Policy Debate Guidance Information

Policy Debate Guidance Information SCOPE This document contains guidance information for coaches, parents and competitors. The information contained herein, although developed by the CCA Debate Committee in accordance with the CCA debate rules, is considered by Christian Communicators of America (CCA) to be illustrative of the rules and not the rules themselves. NATURE OF COMMUNICATION Comprehensible Presentation There are three parts to a comprehensible presentation. The presentation must be made in a logical manner, which includes clear organization, succinct statements of the argument, and a logical progression of the argument. The presentation should be both trustworthy and delivered in a manner that supports its trustworthy nature, which includes the attire and confidence of the presenter. Finally, the presenter should consider vocal volume; variety in contrast, rate, pitch, rhythm, word emphasis, gestures, facial expressions, and appropriate pauses as parts of a comprehensible delivery. Speed and Spread This technique requires the debater to speak faster than 185 words per minute. This is not comprehensible presentation and is seen as unethical because it attempts to gain an advantage over the opponent by overwhelming the opposition rather than by sound reasoning. The goal is conversational style communication. ETHICS Violations An ethical violation, by definition, is a serious infraction of CCA principles. Ethical violations should be infrequent events. When they are observed, charges of such violations are to be brought, with discretion and humility, to the attention of the Tournament Director, not the judge, by the offended participant (not a parent or coach). Not every behavioral infraction constitutes an ethical violation. Moreover, not every complaint needs to be brought to the attention of the Tournament Director. For example, if a coach or parent sees a participant behaving inappropriately, they are encouraged to speak directly to the coach or parent of the participant who made the infraction. Only in the case of a repeated offense, and only after speaking to the coach or parent, should complaints regarding behavioral infractions be made to the Tournament Director. Christian Communicators of America Page 1 of 11 13.0.1_2017

Attire In order to show respect for the activity, opponents, and judges, professional business attire is required. Complete information regarding the CCA dress code is located in the Code of Conduct. PARTICIPATION Maturity The recommended minimum age for participation in team policy debate is 14. The student should be mature enough and have the necessary skills to participate in a high school level activity. The resolutions debated will be written at the high school level. Generally speaking, the participants who have acquired some speaking skills, knowledge of current events, and reasoning skills prior to participation in debate, transition more quickly and easily into upper levels of competition than those who have not. Students who begin participating when they are older generally learn quickly and are competitive early in their experience. Iron Sharpening Iron When high school level students debate other students at the same level, rather than high school level students debating junior high level students, the competition is naturally improved. A better personal learning experience and higher level of competition is created as "iron sharpens iron." Because of the one semester competition format, there are fewer tournaments. During a shorter tournament season, the level of sharpening is decreased when a high school level student is debating a junior high school level student. The high school student assumes a teaching role in the debate, and while the role of teacher is highly valued and encouraged, it is better done in the home or at club meetings. Upper High School Level of Competition Desired Upper high school level competitors increase the level of competition because of their knowledge, skills, and reasoning ability. When students begin participating at a young age, they often stop competing after a couple of years--before their abilities reach full maturity. When older students stop competing, the level of competition drops to the skill level of those participating - junior high or early high school. A higher level of competition will be more challenging to upper high school level students and keep them debating longer. In addition, if the participant is hopeful for a debate or leadership scholarship, it is desirable on the part of the college that students participate their junior and senior years of high school. Christian Communicators of America Page 2 of 11 13.0.1_2017

