Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Policy debate challenges students to think critically about laws, regulations, and policies that impact societies. It seeks to identify possible problems with current conditions (the status quo) and weigh the advantages and disadvantages associated with making a change in policy.
This article covers the format of Policy (CX) debates, including constructives, cross-examination, prep time, and rebuttals.
Policy debate is strategic argument between two teams on a given topic. Each team contains two people. The team in affirmation must come up with a plan, a way to support the topic, in the form of a government policy.
Policy debate is an American form of debate competition in which teams of two usually advocate for and against a resolution that typically calls for policy change by the United States federal government.
Policy Debate is a two-on-two debate where an affirmative team proposes a plan and the negative team argues why that plan should not be adopted. Policy is the most research-intensive event because there is one topic per school year.
In most high school tour-nament settings, Policy Team Debate involves learning about, and discuss-ing, real world problems and solutions, essentially boiling down to: why prob-lems exist and how an example of the Resolution called the Afirmative Plan, can solve the problems without creat-ing new ones.
This lesson will break down the parts of an argument so your students can form complete refutations. Claim, warrant, data, and impact are the building blocks of an argument. Every speech in debate is made up of these four things. Understanding each component to an argument is integral to debating.
A round of team policy debate consists of eight speeches. In the first four constructive speeches debaters will lay out their most important arguments and build their cases.
This video provides the basic introduction to Team Policy Debate, debate topics, team, and types of speeches in a policy debate.
Often, strong rebuttals are highly positional, bringing the debate back to the debater’s own case. This will involve efficiently neutralizing the other side’s arguments while resoundingly winning one’s own, while doing weighing or impact calculus to prioritize one’s own arguments.