How to Construct a Policy Debate Case
Explore what policy debate is., Find out the resolution., Understand what you need to look for in cards, and where to find the information. , Research and find evidence., Get definitions., Consider the actual problem the case will resolve., Most...
Step-by-Step Guide
-
Step 1: Explore what policy debate is.
Briefly, policy debate is debating a policy.
All policy resolutions start out with "Resolved:
That..." and then usually in educational debates, "...the United States Federal Government should..." To truly understand policy debate, watch a few rounds, maybe go along to a debate tournament as a timekeeper for a judge. -
Step 2: Find out the resolution.
This is the first thing you read when you are presenting your case in a round.
The 2017-2018 NFL policy debate resolution (or topic) is:
Resolved:
The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States. ,, Each piece of evidence you find will need to be cut into a CARD.
Standard card format is as follows:
STATE WHAT YOUR CARD IS SAYING(the TAG or SIGN POST)Remember, powerful, but it must be accurate to what the card says.
Who said it-their qualifications-when they said it.
Only read the last name and the year, e.g.
Zizek '01 A cut-and-pasted piece of evidence.
UNDERLINE the good parts of the evidence and only read those underlined parts.
Most debaters also highlight them down even further, so that one can read more cards. , Now, you will not actually read the definitions in your case, however, it is good to have them.
When you present your case, do not read them, but include them on the paper.
Instead of saying them, just say "As the affirmative team we reserve the right to clarify any definitions throughout this round."
First, you will start with HARMS.
Harms are what is wrong.
Most cases have no less then three harms. , However, whether addressing HARMS or ADVANTAGES or both, it is a regional difference across the country.
ADVANTAGES are fairly self-explanatory.
This is basically any advantages your plan will create. , This is why your harms are not being solved in the system, the barrier.
You don't need a lot of these cards, you may only need one.
However, it is good to have more. , The most common form of a plan is fairly simple.
Just say explicitly what the United States Federal Government should do.
We reserve the right to clarify"
, This is how your plan solves for its harms.
This also needs evidence, and it MUST correlated directly to your harms.
If say, one of your harms was AIDS in Africa is getting out of hand.
You need to have a solvency card that says your plan will decrease AIDS. , Methods vary with what you want to emphasize, what your team works well with, and different strategies. -
Step 3: Understand what you need to look for in cards
-
Step 4: and where to find the information.
-
Step 5: Research and find evidence.
-
Step 6: Get definitions.
-
Step 7: Consider the actual problem the case will resolve.
-
Step 8: Most teams discuss ADVANTAGES instead of harms.
-
Step 9: Move onto INHERENCY.
-
Step 10: Form your plan.
-
Step 11: THUS THE PLAN: United States federal government should invest in a national high-speed rail system.
-
Step 12: Now address SOLVENCY.
-
Step 13: Note: There are many ways to put together an affirmative case (the type listed above).
Detailed Guide
Briefly, policy debate is debating a policy.
All policy resolutions start out with "Resolved:
That..." and then usually in educational debates, "...the United States Federal Government should..." To truly understand policy debate, watch a few rounds, maybe go along to a debate tournament as a timekeeper for a judge.
This is the first thing you read when you are presenting your case in a round.
The 2017-2018 NFL policy debate resolution (or topic) is:
Resolved:
The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States. ,, Each piece of evidence you find will need to be cut into a CARD.
Standard card format is as follows:
STATE WHAT YOUR CARD IS SAYING(the TAG or SIGN POST)Remember, powerful, but it must be accurate to what the card says.
Who said it-their qualifications-when they said it.
Only read the last name and the year, e.g.
Zizek '01 A cut-and-pasted piece of evidence.
UNDERLINE the good parts of the evidence and only read those underlined parts.
Most debaters also highlight them down even further, so that one can read more cards. , Now, you will not actually read the definitions in your case, however, it is good to have them.
When you present your case, do not read them, but include them on the paper.
Instead of saying them, just say "As the affirmative team we reserve the right to clarify any definitions throughout this round."
First, you will start with HARMS.
Harms are what is wrong.
Most cases have no less then three harms. , However, whether addressing HARMS or ADVANTAGES or both, it is a regional difference across the country.
ADVANTAGES are fairly self-explanatory.
This is basically any advantages your plan will create. , This is why your harms are not being solved in the system, the barrier.
You don't need a lot of these cards, you may only need one.
However, it is good to have more. , The most common form of a plan is fairly simple.
Just say explicitly what the United States Federal Government should do.
We reserve the right to clarify"
, This is how your plan solves for its harms.
This also needs evidence, and it MUST correlated directly to your harms.
If say, one of your harms was AIDS in Africa is getting out of hand.
You need to have a solvency card that says your plan will decrease AIDS. , Methods vary with what you want to emphasize, what your team works well with, and different strategies.
About the Author
Amber Sullivan
Amber Sullivan has dedicated 2 years to mastering lifestyle and practical guides. As a content creator, Amber focuses on providing actionable tips and step-by-step guides.
Rate This Guide
How helpful was this guide? Click to rate: