Textbooks

Introduction to Policy Debate

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.

Debate is about problems, why problems exist and how an example of the Resolution can solve the problems without creating new ones. The problems are called SIGNIFICANCE. Why the problems exist is called INHERENCY. How the Plan can prevent or solve the problems is called SOLVENCY. The question about not creating new problems is called DISADVANTAGES. You best protect yourself on the AFF by having a solid, well-evidenced 1AC that covers each stock issue with well warranted, fully evidenced positions addressing the SIGNIFICANCE, INHERENCY and SOLVENCY of your plan and case.

¨ SIGNIFICANCE. From a theory summary standpoint, we hope that you understand that SIGNIFICANCE includes, generally, two elements: There must be a widespread problem (quantitative significance); that has serious impact or importance (qualitative significance).

¨ INHERENCY includes four components: 1. A problem exists and the present system IS NOT solving the problem; 2. WHY the problem exists and WHY the present system cannot solve the problem; 3. The present system, even with minor modifications, will still not solve the problem; and 4. A linkage or a nexus exists between problem and systemic barriers, so that causation can be shown between the problem and the reasons why the problem cannot be solved now. Much to our personal chagrin, INHERENCY DEBATES happen very infrequently on the TOC Circuit, but in your LOCAL AREA or REGION, if you know INHERENCY, and the other team does not, you can pick up a couple of ballots that otherwise might go the other way, since if you can show that the status quo has CHANGED since the date of the affirmative’s harms evidence, then it might well be ballgame over for most local, regional or coach judges.

¨ SOLVENCY, which somewhat mirrors INHERENCY in reverse.

The reality is that to establish SOLVENCY, the affirmative team typically will have a solvency advocate or advocates, who will publish a position that explains that, if implemented, the proposed plan mechanism CAN solve the problems; WILL solve the problems, and WHY (WARRANTS) this will happen. Most frequently these days, the negative team will have a solid block of pre-set reasons WHY the plan will not, or cannot, solve the case area problems. Typically, each ARGUMENT in this regard will be accompanied by evidence that explains an alternate reason WHY the problem exists, or WHY the affirmative’s proposed solutions WILL/CAN NEVER work.

Public Forum Camp 2010