same time in a very structured kind of way. I prefer to see participants "going at it". I am curious to know what others think.

They're a lot more impressive to see in real life, provided you can understand them. Keep in mind that all those long speeches written are read during an 8 minute period, which is very impressive. However I agree, I do not really like debates that are based almost entirely on evidence (like policy debates generally are).
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Johnicle
Posts: 888
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/5/2011 10:48:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
An affirmative must read a case that solves for more good things than it causes bad things.

The Affirmative must also prove (these are called stock issues):

Inherency (AKA: the plan being passed by affirmative is not being done in the status quo)
Harms (AKA: there are bad things happening in the status quo)
Solvency (AKA: the plan solves for these bad things)
*Topicality (AKA: the plan being passed is a plan within the context of the topic presented)

*Topicality is not presented in the initial case... if Neg wants to argue it, they present it in their first speech. Everything else is generally argued in the first speech.

===================================

Negative can argue any of the aforementioned stock issues. In addition, they may argue:

Topicality: (if argued in the 1NC) must have:

Interpretation (the definition that affirmatives plan violates)
Violation (how the plan violates that definition)
Standards (reasons why it is bad for affirmative to violate the topic... EG: Reasonability (its unreasonable to be untopical), Limits (we must limit the affirmative to the topic), etc.)
Voter (a reason why the affirmative being untopical is a big enough issue for them to be voted against)

Disadvantage: (AKA: The plan causes something that is bad... If it outweighs negative wins)

It must have:

Uniqueness: (the harm in the disadvantage is not being caused in the status quo)
Link: (the plan itself causes the harm)
Impact: (what the bad thing is)

Counterplan: (AKA: an alternative plan that (should) outweighs the affirmative and simultaneously be a reason to reject the affirmative plan)

Generally... it must be:

Net-beneficial
Mutually-Exclusive (both the counterplan and the plan can't co-exist)
Non-topical (the CP can't be topical... although some judges don't care. They usually argue that the plan is the basis for the debate, not the topic)

There are also Kritik's... but those are a bit more complex.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 12:38:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
And irl, you give policy speeches like this

My first policy round I watched, I had to constantly bite my tongue to prevent laughing. I had heard the stories, but hearing about it and seeing it are two different things.
Johnicle
Posts: 888
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 2:09:15 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/6/2011 12:38:18 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
And irl, you give policy speeches like this



My first policy round I watched, I had to constantly bite my tongue to prevent laughing. I had heard the stories, but hearing about it and seeing it are two different things.

I had a similar reaction at first... but I now find it to be the most strategic and educational debate format there is. There is a language you have to learn... but it's well worth it.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 2:11:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/6/2011 12:38:18 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
And irl, you give policy speeches like this



My first policy round I watched, I had to constantly bite my tongue to prevent laughing. I had heard the stories, but hearing about it and seeing it are two different things.

Hahaha. That was the craziest thing I've heard. I can barely understand a word. Is this a joke video or is it an actual legitimate debate? Why would anyone read so fast?
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 2:14:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/6/2011 2:11:53 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 8/6/2011 12:38:18 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
And irl, you give policy speeches like this



My first policy round I watched, I had to constantly bite my tongue to prevent laughing. I had heard the stories, but hearing about it and seeing it are two different things.

Hahaha. That was the craziest thing I've heard. I can barely understand a word. Is this a joke video or is it an actual legitimate debate? Why would anyone read so fast?

You can tell they are getting a little tired toward the end. That was the only place where I could understand them without looking at the captions.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 2:20:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/6/2011 2:11:53 AM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 8/6/2011 12:38:18 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
And irl, you give policy speeches like this



My first policy round I watched, I had to constantly bite my tongue to prevent laughing. I had heard the stories, but hearing about it and seeing it are two different things.

Hahaha. That was the craziest thing I've heard. I can barely understand a word. Is this a joke video or is it an actual legitimate debate? Why would anyone read so fast?

Yes, that happens in just about every round, including high school. Its what policy is known for.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 2:23:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/6/2011 2:09:15 AM, Johnicle wrote:
At 8/6/2011 12:38:18 AM, BlackVoid wrote:
And irl, you give policy speeches like this



My first policy round I watched, I had to constantly bite my tongue to prevent laughing. I had heard the stories, but hearing about it and seeing it are two different things.

I had a similar reaction at first... but I now find it to be the most strategic and educational debate format there is. There is a language you have to learn... but it's well worth it.
It educates you to do what?

Why is it "worth it" to make debate a matter of respiratory athletics?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
BlackVoid
Posts: 9,170
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 2:24:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The problem is that, even if they spoke completely normal, most people still would have no idea what they're talking about. For instance, from the video

"They have conceded our Beck evidence which indicates that risk mediation is just another form of technological moralization because it creates a mathematical system of ethics whereby you are a ratio-calculating processor..."

Even at normal speed, it will take several reads to figure out what this means.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 2:26:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Speaking of which, is this where Charles learned to argue?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Johnicle
Posts: 888
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 11:50:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/6/2011 2:23:18 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

It educates you to do what?

Why is it "worth it" to make debate a matter of respiratory athletics?

I don't quite get this logic. Since you don't know what's going on they must not either? It seems, that the only thing you could see, were people talking extremely fast. Thus you conclude that the only thing they learn is to talk fast. That just isn't true at all.

The "respiratory athletics" are merely a strategy. If you finished the video, then you will notice that Negative got an additional 10 arguments in or so.

And as previously mentioned, the arguments they are articulating are extremely complex. Even if you read them at your choice of pace you still may be confused by them.

As far as the speed goes, you should know that these are some of the top tier debaters being judged by top tier judges. While you may not understand what's going on, they do. It's similar to high-speed chess... you may not understand the strategy or who's even winning but they do and that's what is important. Also comparable is online poker. Some players play up to 50 table, which makes several decisions a second necessary. Someone who isn't used to it will see random clicking but that poker player and someone used to it knows exactly what's going on. Not to mention that this high speed debate, and 50 simultaneous poker tables, and high-speed chess requires extraordinary brain power and ability.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 1:16:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/6/2011 11:50:20 AM, Johnicle wrote:
At 8/6/2011 2:23:18 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

It educates you to do what?

Why is it "worth it" to make debate a matter of respiratory athletics?

I don't quite get this logic.
It's a question, not an argument.

And as previously mentioned, the arguments they are articulating are extremely complex.
"Complex" here meaning "Not fully articulated." I presume the judges have the rest of the argument (which isn't their argument but their source's argument) in front of them. What's the point of learning to do this instead of learning to put your whole argument, comprehensible, in the same medium?

And yes, it's hard to understand arguments when they don't even say what their resolution is.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Johnicle
Posts: 888
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/6/2011 7:35:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/6/2011 1:16:06 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

"Complex" here meaning "Not fully articulated." I presume the judges have the rest of the argument (which isn't their argument but their source's argument) in front of them. What's the point of learning to do this instead of learning to put your whole argument, comprehensible, in the same medium?

The judges don't have the arguments in front of them... they listen. And they can't put their whole argument in the debate if they don't have enough time to. As far as your "comprehensible" critique, I could understand everything said.

And yes, it's hard to understand arguments when they don't even say what their resolution is.

Well in this form of debate they debate a plan, not a resolution. The plan must be part of the resolution but that is it. Most debates come down to the effects the plan has on the world around us.

Again, just because you're not used to it, or don't understand it, doesn't mean it has no value. (Thus why I gave the example of high speed chess and online poker).