Professional Documents
Culture Documents
in a Policy Debate
decisions, and policies leading to the current situation. And, outline the general issues. What main questions are to be addressed in the
debate? All this in a few critical sentences.
Define Key Terms
To argue intelligently your team and the negative team should talk the same language. The proposition should mean approximately the
same to both sides. Or, if you disagree about meanings of key terms and those meanings are critical for your cases, then the two sides
must defend their respective definitions as an overriding issue. Such definitional debates are sometimes unavoidable. However, you
usually offer neutral and conventional definitions, the negative concurs, and the debate proceeds. You define only those terms that the
audience may not know well or that the opposition may differ on the meaning.
In "Resolved: That capital punishment should be replaced by life imprisonment," for example, you would define "capital punishment"
and "life imprisonment" which are used commonly but need more precise definitions for your debate. Also, you define key terms, such
as legal phrases, that are not in the proposition but that your team intends to use. For example, if you intend to use "cruel and unusual
punishments" from the U.S. Constitution later in a capital punishment debate, then you interpret the phrase at the beginning, with help
by the Supreme Court.
Summarize the Affirmative's Case
Before entering the labyrinth of the debate, your listeners and judges need to know where your team is going -- the old technique of "tell
'em what you're going to tell 'em, then tell 'em, then tell 'em what you told 'em." Without a map, your listeners may hear a slew of
contentions and facts, and still not understand your main arguments. So, begin the debate, as you will end it, with a summary of issues.
For example, "My partner and I will show you the need, practicality, and benefits of euthanasia. We will show that thousands of
comatose and dying patients need this humane solution, their families need relief, and our society needs to reduce consumption
medical services. We will show that euthanasia can be implemented easily by obtaining informed decisions by patients and their
families, and by changing our laws to protect doctors from prosecution and law suits. And, we will show that euthanasia will save
immeasurable suffering and measurable billions of dollars."
Explain Affirmative's Procedure
Once having told what you will tell them, then tell your listeners who will tell them. Tell them that you will handle the need issue and that
your partner will handle the practicality (plan) and benefits issues. As with your summary, this preview helps your listeners know your
position, for only by knowing it can they adopt it.
Establish the Need for Change
Preliminaries over, you enter into the main body of your case which your partner will continue in his or her constructive speech. Begin
the first plank of your case, which is the need issue. Give contentions and evidence that support the need issue. A contention is a
causal statement backed by a line of reasoning. For example, "We contend that many thousands of patients with incurable disease can
end their anguish and torment only by euthanasia. This is because medical science has not found ways of alleviating their pain, even
with massive and addictive pain-killers. Similarly, many thousands of the families of these patients, and patients who are comotose, can
end their distress only by euthanasia. This is because they would do anything to relieve the suffering of their loved ones, yet the law
does not allow such relief." You reinforce your contentions with facts and vivid examples, personalizing any statistics that you use. You
authenticate your information by giving its sources. And, you can dramatize the situation with a personal experience, but do not your
story telling kill your time allotment.
In presenting your case, specifically this need section, give at three different arguments for changing the status quo. Why three? The
answer was discovered by Ancient Greeks and given by Aristotle: structures with at least three columns of support are strongest. If your
case rests on a single reason for change, it can be toppled easily by an attack on that reason. Two different reasons make your case
stronger but are more vulnerable than three. However, those reasons must be significant and different. For example, the three reasons
might be different types: political, economical, and psychological. So, why stop at three reasons? Time. After doing your preliminary
tasks, you scarcely have time to develop and substantiate three arguments for change. If you try more, you will only talk too fast and
impress your listeners with the shallowness of your arguments. Moreover, they will not remember them. So, focus on three important
reasons why the policy needs to change.
As you frame your arguments and select your evidence, keep in mind that you are required to show that the need for change is
significant. Moreover, you must show that it is significant with solid evidence, not just give your opinion that it is significant. And, cite the
sources of your evidence; otherwise, it will sound fabricated. Later in the debate, your partner will present a plan and defend its
practicality, particularly its cost. That cost will likely be weighed against the significance of the problem. Unless you have shown that the
need's significance outweighs the cost, then the plan will not sell, however cleverly devised.
End with an Appeal
Your constructive speech is the first of segment in a policy debate, so that the dramatic ending of a regular Toastmasters speech would
be anticlimactic in a policy debate. Yet, your speech requires a proper ending. Its most effective ending is to quote or paraphrase the
resolution, and appeal quietly to your listeners to adopt it. In their minds, your appeal reinforces your case and also circles to your
opening for perfect closure.