STOCK ISSUES Topicality Topicality refers to the state of conformity to the intent of the debate resolution. A plan is topical if it justifies the full intent of the resolution as a direct result of the planks in the plan that implement the resolution. Topicality is a protection for the negative team and should not be challenged frivolously or unnecessarily. The purpose of a topicality ruling in the middle of the round is not to penalize the affirmative team, but to allow them the opportunity to correct flaws in their case prior to the next round. It is highly recommended that the participants wisely use the time remaining in the round to get advice from coaches or parents, if necessary, and make necessary adjustments to their case so that the topicality issue is avoided in subsequent rounds. The first thing that must be kept in mind when discussing topicality is that there is no such thing as a non-topical plan. The second thing that must be remembered is that there is no such thing as a topical plan. The stock issues, topicality included, serve as an analytical contrivance, or set of criteria, which judges utilize to assist them in determining whether they will vote for the affirmative or the negative team. While a plan may be judged non-topical in one debate round, the very same plan might easily be judged topical in the next round. This phenomenon is a direct result of the fact that academic policy debate is not a pursuit of the truth. Policy debate is rather a means by which debaters are trained. Hence, the issue itself is not the focus. If it were, CCA would announce a new topic bimonthly in order to familiarize students with more issues. A plan, therefore, is never truly nontopical, though some plans are certainly more prone to topicality presses than others. There are different ways to approach topicality, but in general, it is necessary to do the following when addressing this stock issue: 1. Present your topicality argument in your first negative constructive speech. 2. Articulate how, in your understanding, the affirmative plan is non-topical. As the negative, you need to explain that the affirmative is non-topical for one or more of three reasons outlined below 3. Explain why you believe the affirmative plan should be ruled non-topical. This step basically consists of relating why your definitions or understanding should be accepted instead of the affirmative team's position. Probably the best and most common way to argue that one definition is superior to another is to present criteria for a good definition and then argue that your definition realizes these criteria better than your opponents' definition does. Criteria to Prove a Satisfactory Definition: (not all of these will always apply) Prove your definition is officially stipulated as the correct one for this resolution Christian Communicators of America Page 3 of 11 13.0.1_2017

Prove your definition is grammatically correct Prove your definition is derived from the appropriate field Prove your definition is based on common usage Prove your definition is consistent with policy maker s usage Prove your definition meets the original understanding of the framers of the resolution Prove your definition provides a clear distinction between what is legitimately included and what is legitimately excluded by the definition Prove your definition provides a fair division of ground The three ways that a plan can usually be judged to be non-topical are related, but distinct from one another. 1. You may argue that the affirmative case does not meet the resolution as defined by the affirmative team itself. This circumstance rarely presents itself, as most teams are careful to choose definitions that match their plan, or tailor their plan to match their definitions. 2. You may argue that the affirmative case does not meet the resolution as you have defined it. This is, by far, the most common form of topicality press, and typically it relies upon different definitions of words like substantial, significant, policy, and Illegal Immigrant (the resolution keyword). 3. You may argue that the results of the affirmative case do not meet the resolution as you or the affirmative team has defined it. This press is typically referred to as effects topicality. This sort of challenge occurs when an Affirmative case changes a policy other than the one specified in the resolution, but the effect of that change is in the topic area of the resolution. Effects topicality alleges that the Affirmative team is not topical in its direct mandate or intent but only arguably arrives at alleviating Harms typically associated with the topic through a variety of internal links Inherency Inherency involves the probability of future harm. The affirmative team must prove that each significant harm identified in their case is built into the essential nature of the status quo such as through legal structures and/or societal attitudes that will not be solved without the affirmative case. Significance Significance refers to the degree of importance or impact attached to an issue. The affirmative must prove that the essential elements of the case are quantitatively and/or qualitatively important. Solvency Solvency refers to the ability of a plan to work. The affirmative team must prove that the plan is viable and will solve or significantly reduce the harms that have been identified, or, when running a Comparative Advantage case that the advantages will come about. Christian Communicators of America Page 4 of 11 13.0.1_2017

