Textbooks

Introduction to Policy Debate

Printer Friendly Version

This free online textbook is available to all. No log-in is required to view any of the chapters and sections.

Thanks to generous contributions from Bill Smelko, William Smelko, and Rebecca (Gray) Jordan, we have been able to radically expand the available content.

Look for missing internal links.  Often negative teams will not present all of the internal links that they need to prove the disadvantage.  Sometimes they do not present them because they do not have them (they are either missing the evidence that they need to support the internal link or the internal link simply is not true).  Sometimes they do not present them because they wish to keep the initial presentation of the argument shorter and will fill in the holes if they choose to extend the disadvantage later in the debate.  Regardless as to why the internal links are not included, you should be sure to point that out and at least make them read the evidence later in the debate.

Attack the probability.  Disadvantages are designed around arguing that the affirmative’s plan will kick-off a chain of events that will eventually trigger some catastrophe. The more internal links the lower the probability of the disadvantage because each intervening step would have to all occur in order for the disadvantage to happen.  There is only a given probability of each occurring, and the probability of them all occurring together is even much smaller.

Think about history.  Think of what you know about history to argue that parts of the disadvantage are false.  For example, think of a time that the U.S. suffered a recession (such as after the 9-11) attacks and argue that that did not produce a depression.

Reference current events.  Although you may not have a lot of recent evidence on a particular argument advanced by the negative, used what you know about current events to argue against the disadvantage. For example, if you know that the government just authorized another $80 billion in Iraq spending, you should argue that non-uniques the disadvantage.

Claim the impacts are “empirically denied.”  Almost all disadvantages have terminal (final) impacts that involve wars or some other form of total destruction.  The total destruction relies on these wars escalating from small conflicts to large, global ones. Point out that we have had many wars in recent history that have not escalated – U.S/Iraq, Israel-Hezbollah, U.S.-Afghanistan, India-Pakistan, etc. 

Video Lectures