12 January 2024

EdG debate team

Upcoming event schedule

• HEC Paris - January 26
• Motions given out 48 hours in advance
• QMUL - awaiting reply from QMUL
• Loyola Marymount - February 24
• What are the most significant threats of emerging forms of warfare to the militaries of Western liberal democracies?
• In the light of these threats, how, if at all, would Western liberal democracies benefit from changing their approaches and/or policies toward recruitment and training?
• Harvard Kennedy School - February 27
• Presentations on the French perspectives on current issues and major defense topics
• Yale ROTC - February 28
• Presentations on the structure of the French military to American cadets
• USAWC 1 - March 25
• George Washington Univ. - April 20-21
• How, if at all, should issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion be prioritized within the context of Western liberal democratic military readiness and unit cohesion?
• USAWC 2 (strategy competition) - April 25-27
• ACSC - June 4
• Ecole de Guerre - June 24
• What are the most effective approaches for militaries in Western liberal democracies (e.g. USA, France) to recruit individuals to counter emerging forms of warfare?

American debate

American debate vs. British debate

• American debate has certain distinctions from British debate in nature and character
• Where British debate emphasizes cloaking the structure of argumentation in naturalistic phrasing (“the first thing I’d like to discuss today is…”), American debate is fine with being very honest about the framework of argumentation (“our first contention is…” or even just “contention one - …”)
• (however this is NOT the case with American public speaking!)
• There are also terminological differences - British “prop” and “opp” become “aff” and “neg”, for example
• You will encounter multiple forms of American debate during this semester, though we will only practice a few of them
• Whenever there is a disagreement on how to conduct a debate, a new format of debate is created - and sometimes people will invent and test new formats simply to see how they work
• We’ll begin by looking at a format known as policy debate, which will shape how the Transatlantic Dialogues are conducted even though we’ll be using other formats during those events

Policy debate

Policy debate

• Policy debate, as the name implies, is usually about specific policies or policy issues
• It relies particularly heavily on facts, logic, and hard evidence, even by the standards of Anglo-Saxon debate
• It often gets into specifics, relying heavily on direct�quotation of sources, and requires a substantial amount�of preparation beforehand as a result
• It can be agonizingly jargon-heavy and we will probably�have a full lesson (maybe multiple) just on the jargon
• Policy gives you more time to speak - which puts more�pressure on you to make sure you’re filling that time well
• Two-person teams, rather than the three-person teams�we’ve been using in most debates thus far

Policy debate

Cross-examination

Cross-examination

• Cross-examination is a period or series of periods, typical of American formats of debate, in which the speaker who has just delivered a speech is questioned by their opponent
• Cross-examination replaces the points of information and question-&-answer period found in British debate
• While Anglo-Saxon debate is often influenced by legislative traditions, cross-examination is noteworthy in being heavily shaped by American judicial traditions
• …though it is also a staple of US congressional committees

Cross-examination in US media

Legally Blonde (2001)

A Few Good Men (1992)

Cross-examination

• CX can be used for clarification if need be
• However, it is more valuable when used to set up argumentation
• You can do this by asking questions about the quality of an opponent’s evidence, or by forcing them to defend the weak points in their arguments, etc.
• You can string a series of questions together into a multi-step query to make or pursue a point
• A few crucial differences with the movies:
• Make sure to keep it calm and civil; you can’t get away with the things movie characters do
• Use CX to set up your next speech; if you find a key weakness, capitalize on it in that next speech, not during CX

Cross-examination

• It is on you to prepare questions both as part of case prep and during the round
• This is easier to do when you have prep time to work with
• Tips for preparing:
• Try to formulate as many questions and answers before the round as you can, looking for popular or likely affirmative and negative arguments during your research.
• When flowing their speech, keep an eye out for areas where you want or need to ask questions.
• Note where your own answers turn out to be weaker than you thought.
• Know your speech! Recall what your main points are, who you cited, and where you cited them, so that you can convincingly refer back to them during questioning.

Dos & don’ts

• When questioning:
• Keep your questions argumentative and relatively short.
• Reference speeches in your questions. This keeps questions focused on relevant material.
• Make sure you fully understand your opponent’s arguments before moving on.
• You can - and should! - use multi-step queries; but make sure you’re only asking one question at a time. Get an answer to one part before moving on to the next.
• Don’t just make statements; you need to ask something.
• Don’t start questions with "Do you agree..." or "Are you aware...", or masquerade your own arguments as questions.
• Don’t waste time on questions that aren’t useful.
• Don’t cut off your opponent before they can finish answering.
• Don’t let the answerer question you!

Dos & don’ts

• When answering:
• Keep your answers short and sweet.
• Be specific to the question asked; don't give the opponent any more information than they need.
• If a question is unclear, demand clarification.
• Reference any sources you’re citing.
• Don’t answer a question that is irrelevant, except by asking why it is relevant or by stating that it is irrelevant.
• If you don’t know something, say that you don’t have the information at the moment but that your partner will provide it later, or that that point does not matter for whatever reason, rather than making something up or lying.
• Don’t cut off your opponent before they can finish asking.
• Answer questions, don’t ask them (except if using rhetorical questions as a rhetorical device, but even there be sure it’s clear you’re asking the question rhetorically).