CASE STRUCTURES There are only two case structures that will be allowed. The basic plan format is the same for both case types and is as follows: 1. Needs Analysis Affirmative Advocates select the needs analysis when they believe that: a. a significant inherent need (or harm) exists in the status quo that can best be solved by adopting the plan advanced by the affirmative team; and b. adopting the affirmative team s plan will solve the need and thus provide significant advantages. The essential elements of the needs analysis affirmative are the justification or need (or harm), the plan, and the advantages. 2. Comparative Advantages Analysis Affirmative The affirmative team accepts the goals of the status quo and argues that its plan is a better way of attaining these goals and that its plan will produce greater advantages than the status quo. The three essential features of the comparative advantages case are: a. identify the goals of the status quo, b. integrate the plan with the goals, and c. provide significant advantages directly linked to the plan. Blending the key elements of the permitted case structures outlined on page 4 of the Policy Debate Criteria & Competitor Standards is prohibited. Examples of prohibited blending of key case elements would be: Adding a Goal(s) of the Status Quo to a Needs Analysis Case Adding Harms to a Comparative Advantage Case Furthermore, teams should clearly declare the case structure they are using in the 1AC or be prepared to identify the case structure upon cross-examination. AFFIRMATIVE PLAN An affirmative plan should include the following planks: Plank 1 Agency In this plank, the affirmative team specifies who will be responsible for administering its plan. This may include identifying who will enact the plan and/or who will do the work Christian Communicators of America Page 5 of 11 13.0.1_2017

of the plan. The affirmative team must provide the essential details of the agency that will put its plan into effect. Plank 2 - Mandates In most debates, this is the essence of the plan. In this plank, the affirmative team specifies the mandates given to the agency that administers the plan. The affirmative team must specify exactly what it requires the agency to do. Any new legislation needed to carry out the affirmative team's plan will be included in this plank. Plank 3 Enforcement In this plank, the affirmative specifies how the plan will be enforced. In the need and inherency issues the affirmative has provided many reasons people will resist its plan. Now it must provide a means of making people behave the way it wants them to. The affirmative may find it necessary to provide fines, prison terms, or other forms of coercion or incentives to make people act in the way necessary for its plan to work. In some circumstances, the affirmative may be able to demonstrate that under the new conditions created by its plan people will act in the desired way because it is now in their self-interest to do so. Most often enforcement will be through "normal means," meaning it is not specified by the plan, but simply uses the existing law enforcement mechanisms of the status quo. Plank 4 Funding and Staffing In this plank, the affirmative team specifies how it will get the funds and staff the agency needs to carry out its mandates. These actions usually occur through "normal means." unless the mandates require a large change in the funding and staffing of the resolutional actor, typically the US Federal Government. Plank 5 Addendum In this concluding plank, the affirmative team adds such further provisions as may be necessary to complete the implementation of its plan. This plank is quite often unnecessary. Caution: Advantages may not be drawn from extra topical mandates; they may only be drawn from the action specified in the resolution. Resolutional Analysis and Other Debate Terminology The following clarification can be of assistance to you as you consider all manner of special "debate terms". The issue at hand is when a phrase, such as "resolutional analysis," is assigned a meaning and value that is not prescribed by CCA rules or structure. The danger lies when one Christian Communicators of America Page 6 of 11 13.0.1_2017

group of students, coaches, and judges understand a phrase to have a certain meaning, and carry a certain burden, and others do not. Since CCA case structures do not require a "resolutional analysis", on its own this phrase has no official meaning or weight within the CCA debate system. ***Caution*** We did not just state that it is against the rules, illegal, immoral, or even incorrect to use the phrase "resolutional analysis". What we are saying is that if a debater uses this term, or others terms such as "negative philosophy", they must explain to their opponent and judge what they mean by that term. They must also be very careful not to imply that these special "debate terms" carry any weight in and of themselves, that they automatically create any advantage (for the affirmative), or create any new burden (for the negative) beyond that of the stock issues. To quote the CCA Event Criteria: "The stock issues topicality, significance, inherency, and solvency shall be the basis of the voting decision for the debate round." Opening quotations, resolutional analysis, and negative philosophies are nice, but not required. They may help to set the tone, but they are not arguments in the flow, and carry no burden of proof or rejoinder in and of themselves. Be very careful that you do not implicitly or explicitly claim otherwise. PRIMA FACIE If the affirmative team has not presented a prima facie case in the 1AC, the negative team needs to challenge in the 1NC, but does not ask for a ruling until the end of the debate. CROSS-EXAMINATION The purpose of cross-examination is to ask and answer questions, not to make statements. Debaters should face the judge during the cross-examination period. Polite conduct is expected. Occasionally, a debater may be asked a question that could hurt their case. CCA s position is that it is better to answer the question than to dance around it. As a practical matter, not answering a question gives the appearance of uncertainty and a lack of self-confidence. Ethically, if the debater is not careful, it can also be a form of lying. SPLITTING THE NEGATIVE Splitting the negative is prohibited (see Glossary for definition). However, a division of labor is allowed. A division of labor between the negative speakers is when the 1NC focuses primarily on refuting some of the affirmative arguments using logic, evidence, and reasoning, while minimally addressing all other arguments raised by the affirmative (which means the substance of each negative response is clear to the affirmative, and the judge, even if a complete argument is not presented); those arguments not addressed at all are dropped and conceded to the opposing team. The 2NC then focuses on refuting the Christian Communicators of America Page 7 of 11 13.0.1_2017

