PROPOSAL DEBATE CODE

1.

2.

ABSTRACT
1.1.
Proposal Debate is a debate of propositions rather than of the
pros and cons of a resolution. Two opposing teams will be given a resolution
regarding current practices and events that are taking place in the world. Both
teams have the duty to craft a topical proposition in an effort to best fulfill the
resolution. This is the essence of the debate: which side best fulfills the
resolution and best benefits society?
PROCEDURES AND FORMAT
2.1.
Deciding Speaking Order
2.1.1.
As Proposition Debate does not utilize the
traditional Affirmative and Negative sides, the teams will be regarded as
1st Speakers and 2nd Speakers.
2.1.2.
The Tournament should pair competitors as to have
each team speak equally 1st and 2nd.
2.1.2.1.
Whenever teams meet again in the
same tournament, speaking order should be switched.
2.1.2.2.
If both teams have met each other
on both sides previously at the same tournament, then both teams
shall flip for sides.
2.1.3.
The 1st Speakers should sit on the judges left and
the 2nd speakers on the judges right, whenever possible.
2.2.
Selecting the Resolution
2.2.1.
The Judge should oversee and administer the
selection of the resolution, whenever possible.
2.2.2.
3 unique resolutions will be supplied to the judge
each round. 2nd Speakers will take the 3 resolutions and strike one. The
2 remaining resolutions will be given to the 1st speakers, which will strike
another. The remaining resolution should then be properly read (or
reread, when necessary) by the judge.
2.3.
Initial Prep Time
2.3.1.
As soon as the judge has concluded reading the
resolution, both teams have an initial preparatory period of 15 minutes to
draft their propositions.
2.3.2.
1st Speakers may allot prep time to be used, if
necessary, at the conclusion of the 15 minutes.
2.4.
Speaking Order and Format
1A CONSTRUCTIVE
2C Examines Team 1 - 3 minutes
2A CONSTRUCTIVE
1C Examines Team 2 - 3 minutes
1B REBUTTAL
2B REBUTTAL
Discussion - 4 minutes

1C VOTERS
2C VOTERS
2.4.1.
2.4.2.

Each round will last approximately an hour.

Both teams each have a total of 12 minutes to

speak.
2.4.2.1.
Time is divided at the mercy of the
speakers between the 3 slots given to speak. Panel Examinations
and Discussions do not utilize speaking time.
2.4.2.2.
Speaking time cannot be converted
into prep time, nor can it be absorbed by the other team.
2.4.2.3.
Any time not used in any speech will
be stored until a later speech; time not used after the last speech
is discarded.
2.4.3.
Both teams each have 5 minutes of prep time that
can be used throughout the debate as needed.
2.4.4.
Duties of each speech:
2.4.4.1.
The Constructive speech requires
each team to outline their proposal. No rebuttal is allowed.
2.4.4.2.
The Rebuttal speech requires
speakers to attack their opponents proposal and defend/reaffirm
their own.
2.4.4.3.
The Voters speech requires the final
speaker to summarize why their proposal should be preferred.
New evidence may be provided during these speeches, but it is
discouraged.
2.4.5.
Panel Examination
2.4.5.1.
The 3rd speaker from the opposing
team will stand and address the team as a whole that just
provided their constructive speech.
2.4.5.2.
The questioner holds the floor; no
questions may be asked by the team being questioned unless for
the use of clarification.
2.4.5.3.
It is encouraged that all three
members of the team participate in answering questions.
2.4.6.
DIscussion
2.4.6.1.
All debaters sit and discuss the
propositions. This period is not limited to a question/answer
session, but both teams should be courteous with their time.
2.4.7.
Points of Inquiry
2.4.7.1.
A Point of Inquiry (POI) can be
raised at any time during both of the Constructive speeches.
2.4.7.1.1.
The speaker raising
the POI should stand and remain standing until recognized
by the speaker. Both the questions and the answers are
expected to be professional, topical, and prompt.

