1,166
edits
Difference between revisions of "Policy"
→Policy ACs
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) m (→Link Turns) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
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. | 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. | ||
== Policy ACs == | == Policy ACs == | ||
Policy ACs, like other types of ACs, set up the majority of offense for the round. These ACs typically, though not always, | Policy ACs, like other types of ACs, set up the majority of offense for the round. These ACs typically, though not always, parametrize 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]]. 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. | ||
===Structure=== | ===Structure=== | ||
A policy AC must include the 5 stock issues: significance, harms, inherency, topicality, and solvency. A helpful (school appropriate) acronym to remember this is HITSS. | A policy AC must include the 5 stock issues: significance, harms, inherency, topicality, and solvency. A helpful (school appropriate) acronym to remember this is HITSS. | ||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
===Fiat=== | ===Fiat=== | ||
An important part of policy debate is the notion of “fiat.” This is different from the frameworks outlined above and is instead a constitutive notion of debate. Fiat means “let it be done” in Latin, and is used in debate to mean imagining a world in which the plan the affirmative proposes is enacted. For example, using the carbon tax example from above (Plan: The United States federal government ought to enact a carbon tax at $43/ton of CO2), such a policy has not passed in the status quo (inherency) due to a variety of factors, one of which is political will. To avoid the negative winning every time because the affirmative’s policy proposal would not be enacted in real life, fiat suspends that disbelief to allow us to debate the merits of a policy action, as opposed to whether Republicans would support it or not. | An important part of policy debate is the notion of “fiat.” This is different from the frameworks outlined above and is instead a constitutive notion of debate. Fiat means “let it be done” in Latin, and is used in debate to mean imagining a world in which the plan the affirmative proposes is enacted. For example, using the carbon tax example from above (Plan: The United States federal government ought to enact a carbon tax at $43/ton of CO2), such a policy has not passed in the status quo (inherency) due to a variety of factors, one of which is political will. To avoid the negative winning every time because the affirmative’s policy proposal would not be enacted in real life, fiat suspends that disbelief to allow us to debate the merits of a policy action, as opposed to whether Republicans would support it or not. | ||
==Policy NCs== | ==Policy NCs== | ||
Similar to a policy AC, a policy 1NC introduces all of the negative’s offense into the round. The 1NC must contain 2 functions: offense for the negative, and answers to the affirmative. | Similar to a policy AC, a policy 1NC introduces all of the negative’s offense into the round. The 1NC must contain 2 functions: offense for the negative, and answers to the affirmative. | ||
===Offense=== | ===Offense=== | ||
Offense for the negative comes in the form of “off case” positions. In a traditional debate, the 1NC has contentions that explain why the resolution as a broader principle is bad. However, when debating a policy AC, this offense becomes specific reasons why the affirmative’s policy is bad. These can be very similar, e.g. on a topic about a US federal jobs guarantee, a traditional contention that says a federal jobs guarantee is bad for the economy will be nearly identical to a policy argument about the economic impacts of a jobs guarantee. In policy debate, however, these are called “off case” because they are arguments that are not directly responsive to the affirmative’s argumentation. Off case arguments come in the form of [[ | Offense for the negative comes in the form of “off case” positions. In a traditional debate, the 1NC has contentions that explain why the resolution as a broader principle is bad. However, when debating a policy AC, this offense becomes specific reasons why the affirmative’s policy is bad. These can be very similar, e.g. on a topic about a US federal jobs guarantee, a traditional contention that says a federal jobs guarantee is bad for the economy will be nearly identical to a policy argument about the economic impacts of a jobs guarantee. In policy debate, however, these are called “off case” because they are arguments that are not directly responsive to the affirmative’s argumentation. Off case arguments come in the form of [[disadvantages]] or [[counterplans]]. | ||
===Answering the Affirmative=== | ===Answering the Affirmative=== | ||
In addition to off case positions, the 1NC also answers the affirmative case. There are a variety of ways to do this. | In addition to off case positions, the 1NC also answers the affirmative case. There are a variety of ways to do this. | ||
| Line 46: | Line 44: | ||
