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.

When extending a topicality argument, be sure to give an overview that clearly identifies the interpretation the negative is advocating, why the judge should accept the particular interpretation, and how the affirmative violates it.

When explaining how the affirmative violates the interpretation, reference their affirmative plan as specifically as possible, pointing to exactly the language in the plan that supports the violation.

When extending the standards you do not need to limit yourself entirely to the 1NC arguments. You can come up with new reasons (standards) why the judge should accept your interpretation over the negative’s interpretation and you do not need to extend all of the original 1NC standards. Extend the standards that the affirmative most clearly violates and prove why your interpretation of the topic term(s) is better than the negative’s interpretation of the topic term(s).

After giving this overview you should proceed through the rest of the 2AC answers.

If you advance multiple topicality arguments in the 1NC, and you do not decide to extend all of them, make sure there aren’t 2AC arguments on the other topicality flows that apply to the argument that you are making. The potential for cross-application is a reason to limit the number of topicality arguments that you present in the 1NC.  The fewer you present, the less the chance of a deadly cross-application.  Especially if you think you will likely extend topicality in the 2NR as a round-winning argument, I strongly suggest reducing the number of topicality arguments presented in the debate.

The negative block is also your opportunity to explain to the judge what similar types of cases would be allowed under the affirmative’s interpretation of the topic.  For example, you could argue that if the judge allows a nuclear power case to be topical, there are multiple different reactors that the affirmative could argue for.

When creating your examples you need to strike a balance between pointing out the  affirmative’s counter-interpretation is ridiculous without being so ridiculous that you end up suggesting cases that are so silly that no one would ever run them or could be easily defeated by a couple of simple, logical arguments.

Video Lectures