3.

2.4.7.1.2.
Speaking time is
paused during a POI. Speaking time is resumed promptly
after the answer has been stated.
2.4.7.1.3.
There is no limit to
the amount of POIs that can be raised. However, abusing
this power is strongly discouraged.
2.4.7.1.4.
Determining whether
the use of POIs was abused is the decision of the judge.
2.5.
Deciding a Winner
2.5.1.
The judge should consider which proposition
seemed to benefit society the most.
THE PROPOSITION
3.1.
A Proposition Defined
3.1.1.
A proposition is not a plan. As such, no specific
outlined measures for implementation are required. Rather, the debaters
should consider the proposal a position of advocacy.
3.1.2.
Arguments regarding the specific funding,
enforcement, legislative feasibility, etc. of a proposal are strongly
discouraged.
3.2.
Criterion
3.2.1.
A Criterion is usually required in order to formally
frame the goal of a proposal. The criterion should summarize what their
proposal is intended to accomplish.
3.2.2.
Compare the criterion to a Value/Criterion
framework for Lincoln-Douglas wherein the Value will always be that of
Societal Welfare.
3.3.
Topicality
3.3.1.
Arguments questioning the applicability of the
proposition under the scope of the resolution are legal and allowed.
3.3.2.
It is ultimately the decision of the judge (when
declaring a winner) to determine whether the topicality argument is valid.
3.4.
Format
3.4.1.
A general guideline to follow when drafting a
Constructive speech goes as follows:
3.4.1.1.
A prefix could explain context
regarding the problems within the resolution.
3.4.1.2.
The criterion then explains what the
society should be prioritizing in order to prevent or diminish any
problems.
3.4.1.3.
The Proposal Text is then read.
3.4.1.3.1.
As opposed to
starting a resolution with Resolved:, it is typically
encouraged to start a proposal with Proposed:.
3.4.1.4.
Arguments, or Points (rather than
contentions) are read in order to support the proposal.
3.4.1.5.
When refuting the proposal, general
arguments, or Counterpoints, could be generated. These should

4.

5.

only be created during the Rebuttal speech. Any new points

generated during the Voters speech is discouraged.
3.5.
The Burden of Distinction
3.5.1.
The 2nd Speakers carry the burden of distinction.
It is imperative that the debate has variety between the two proposals.
3.5.1.1.
The Burden of Distinction is defined
as the responsibility to provide a proposition that differs from the
preceding proposition sufficiently.
3.5.2.
Any infringements regarding the 2nd team failing to
provide a legal proposition (i.e. running an abusive proposition) are
encouraged to be settled by the judge after the round through his/her
decision.
TEAMS/RESOURCES
4.1.
Team Definition
4.1.1.
A team is usually defined as a panel of 3 debaters
from the same school or region.
4.2.
Tag-teaming
4.2.1.
Tag-teaming is defined as any obvious visual or
audio support given to teammates during speeches.
4.2.2.
Tag-teaming will not be tolerated.
4.2.2.1.
The one exception to this rule is the
non-auditory passing of questions to the questioner during Panel
Examination. Suggestions may be passed to the examiner
through the use of written notes only.
4.3.
Internet Use
4.3.1.
The use of the internet is allowed throughout the
entirety of the debate.
4.3.2.
Resources used to access the internet will not be
provided by the host tournament.
4.3.3.
Electrical support for such devices will likewise not
be guaranteed to be provided by the host tournament.
SAMPLE PROPOSITIONS
Resolved: The United States should alter one or more aspects of its currency.

Criterion: Economic Simplicity

Proposed: The United States should abolish
its penny.

Criterion: Security against Forgery

Proposed: The United States should redesign
its banknotes to include more security
printing.

VERSION HISTORY
1.0.1- The Slightly Longer Genesis.
1.0- The Genesis.
Updated 2/29/2016

Updated slightly later on 2/29/2016