Library
Policy/LARP
Policy debate, commonly referred to as LARP debate, simulates the effects of passing the resolution as a policy option. Plans, counterplans, and disadvantages are commonly read with this style of debate. The framework associated with policy debates is usually utilitarian - minimizing pain and maximizing pleasure.
Click here for the policy page.
Critical Debate
Critical debate explores a large ranges of topics but usually centers around proving an issue through which the world is viewed. Kritiks, ran by the negative, will point out a problem of the aff, called the link, show the negative consequences of that problem, the impact, and provides an alternative solution to avoid that problem, called the alternative. Non-topical affs are often run in the realm of critical debate, which are affirmatives that choose not to defend the resolution to talk about a different issue.
Click here for the critical debate page.
Theory
Theoretical debates attempt to prove that an action another debater commits in the round has a negative consequence on the debate itself. Theoretical debates commonly prove why a debater's action is unfair or uneducational for the debate space and provide a alternative model for which debate should operate.
Click here for the theory page.
Philosophy
Philosophical debates attempt to prove the resolution true or false through a philosophical framework that is used to describe what constitutes morality. There are many different veins of philosophy, ranging from postmodern authors such as Judith Butler to Enlightenment Era philosophers like Immanuel Kant.
Click here for the philosophy page.
Tricks
Tricks debate, although a broad category, can generally characterized by attempting to win the round through tactics that might be deemed unfair or unexpected. Tricks can range from a prioris, which are attempt to win the round through a concession of a hidden argument, to more nuanced paradoxes that prove why the resolution as a statement is incoherent.
Click here for the tricks page.