Cx debate is Cross-Examination debate. It is a partner debate over an established policy. Debate is about how what you say functions, not just what you say




Скачать 232.03 Kb.
НазваниеCx debate is Cross-Examination debate. It is a partner debate over an established policy. Debate is about how what you say functions, not just what you say
страница1/6
Дата конвертации12.02.2013
Размер232.03 Kb.
ТипДокументы
  1   2   3   4   5   6
CX Debate Basics

CX Debate is Cross-Examination debate. It is a partner debate over an established policy. Debate is about HOW what you say FUNCTIONS, not just what you say.

-Affirmative supports the status quo

-Negative opposes the affirmative

-1 ½ hour in length

-Policy option resolution

-Evidence Based

Two Types of Arguments:

  1. Constructive—Builds the argument (New) and can present new evidence

  2. Rebuttal—No new arguments can be presented

CX (Cross Examination) is mostly for clarification purposes. One side will question the other.

Offense—giving judge reasons to vote for you (painting a better world)

Defense—prevent offense from scoring points or showing how offense doesn’t make the world better. NOT giving the judge reasons to vote for you—just undermining offense.

Affirmative Ground—agent of action is the U.S. Federal Government—ITS is the U.S. government.

*Federal funding does not imply ownership!

Plan can INVITE other countries to join, but not FIAT their involvement.

Time Breakdown:

1 AC 8 mins. Affirmative Constructive

CX by 2nd Neg. 3 mins.

1 NC 8 mins. 1st Neg. Constructive

CX by 1st Aff. 3 mins.

2 AC 8 mins. 2nd Affirmative Constructive

CX by 1st Neg. 3 mins.

2 NC 8 mins. 2nd Neg. Constructive

CX by 2nd Aff. 3 mins.

1 NR 5 mins. 1st Neg. Rebuttal

1 AR 5 mins. 1st Aff. Rebuttal

2 NR 5 mins. 2nd Neg. Rebuttal

2 AR 5 mins. 2nd Aff. Rebuttal

Important Terms to LEARN:

  1. Constructive Speech—the first four speeches in a round. Used to build the basis for your case.

  2. Rebuttal Speech—the last four speeches in a round. New arguments can NOT typically be brought up here. New evidence is OK, but not new arguments.

  3. Prep Time—8 minutes per team during round to prepare responses to arguments. (Do not use 6 mins. And speak for 30 seconds. Also, you can prep during CX, so use time wisely).

  4. CX Time—3 minute time period after each constructive speech in which a team asks a question of the person who just spoke. (No prompting of any kind allowed).

  5. Open CX—CX time in which both partners on each team are allowed to participate in the questioning session. (NOT allowed in UIL).

  6. Negative Block—the back to back speeches that the negative has in the middle of the round. (gives a bit of upperhand to Neg. Aff, has only 5 mins. To respond to 13 min. speech)

  7. Paradigm—the way the judge will adjudicate a round.

    1. Tabula Rosa—blank slate-allows debaters to frame the round—usually judges on policy

    2. Policy Judge—either the policy was effective or not

      1. Affirmative plan vs. Status Quo plus DA’s to Aff

      2. Affirmative plan vs. Counter plan

      3. Typically sees the role of the negative as opposing the aff plan rather than the resolution

    3. Stock Issues—based on holding and/or acquisition of the stock issues.

      1. Aff must win all 5 stock issues to win the round

      2. Neg must win only 1 of the stock issues to win the round

      3. Typically sees the role of the negative as opposing the resolution rather than opposing just the aff case

      4. Speaking Skills judge—judges best speaker—presentation, evidence, analysis (like extemp judge)

      5. Other Judges—unfortunately, there are some judges we must be wary of—make the right choice when dealing with these judges, and do what you do well—it isn’t always about winning in these cases

        1. Hypothesis tester—believes that eh purpose of debate is to determine the probable truth or falsity of the debate resolution, in much the same way that a critical philosopher or research scientist would apply the scientific method to any other hypothesis—unfortunately, this results in bias based on the resolution and the deck is stacked against you based on whether you draw aff or neg

        2. Games player—sees the debate round as a game in which points are scored by both sides with the winner being the team who has accumulated they most “points”. You will not necessarily know what made up point system the judge has created—and if you do, it is probably not conducive to good debating.

