Difference between revisions of "Policy"

Policy debate in Lincoln-Douglas (LD) uses a utilitarian framework calculus and focuses on analyzing the pros and cons of a specific policy action.  These debates are heavily influenced by the policy debate event, and is often called either “LARP”, the abbreviation for live action role-playing, as LD debaters are “role-playing” as policy debaters, or “util debate.”  Policy debate uses utilitarian calculus to focus on the consequences of a policy action.  This debate style relies on policy research and is multi-disciplinary, often drawing heavily from international relations, political science, and economics.  In addition to its educational benefits, policy positions are strategic, often leveraged against [[critical]] and [[philosophy]] positions.  Policy debate is especially prevalent on the West Coast, though it is used all across the country.

==Overview==

Policy ACs, like other types of ACs, set up the majority of offense for the round.  These ACs typically, though not always, parametricize the resolution, proposing a “plan:” a specific course of action.  For example, on the topic resolved: states ought to ban their nuclear arsenals, instead of defending the resolution in general, a policy AC might defend that only India and Pakistan should eliminate their nuclear weapons.  Limiting the resolution is strategic for two reasons: first of all, it limits the arguments that the negative may read, e.g. a negative argument about US or Russian nuclear arsenals now becomes irrelevant, since the affirmative is only defending the removal of nuclear arsenals by India and Pakistan.  The legitimacy of the affirmative in specifying a policy proposal is debated in topicality (link).  Secondly, limiting the resolution allows for greater depth of research, allows the debate round to focus on the major arguments from the beginning, begetting more nuance, and gives the affirmative an idea of what negative arguments will be, allowing greater “control” over how the round plays out and better pre-round preparation.  This strategic utility is increased when the affirmative “breaks new,” or debuts a plan that has not been read before. This forces the negative to attempt to adapt when much of their prep and argumentation may not apply to the part of the resolution the affirmative is defending.