Impact defense is one of the most intuitive ways to answer an advantage: it just says that the affirmative’s impact will either not happen, or is irrelevant. For example, a common affirmative argument is to say that disease impacts are existential. Impact defense would say that disease does not cause extinction for a, b, c reasons. Impact defense is extremely common and can be strategic when hitting an argument that you don’t have prep on, but often does not have high strategic value for two reasons. Firstly, impact defense is very generic; for example, an advantage about something causing a US-Russia war which then goes nuclear has a specific warrant about what triggers the war, escalation, etc., --- a generic card that says “diplomacy checks” might apply and have some value, but the affirmative will likely be able to leverage the specificity of their warrants against the generic card. Secondly, impact defense reduces the impact from 100% (extinction) to 99.9%. A 2A/NR on “disease doesn’t kill like . . . everybody. . . just millions!” isn’t exactly scintillating stuff. | Impact defense is one of the most intuitive ways to answer an advantage: it just says that the affirmative’s impact will either not happen, or is irrelevant. For example, a common affirmative argument is to say that disease impacts are existential. Impact defense would say that disease does not cause extinction for a, b, c reasons. Impact defense is extremely common and can be strategic when hitting an argument that you don’t have prep on, but often does not have high strategic value for two reasons. Firstly, impact defense is very generic; for example, an advantage about something causing a US-Russia war which then goes nuclear has a specific warrant about what triggers the war, escalation, etc., --- a generic card that says “diplomacy checks” might apply and have some value, but the affirmative will likely be able to leverage the specificity of their warrants against the generic card. Secondly, impact defense reduces the impact from 100% (extinction) to 99.9%. A 2A/NR on “disease doesn’t kill like . . . everybody. . . just millions!” isn’t exactly scintillating stuff. | ||
====Link Defense==== | ====Link Defense==== | ||
Link defense explains that the advantage’s warrants are incorrect. A typical | Link defense explains that the advantage’s warrants are incorrect. A typical advantage relies on a link chain that says <math>A \rightarrow B \rightarrow C</math>. Link defense would say that <math>A</math> and/or <math>B</math> and/or <math>C</math> is incorrect or wrong. For example, if the AFF proposes a plan that the United States federal government should implement a jobs guarantee with an advantage saying that the economy is doing badly now, but the plan helps the economy, link defense would say that the plan does not help the economy. | ||
====Solvency Deficits==== | ====Solvency Deficits==== | ||
Solvency is the ability of the affirmative to rectify the harms it talks about. A solvency deficit is a part of the affirmative that the plan does not solve for. Winning a solvency deficit means that the affirmative does not gain any offense from case because voting aff does not change the problems they have outlined. | Solvency is the ability of the affirmative to rectify the harms it talks about. A solvency deficit is a part of the affirmative that the plan does not solve for. Winning a solvency deficit means that the affirmative does not gain any offense from case because voting aff does not change the problems they have outlined. | ||
| Line 58: | Line 56: | ||
Democracy Bad: a common impact argument is that democratic systems are the only way to prevent a litany of existential threats such as climate change, pandemics, or terrorism, or relies on democratic peace theory, saying that democracies lead to less conflict. The impact turn would say that democratic systems do not actually create the structures necessary to prevent these, but instead that democracy is independently bad by fueling conflict, terrorism, or climate change. | Democracy Bad: a common impact argument is that democratic systems are the only way to prevent a litany of existential threats such as climate change, pandemics, or terrorism, or relies on democratic peace theory, saying that democracies lead to less conflict. The impact turn would say that democratic systems do not actually create the structures necessary to prevent these, but instead that democracy is independently bad by fueling conflict, terrorism, or climate change. | ||
=====Link Turns===== | =====Link Turns===== | ||
Link turns, similar to impact turns, generate offense. However, they are made up of two parts: non-unique and the link turn. An | Link turns, similar to impact turns, generate offense. However, they are made up of two parts: non-unique and the link turn. An advantage must be “unique,” just meaning that whatever they talk about is not currently happening in the status quo. For example, if the affirmative has an advantage about rescuing the economy with an impact about economic collapse being bad, they must have a “uniqueness” claim that the economy is doing well now. Thus, a “non-unique” argument would contest what’s going on in the status quo, staying with the example from above, it would say the economy is doing poorly now. Though it might seem impossible to have a debate about an objective fact --- the economy cannot be both good and bad at the same time --- these arguments can rely on different criteria for evaluating the health of the economy, e.g. are stocks a good indicator? Is investor confidence? Consumer confidence? GDP? The link turn then says that the affirmative’s link is the opposite. So, instead of the plan helping the economy, it actually hurts it. The negative’s argument becomes: the economy is doing well, but the plan hurts the economy, thus triggering the affirmative’s impact. It can be illustrated by the following diagram: | ||
AFF: the economy is doing poorly ---> the plan helps the economy ---> strong economy is good | AFF: the economy is doing poorly ---> the plan helps the economy ---> strong economy is good | ||