remaining arguments using logic, evidence, and reasoning, but again, still addresses all on-case arguments. The 2NC is permitted to raise additional off-case arguments, but it is unethical for the negative team to hide the substance of their on case arguments from the affirmative team until after the 1NC. DROPPED ARGUMENT If an argument is dropped by an opposing team, the next speaker should bring the dropped argument to the attention of the judge in his or her speech and again in the final rebuttal speech. EVIDENCE Evidence is the raw material of argumentation. It consists of facts and qualified opinions that are used to generate proof. The advocate brings together the raw materials and, by the process of reasoning, produces new conclusions. Analysis, explanation, and appeals to common sense are considered appropriate argumentative strategy; however, assertions that are not developed, applied, and supported are considered mere assertions. Critical thinking cannot occur without sound evidence. The use of evidence is not limited to debates although debates provide an excellent way to learn about and apply evidence. Even in unstructured disputes in informal settings, individuals must necessarily seek out evidence. As Christians, we believe the Bible to be the ultimate authority in all areas of faith and practice. Some students participating in debate are still developing their faith as well as their argumentation skills. We strive to encourage students to learn to defend their faith, not to argue against biblical principles. Furthermore, contextual and denominational differences compound these problems and could cause the round to become a theological debate instead of a policy debate. Therefore, the Bible shall not be used as evidence in the round. In order to achieve the educational aspects of research portion of the debate activity, it is essential that the student perform his/her own research. Purchased evidence and cases are prohibited. Ellipsing of evidence is permitted (leaving out with ellipses or striking out un necessary verbiage as long as it does not change the original meaning). It is recommended that the student maintain a copy of the article containing their evidence to verify the context in the event of a challenge. It is recommended that participants maintain a copy of the entire article containing their evidence to verify its context in the event of a challenge. It may be wise to have on hand at the tournament, not necessarily carried with you in the round, an original copy in its entirety of every article the debater uses for evidence in the event that the evidence is challenged by the opposing team. EVIDENCE SHARING Christian Communicators of America Page 8 of 11 13.0.1_2017

Evidence sharing is permitted between members of the same club prior to the tournament or with a novice team that does not have the benefit of a club. Evidence sharing immediately prior to a round is in effect a form of tag teaming. SPEAKER POINT CRITERIA Below are descriptions of each of the speaker point categories. In each round, speakers will be given points in each of the following categories: Organization Strategic Organization Putting a speech together in such a way as to achieve a certain result with a particular audience. A well-organized speech has an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. It uses main points, transitions, signposts, internal previews (a statement in the body of the speech that lets the audience know what the speaker is going to discuss next), and internal summaries (a statement in the body of the speech that summarizes the speaker s preceding point or points) which will enable the listener to understand the thesis and its development in the speech. Organization utilizes harmony, unity, correlation, arrangement, and classification. Each speech should be systematic and methodical. Argumentation Refutation and Rebuttal Challenging the opponents points by showing flaws or weaknesses in their arguments, and overcoming the opponents arguments and re-explaining or rebuilding one's own arguments. A well-argued presentation includes tearing down an opponents' case by refuting their evidence with stronger, more credible and current evidence; and challenging the opponents reasoning with stronger, clearer, and more logical reasoning by using direct refutation, linking arguments, and showing the significance of arguments. Argumentation implements appeal, explanation, illustrations, evidence, and logic. Cross-examination Cross-examination Format One member of the opposing team stands side-by-side with his opponent and directly questions the opponent about the case. Christian Communicators of America Page 9 of 11 13.0.1_2017