        3. Other made up paradigms—you cannot always be guaranteed an appropriate judge at each contest, but you will debate as well as you can, and not complain about any judge publically—simply report any judging indiscretions to me.

  8. Plan text—part of the plan that stipulates exactly what the affirmative will be doing—(Sentence summary of case)

  9. Resolution—the topic established to be debated

  10. Fiat—the affirmative’s right to assume that if their case is proven based on evidence, it will be enacted.

  11. Flowing—Taking notes in a structured fashion in a debate round. (See example)

  12. Offense—arguments given by debaters that provide a reason for you to support a vote for them or their side

  13. Defense—arguments given by debaters that negate arguments by the other team (only a mitigator)

  14. Spreading—speaking exceptionally fast in order to get a vast majory of evidence and argumentation in the round (Not allowed in UIL)

  15. Extend—to take an argument or piece of evidence made earlier in the round and keep it in the round for consideration

  16. Cross-Apply—to take an argument or piece of evidence made on one issue and use it to answer another argument. (You must EXPLAIN how it cross applies).

  17. Overview—a summary at the START of an argument or a speech that summarizes the key points and voting reasons on the argument.

  18. Underview—a summary at the END of an argument or a speech that summarizes the key points and voting reasons on the argument.

  19. Framework—the way that the debaters are asking the judge to view the round.

  20. Impact Calculus—A part of a speech in which the debater weighs the offense of the affirmative over the offense of the negative to see who should win the round.

  21. Turns—making an argument for the other team into an argument for your team (offense)

  22. Take-Out—mitigating an argument that your opponent makes (Defense)

  23. Hegemony—(hedge-i-mini) the ability of a power to influence the decisions of others (often an argument [good or bad] in relation to U.S. power)

  24. Soft Power—a means of influencing others using diplomatic measures

  25. Hard power—a means of influencing others using military might or other force.

  26. Political Capital—the popularity and influence that a particular leader or party to get things accomplished

Argument: Claim (the argument you are making) +Warrant (proof that claim is true)+ Impact (reason it is important)

HITSS (Yes, the two S’s are together at the end. It is just as effective for helping you remember—get over it.)

  1. Harms—the problems that the affirmative team establishes are in the status quo that they seek to solve.

    1. What does the affirmative want to fix?

    2. Those problems occurring in the status quo that must be solved with the passage of the affirmative plan

    3. There does not have to be a substantial number of harms, but the harms presented must be solved by the affirmative plan (best to focus on no more than 2)

    4. Arguing Harms: Harms should fall within the resolution.

      1. Affirmative—presents them in the 1AC

      2. Negative—argues that the harms presented by the status quo don’t truly exist or that they are exaggerated and not sufficient to be considered

  2. Inherency—Proof that the harms aren’t being solved already in the status quo and/or that there is something preventing the resolution of the harms in the status quo.

    1. Typicaly more important to stock judges than to policy or tab judges

    2. 3 Types:

      1. Structural—some legal (usually) barrier in the status quo that is preventing the harms from being solved now or the affirmative being passed

      2. Attitudinal—the attitude of the government, people, etc., that is currently preventing the plan being passed in the status quo

      3. Existential—the fact that the harms are not being solved in the status quo or that there is no framework for them to be solved

    3. Arguing Inherency

      1. Affirmative—plan can’t be solved in the status quo because…

      2. Negative—there are already plans or programs established in the status quo to solve the harms or there is nothing preventing the solving of the status quo

  3. Topicality—Arguments centered around whether or not the affirmative is actually debating the topic

    1. Not Topical: concept that the affirmative is not debating the topic. (ex. The USFG should substantially reduce poverty in the U.S. Aff teaches farmers in Ethiopia how to farm and create income to reduce poverty THERE).

