| 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 |
|
|||||
| First Prev [ 1 2 ] Next Last |
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.
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.
(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.