Index: > A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
Business Industries Finance Tax

Home > Policy Debate


First Prev [ 1 2 ] Next Last

Policy Debate (also known as Cross-Examination Debate) is a form of speech competition. See Debate for other types of debate competition. High school policy debate is sponsored by the National Forensic League, the National Catholic Forensic League or one of the regional speech organizations. Collegate debates are generally competed under the guidlines of the National Debate Tournament (NDT), the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA), or the National Educational Debate Association (NEDA).

1 Description

Debate topics (resolutions) are selected annually by ballot of the coaches of affiliated schools, and a single topic is debated by affiliated students nationally for the entire season.

Policy debate involves the analysis of a policy-oriented, rather than philosophically-oriented question (as in Lincoln-Douglas Debate). The debate is conducted by teams of two people, alternating speeches for their side.

In policy debate, emphasis is place upon well-researched arguments , and it is necessary for the affirmative to advocate a plan by which the resolution can be affirmed. The negative attacks this plan through various methods of their choice.

2 Judging

Judging policy debate can be challenging. The total time available is short, the issues are complex and the judge may have personal beliefs that cloud impartiality. Additionally, underlying pedagogical considerations result in widely varying speech practices which may challenge judging.

Competative policy debate is uniformly seen as an educational activity. Students are provided with a long-term opportunity to research a topic, prepare a case, and defend that case against attackers, or to attack the case prepared by others. Beyond this common basis, a division of purpose results in opposing debate "styles" which can challenge judges.

Some coaches, and institutions see a secondary purpose of policy debate to be the clear, eloquent presentation of elaborate issues. These coaches and circuits tend to use judges without extensive debate experiance as part of "the game." These circuits tend towards a slower, more oratorical speaking style, and to arguments which bear directly on the evidence raised by the opposing team.

Another school of coaches and institutions see the secondary purpose of debate as the analysis and execution of complex argumentation. These coaches and circuits tend to restrict lay judges to novice or lower class events, requiring judges in upper division events to have debate experiance and occasionally certification. These circuits tend towards very high speed presentation of material in order to present as full and complex an argument as possible and to argue in favor of "technical" judging criteria. This group of debators and coaches frequently use arguments which do not directly bear on the case raised.

This stylistic difference has been a source of considerable controversy in the debate community since the 1970s.

3 Resolutions

3.1 Recent NFL high school resolutions


Resolved: That the United States federal government should establish a foreign policy substantially increasing its support of United Nations peacekeeping operations. (2004-2005)
Resolved: That the United States Federal government should establish an ocean policy substantially increasing the protection of marine natural resources. (2003-2004)
Resolved: That the United States federal government should substantially increase public health services for mental health care in the United States. (2002-2003)
Resolved: That the United States federal government should establish a foreign policy significantly limiting the use of weapons of mass destruction. (2001-2002)
Resolved: That the United States federal government should significantly increase protection of privacy in the United States in one or more of the following areas: employment, medical records, consumer information, search & seizure. (2000-2001)
Resolved: That the federal government should establish an education policy to significantly increase academic achievement in secondary schools in the United States. (1999-2000)
Resolved: That the United States should substantially change its foreign policy toward Russia. (1998-1999)

3.2 Recent CEDA-NDT intercollegate resolutions

(2003-2004) Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should enact one or more of the following:

(2002-2003) Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should ratify or accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:

(2001-2002) Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should substantially increase federal control throughout Indian Country in one or more of the following areas: child welfare, criminal justice, employment, environmental protection, gaming, resource management, taxation.

(2000-2001) Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its development assistance, including government to government assistance, within the Greater Horn of Africa.





Non User