    2. Effects Topical: concept that the affirmative doesn’t directly do what the topic calls for them to do. (ex. The USFG should substantially reduce poverty in the US. Aff. Gives tax cuts to the business owners which the aff PROVES will cause lower prices and increase wages).

    3. Extra Topical: concept that the affirmative plan does more than what the topic requires. (ex. The USFG should substantially reduce poverty in the US. Aff provides more food stamps to Americans living in poverty and decreases mortgage interest rates for the MIDDLE CLASS).

    4. Parts of Topicality Violation

      1. Interpretation: definition and source of definition

      2. Violation: how the affirmative violates the definition, thus the resolution

      3. Standards: Reasons that the definition provided is the one that the judge should consider in the round

      4. Voters: reasons why topicality should warrant a vote by the judge if the violation is proven

    5. Answers to Topicality Violation

      1. We Meet (if possible): show how the affirmative plan meets definition provided by the negative

      2. Counter-Interpretation: Another definition presented by the affirmative that their plan meets

      3. Counter-Standards: (Standards Comparison) Reasons the aff. Definition is better and reasons why the neg. standards are not true or valid

      4. Voters—Reasons NOT to vote the affirmative down based on topicality (good luck with this one)

  4. Significance—(rarely argued anymore) argument about the significance of the harms: ARGUING Significance—Affirmative: Argues that their harms are significant (either quantitatively or qualitatively) enough to validate affirmative plan/ Negative: Argues that the problems are insignificant so as to not validate money being spent, potential lives being lost, etc.

  5. Solvency—proof and argumentation surrounding the ability of the affirmative plan text to solve the harms that are presented in the case: ARGUING Solvency—Affirmative-provides evidence and analysis that their plan text will solve the harms they presented in the 1AC/ Negative-can (1) take-out: show that they cannot access their solvency or cannot solve their harms; or (2) turn: make the solvency they claim into a bad thing (ex. Aff increases hegemony. Neg. turns that to say that increasing hegemony makes their harms worse).



Advantages, Disadvantages, Counterplans, Kritiks

Advantages—positive impacts to the affirmative plan being passed

Disadvantages—negative impacts to the affirmative plan being passed

Types:

Generic: can be run on virtually any and all cases that fall under the resolution (need to have a file of specific links on common cases; can often use link and impact cards as solvency or advantage turns, spending is common)

Politix: dealing with the impact that the case will have on the political realm (ex. Preventing an important bill from being passed because of the aff) often deals with loss of increase of political capital (can be run as a net benefit to counter plan, deals with how aff shifts focus or prevents passage of or causes the passage of a bill, legislation, or prevents govt. from doing something, can be run without a CP, but not as powerful).

Linear: inherently existing within the status quo that the neg claims that the aff makes worse (ex. Poverty and aff increases poverty) (no clear brink, neg has to acknowledge the DA impacts are occurring in status quo, DA argues that the impacts are bad and aff increased them, anything aff does will be bad)

Specific: specifically designed to counter a specific plan text. Requires knowing the plan text pretty specifically (ex. Aff is collecting specimens for research on earth. Neg claims a DA that the specimens will bring with them diseases that will wipeout life on earth) (requires keeping flows, filling out round reports, and research between tournaments.)

Counterplans—negative plan presented to counter the affirmative plan

Kritiks-(pronounced critiques) arguments attacking the philosophical implications of something that is done in the round or the mind set created through the argumentation within the round

Arguing Advantages:

Affirmative: Argues that there are other benefits that the plan creates beyond solving the harms

Negative: can (1) Take-out-show how the advantage cannot be garnered by the affirmative plan; or (2) Turn-make the affirmative advantage into a disadvantage to passing the affirmative plan

Arguing Disadvantages:

Negative argues that there are big issues that the affirmative plan creates that that bring forth reason to reject the affirmative.

