Case (policy debate)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Part of the series Policy Debate |
|
 |
|
| Organization | |
| Policy debate competitions |
|
| Format | |
| Structure of policy debate · Resolution |
|
| Participants | |
|
Affirmative · Negative · Judge |
|
| Types of Arguments | |
|
Stock Issues · Case· Disadvantage |
|
| Argumentative Concepts | |
In the policy debate form of debate competition, the case is the advocacy established by the affirmative in the First affirmative constructive speech, intended to support the affirmative plan. The case is generally presented as a single, pre-scripted speech with a coherent story. It is generally accepted that the case is supposed to be the center of any given debate.
Contents |
[edit] The Structure of the Case
The case, if done in the standard way, is generally organized into sections called "observations" or "contentions", with advantages attached.
[edit] Observation or Contention
A typical case includes between two and five observations/contentions, depending on the speed of the intended speaker and the length of the observations/contentions. Traditionally, observations/contentions address one of the stock issues and is labeled accordingly. For example:
- Contention 1: Inherency
- Contention 2: Harms
- Contention 3: Solvency
High School debate typically avoids including topicality in the case, whereas college debate might.
More recently, cases have included different names for the observation; for example, a case increasing the number of pilots in the United States Air Force might call the first contention "Air Power." Some observations/contentions are named even more strangely; there is a documented occurrence of a case about wildfire control with two observations: "Observation 1: We didn't start the fire" and "Observation 2: It's getting hot in here," the former dealing with inherency and harms, the latter with solvency.
[edit] Advantages
Advantages are relatively new concepts in debate. They are usually included as subpoints of observations or contentions, but are often independent; some cases are entirely composed of advantages.
Advantages fundamentally act as disadvantages to the status quo. There are two types: policy advantages and kritikal advantages.
[edit] Policy Advantages
Policy advantages are advantages which claim that the plan effects a "policy" (i.e. not philosophical) change for the better, or prevents something that is bad that the status quo all but guarantees (according to the affirmative). For instance, an advantage to a plan increasing the strength of United Nations peacekeeping operations in Kashmir that claims that such an operation would prevent nuclear war between India and Pakistan would be a policy advantage.
[edit] Kritikal Advantages
The kritikal advantage stems from the synthesis of the policy advantage with a negative argument called the kritik. Like the kritik, the kritikal advantage is philosophical: it claims that there is a current philosophical wrong, such as racism, heteronormativity/homophobia, patriarchy, militarism, and so on, which the affirmative plan fixes (in debate jargon, "solves for"). A kritikal advantage might state that a military draft, by causing the mixing of people of all races and social classes, would reduce racism. In some instances, the kritikal affirmative does not even have a plan at all and is simply a collection of criticisms.
[edit] Unusual cases
Not all cases are in the general form described above. Some avante-garde debaters have invented an assortment of alternative types of case, generally with kritikal debate in mind. The most common form is the performance affirmative, in which the affirmative "performs": raps, performs interpretive dance, sings, or something else, rather than engaging in typical speed reading.