CX as opposed to British questioning

• CX gives you more power to make sure you capitalize on what you want to capitalize on, something less certain with an audience Q&A, since you get to ask the questions yourself
• But, audience Q&A can be helpful if an audience member notices something you hadn’t - there is no such luck in CX
• Also, CX is usually one-on-one, first speaker vs. first speaker or second speaker vs. second speaker
• So if your teammate misses something important in their question or response, you just have to wait until you get a chance to speak

Basic concepts & jargon

Policy debate concepts & jargon

• Constructive speeches - speeches wherein each side of the debate builds up their case and presents their argument while responding to the arguments raised by the other team; equivalent to the first and second speeches
• Rebuttal speeches - speeches wherein each side of the debate is restricted to refutation, rebuttal, and summarization of the round; equivalent to the final speeches
• Prep time - time to discuss strategy and prepare speeches with your teammate; sometimes given as a pool to draw from, sometimes as a set period before speeches
• Cross-examination - a period wherein the person who has just spoken is questioned by a member of the opposing team, who uses their questions for clarification and setup of their subsequent speech; replaces British-style POIs and Q&A
• Open CX - CX in which both partners on each team can participate, sometimes granted by judges but not guaranteed to happen

Policy debate concepts & jargon

• Flowing - taking notes in a structured fashion in order to track the progress of the round
• Spreading - speaking at a pace which is deliberately too fast to feasibly follow, with the goal of preventing an opponent from being able to keep track of or respond to everything said; contrary to the ideals of debate
• Extending - taking an argument or piece of evidence mentioned earlier in the round and bringing it up again in order to keep it in the round for consideration
• Cross-applying - taking an argument or piece of evidence used for one particular issue and using it to answer another issue, emphasizing its importance in both contexts
• Turning - taking an argument made by your opponent and turning it into an argument in your favor

The plan text

The plan text

• Plan text - the policy and implementation thereof that the affirmation is proposing (or the counter-proposal the neg is making, if they choose to make a counter-proposal)
• Topicality - the proposed plan must affirm the motion/resolution
• Non-topicality - the proposed plan is not actually debating the topic
• Effects topicality - the proposed plan does not directly do what the motion is calling for them to do
• Extra-topicality - the proposed plan does more than what the motion actually requires

The plan text

• The plan text must be composed of plan planks, core aspects of the plan text which address necessary questions regarding its implementation
• Mandates - the basic provisions, or “action steps”, of the plan
• Administration - who is going to implement and carry out these provisions?
• Enforcement - what will the penalties be for any legal violations of the plan’s provisions, and who will enforce these penalties?
• Funding - how are we going to pay for it?
• Spikes - how are you going to avert any potential unwanted side effects?
• Intent - "The [Affirmative/Negative] team reserves the right to establish legislative intent based on speeches presented in this round."

Further concepts & jargon

Policy debate concepts & jargon

• Stock issues - a set of basic concepts or questions used to determine whether or not the affirmation’s proposed policy is relevant and beneficial
• Harms - what problems is the status quo causing?
• Significance - how numerous or important are the harms?
• Inherency - is an effort to address these harms already in place? If current efforts do exist, is there a reason they’re failing?
• Structural inherency - the harms or failure to solve them are caused by laws or institutions
• Attitudinal inherency - the harms or failure to solve them are caused by beliefs or attitudes
• Existential inherency - the harms or failure to solve them simply exist
• Feasibility - is the plan being described correctly and in sufficient detail? Will it actually be implemented as proposed, without issues of actors, capabilities, resources, etc.?
• This one potentially runs up against the concept of fiat - the affirmative’s right to presume that, if their case is proven, their policy will be enacted

Policy debate concepts & jargon

• Stock issues - a set of basic concepts or questions used to determine whether or not the affirmation’s proposed policy is relevant and beneficial
• Solvency - to what extent will the proposed policy solve the issue?
• Advantages - what are the unique benefits of this particular proposed solution?
• Disadvantages - what issues might the proposed policy entail?
• Disadvantages (“disads”), when argued by the negation, are typically broken up into three parts:
• Uniqueness - a good, or at least minimally bad, thing exists in the status quo
• Link - why the affirmation’s plan will cause the loss of the good thing
• Impact - what the overall outcome will be if the link is true
• Alternatives - are there better alternatives or counterplans?