Components:

Uniqueness: The disadvantage (DA) isn’t happening in the status quo and/or the Aff plan uniquely causes the impacts to the disadvantage

Link: What the aff does that causes the DA impacts

Brink: (not always presented) provides the point at which the impact will occur (when is the threshold reached?)

Internal Link: a story painted of how we get from the link to the impacts

Impacts: The bad thing that will happen if the aff plan is put into action.

EXAMPLE: Jack and Jill are playing on a cliff and a car is parked a few feet away. If the car is still, Jack and Jill are safe. The link is that the car gets shifted into gear (let’s say by Jimmy, their younger brother). Brink is when the bad thing is going to happen. If the car moves only at 2 mph, they are likely to get out of the way in time, but the brink because the car moving at 20 mph, they are likely to be hit, knocked over the cliff, and break their crowns—amongst other body parts. The more links in a disadvantage, the weaker it is. (offense, link Turn and Impact Turn—don’t double turn. Defense—no ling, no impact, non-unique, no brink, no internal link)


Arguing Counterplans

Negative presents a plan to counter the affirmative DURING THE 1 NC.

Status of Counterplans

Unconditional: the negative will argue the CP throughout the round without kicking it.

Dispositional: The negative will argue the CP throught the round unless the aff answers with offense or theory at which point they can kick it.

Conditional: the negative can kick it at any time.

Components:

Plan Text and Solvency

Types of most common counterplans:

PIC-Plan Inclusive Counterplan—they keep most of the aff, but change some part of it.

PEC-Plan Exclusive Counterplan—they can run another plan totally separate from the aff.

Topical vs. Untopical

Consult

Alternate Agent

Delay

Utopian

Conditions


Arguing Kritiks:

One side argues that the other side does something that is fundamentally wrong or creates a mindset that it is wrong or inherently dangerous to society

Components

Link: what the team does that creates this issue

Impact: what bad thing occurs that necessitates a ballot for the other team

Examples; Gifts, language, Feminism

  1   2   3   4   5   6

Добавить в свой блог или на сайт

Похожие:

Cx debate is Cross-Examination debate. It is a partner debate over an established policy. Debate is about how what you say functions, not just what you say iconIllinois Policy Debate a Review and Justification

Cx debate is Cross-Examination debate. It is a partner debate over an established policy. Debate is about how what you say functions, not just what you say iconFramework File – sdi policy Debate Good 1nc – Shell

Cx debate is Cross-Examination debate. It is a partner debate over an established policy. Debate is about how what you say functions, not just what you say iconWest coast debate

Cx debate is Cross-Examination debate. It is a partner debate over an established policy. Debate is about how what you say functions, not just what you say iconPart One the cosmological debate 9

Cx debate is Cross-Examination debate. It is a partner debate over an established policy. Debate is about how what you say functions, not just what you say iconWest coast debate

Cx debate is Cross-Examination debate. It is a partner debate over an established policy. Debate is about how what you say functions, not just what you say iconWest coast debate

Cx debate is Cross-Examination debate. It is a partner debate over an established policy. Debate is about how what you say functions, not just what you say iconTo debate this da, the 2nc needs a few things

Cx debate is Cross-Examination debate. It is a partner debate over an established policy. Debate is about how what you say functions, not just what you say iconMichigan Debate Institutes 2011

Cx debate is Cross-Examination debate. It is a partner debate over an established policy. Debate is about how what you say functions, not just what you say icon1ac – Demo Debate Version

Cx debate is Cross-Examination debate. It is a partner debate over an established policy. Debate is about how what you say functions, not just what you say iconGonzaga Debate Institute 2011


Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:
lib.convdocs.org


База данных защищена авторским правом ©lib.convdocs.org 2012
обратиться к администрации
lib.convdocs.org
Главная страница