An effective cross-examination will employ assertive, thoughtful, pertinent questions and responses. The ability to think and respond spontaneously without much preparation time is an important facet of cross-examination. Types of Questions Question of Fact: A question about the truth or falsity of an assertion. Question of Value: A question about the worth, rightness, or morality of an idea or action. Question of Policy: A question about whether a specific course of action should or should not be taken. Cross-examinations provide the opportunity to investigate, clarify, interrogate, and question. Justification Justification The basic issue in the speech which deals with the questions of policy: Is there a serious problem or need that requires a change from current policy? Is this problem widespread and is it significant enough to require change? A speech designed to change or reinforce the audience s beliefs or actions. A well-justified speech will use Aristotle s theory of the Available Means of Persuasion: logos (logical appeal), pathos (emotional appeal), and ethos (the speaker s character or likeability) by presenting evidence and reasoning in a winsome manner. Justification applies reason, defense, explanation, influence and plausibility. Communication Conversational Quality Communicating in a fashion that sounds spontaneous and genuine no matter how many times a speech has been rehearsed. One facet of a well-communicated speech is the use of vocal technique. Verbal technique includes changes in a speaker s rate, pitch, and volume, which give the voice variety and expressiveness. In addition, effective verbal communication is characterized by proper pronunciation and enunciation. The second facet of communication is the use of nonverbal communication. This communication occurs as a result of appearance, posture, gestures, eye contact, facial expressions, and other non-linguistic factors. Communication is meaningful delivery which includes description, expression, reception, summary, information, accessibility, and conversational tone. TIMING Christian Communicators of America Page 10 of 11 13.0.1_2017

Competitors will be responsible for keeping their own time during the round. No hand signals will be given by a timekeeper or audience member. Keeping time will be done on the honor system and is a part of the ethical standard that is expected at every tournament. Every competitor must have a countdown timer with an audible alarm (two per team). One timer will be taken with the speaker to the podium for their speech. The other timer is to be used to count down the team's prep time. Before a team takes prep time, they must inform the judge. For example, "The negative team is now taking prep time." When ready, the team then announces how much prep time was used. For example, "The negative team has now used two minutes of prep time for a total of three minutes for the round." Participants are strongly encouraged to set the timer to count down from 5:00, and simply start and stop the timer to avoid any appearance of adding to their time. Participants will time the oral critique by setting the timer for 10 minutes. When the judge and participants hear the time piece ring, everyone will know the oral critique time is finished. If necessary, novice students should bring a timing sheet to their rounds to help them keep time during a round. ORAL CRITIQUE Oral critiques by judges are permitted, at their discretion, to facilitate learning. Experience has shown that the competitors typically learn more from an oral critique than they can from written ballots. Judges may offer comments on a variety of areas related to the round. Since judges are not to reveal or imply anything relative to their decision, caution should be exercised to not assume the judge's decision based on what is said. If a participant disagrees with the judges assessment, that participant is still expected to respectfully and graciously listen as that judge has voluntarily given of his/her time to serve to the best of his/her ability. Participants are encouraged to share the content of each judge s critique with their parents and coaches. Just as during the debate round the judge sits quietly while the debaters present, in the oral critique the debaters sit quietly while the judge presents. Christian Communicators of America Page 11 of 11 13.0.1_2017