Policy debate concepts & jargon

• Framework - the way that the debaters are asking the judge to view the round in their case
• Paradigm - the framework the judge will use in order to determine who won the round
• Tabula rasa - the judge will vote based upon who wins under one of the frameworks provided by the debaters, rather than their own preconceptions
• Stock issues - the judge will vote based upon whether or not the affirmative can adequately cover all of the stock issues
• Policymaking - the judge will vote based upon who offers the most net beneficial policy option (forcing the negation to run a counterplan or prove that the affirmation’s plan would be worse than doing nothing)
• Theory - the judge will vote based on the strategies or philosophies employed by the debaters
• Lay judging - the judge will vote based on who they think would do a better job persuading someone who is familiar with neither the topic nor debate

Policy debate concepts & jargon

• Kritik - a philosophical critique challenging an underlying assumption made by the opposing team, or the philosophical implication of something done in the round
• We’ll cover these more in more detail later, likely February
• The main thing to know right now is that their philosophical nature makes them controversial in the American debating circuit - a sign of the distinctions between the Anglo-Saxon and Francophone styles of persuasion
• Impact calculus - the process of weighing the impacts of each side’s argument against each other to demonstrate which argument those listening should align with
• Very similar to comparative analysis, just following a slightly different structure
• Because they only compare arguments already made, they do not count as new arguments for the purposes of rebuttal speeches
• We’ve already covered these, last semester

Policy debate concepts & jargon

• Arguing topicality
• Topicality arguments are a priori, which means they take top importance as they challenge a core assertion or assumption - that the affirmation’s plan is responding to the motion
• Structure:
• Definition - present a definition of a term in the motion
• Violation - how the neg believes the aff has moved beyond this definition
• Standards - why should we care about staying in the topic?
• Voter - tell the judge they should keep this in mind when deciding who won
• Fiat and feasibility
• Keep in mind that the affirmative is allowed to assume that they can put their plan into effect (fiat)
• If negative wants to call the aff plan unfeasible, they need to argue that it has been given to the wrong actors, that the resources or capacity to implement it do not exist, etc.
• This way rounds don’t devolve into debates about what bills would or would not pass the US Congress (or similar bodies)

Policy debate concepts & jargon

• Counterplanning - proposing a rival or alternative plan
• Plan-inclusive counterplan - a counterplan which incorporates elements of the original plan
• Plan-exclusive counterplan - a counterplan which runs directly contrary to the original plan
• Consult counterplan - the counterplan proposes that an outside body overview, revise, and decide upon the implementation of the original plan
• Agent counterplan - the counterplan proposes that the plan be implemented, but by someone other than the actor proposed by the affirmation
• Delay counterplans - argue that the plan would better be implemented later
• Conditional counterplans - argue that the plan should only be implemented with certain conditions met or attached
• Offset counterplans - use money from one program to offset the cost of another

Some final additional notes

• A few notes on speech structure
• Broadly speaking, the purpose of each speech in a round and the structure thereof remains unchanged between policy and other debate formats
• However, there are a few noteworthy points on the first speeches:
• The affirmation will want to make sure they cover their plan text, topicality, and stock issues in some capacity, generally early in the speech
• Same goes for the negation if they’re offering a counterplan
• Keep in mind that, if an argument is not addressed, it is held to be conceded!
• Some judges will allow you to have an “off-time roadmap”, in which you can very briefly outline the structure of your (generally second/third) speech before giving it, without it being on the clock
• However, some judges hate this, so make sure you ask if it’s okay with the judge before giving an off-time roadmap

Cutting cards

Cards

• A card is a term for a specific piece of evidence used within your case, a specific source (book, article, etc.) that you are citing
• This term is a legacy of pre-internet debating practices, where individuals would cut out paragraphs of journal or newspaper articles they were using as evidence and paste them onto index cards
• The term persists even though the physical index�cards are gone

Cutting cards

• Cutting cards is the process of “cutting down” a quote from a cited source, using underlining, bolding, highlighting, etc. to signify the most important parts to read during a round
• A “cut card” will also contain a tagline summarizing the evidence and the full source citation for reference purposes
• Having a series of cut cards which serve as evidence for your case, or a basis for possible refutations & rebuttals, is a solid debating strategy
• It can also be valuable to similarly bold the most important parts of your speech, to signify emphasis and allow you to rapidly cut things down if you find yourself running out of time

Motion dissection

Transatlantic Dialogues phase 1

• What are the most significant threats of emerging forms of warfare to the militaries of Western liberal democracies?
• In the light of these threats, how, if at all, would Western liberal democracies benefit from changing their approaches and/or policies toward recruitment and training?

Homework:

• Due by 22 JANUARY:
• Prepare a policy proposal answering the question posed for the first Transatlantic dialogues.
• The policy proposal must include the following:
• Three main arguments answering the following questions:
• What is the issue with the status quo that necessitates a change of course? (harms, significance, inherency)
• How does your plan solve this issue with the status quo? (topicality, solvency)
• Answers to the following questions, either within the framework, or within the main arguments, or both:
• What are they key provisions of your plan? Who will carry them out? (feasibility, mandate, administration)
• Will these provisions need to be enforced by someone? If so, then by who? How? And how stringently? (enforcement)
• How will your plan be funded? (funding)
• What are the unique advantages of your plan over other potential plans? (advantages)
• How are you going to respond to any potential negative side effects your plan might have? (disads, spikes)
• At least five sources where you have included an annotation in the speech, a full source citation, and a cut card containing the relevant paragraphs of said source at the end of the document
• Email to colin@hardagefamily.org for my review