Policy

From Circuit Debater LD
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Overview

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.

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.

Significance

Significance is just the reason the judge and debaters should care about the issue --- the benefits and disadvantages of the policy proposal will intrinsically prove significance.

Harms

Harms are the problems with the status quo, i.e. what is the problem that will happen absent the plan’s enactment. For example, a common harm for a policy AC that India and Pakistan should eliminate their nuclear arsenals would be an argument that nuclear war between the two states is inevitable in the status quo absent the removal of nuclear weapons.

Inherency

Inherency is the cause of the status quo. An affirmative must be “inherent,” which just means that the plan proposed by the affirmative is not already in existence. For example, an affirmative plan could be “the United States federal government ought to implement a carbon tax at $43 per ton of CO2.” Since there is currently no such policy in place, this AC is inherent. However, if the AC were to propose “Plan: the United States federal government ought to enact income taxes,” this would not be inherent since such a policy is already in existence. Absent inherency, there is no reason to vote affirmative since the policy is already in place.

There are three types of inherency - existential/gap, structural, and attitudinal.

Existential/gap inherency refers to the absence of a law that would cause the aff. As of 2021, "Resolved: The United States should provide universal basic healthcare," is inherent because there is no current policy for it.

Structural inherency refers to the existence of a law that is preventing the aff. With the healthcare example, if there was a law preventing the government from giving any kind of welfare/benefits to the people, it would prevent universal basic healthcare from being passed.

Attitudinal inherency refers to an attitude that is preventing the aff from happening. People may perceive it in a negative light, and push back so it can't happen. An example is universal basic income (UBI) which is widely disputed over its ability to solve poverty.

Affs may have a combination of these types of inherencies or all three - they aren't mutually exclusive.

Solvency

Solvency is the ability of the affirmative to rectify the harms it talks about. Absent the affirmative solving for the harms, there is no reason to vote affirmative since the plan does not work. Solvency is established through a “solvency mechanism,” which is a piece of evidence that explains how the policy proposal (plan) would work and its effects. For example, a policy AC about inequality might propose a plan to raise the minimum wage. This AC would then read evidence about how raising the minimum wage would rectify inequality and lift people out of poverty.

Topicality

Topicality is whether the affirmative is affirming the resolution. See topicality.

Advantages

Advantages are the offense in a policy AC. Advantages derive their name, intuitively, from what the advantages of enacting the policy proposed by the affirmative would be. These are also the harms outlined above. An advantage is the same thing as a contention for traditional debate, but instead of providing a contention for the resolution as a broad principle, stem from the specific policy proposed by the affirmative. An advantage can be thought of as telling the story of the affirmative: x is happening in the status quo, which causes y to happen, which is bad because of z, but passing policy w solves for the problem because of a, b, c.

Framing

Unlike in philosophical or traditional affirmatives where there is a wide variety of framework, in policy debate there are only two main framing mechanisms, both of which are forms of utilitarianism:

Hard right

These policy ACs use a utilitarian framing mechanism to evaluate the consequences of the plan. These ACs typically justify “big-stick” extinction-level impacts with high magnitude such as nuclear war between the US and Russia, climate change, or weaponized AI.

Soft Left

These policy ACs focus on structural violence that is going on right now. Common examples include affirmatives that focus on gender violence, racism, or inequality, and say to focus on the ongoing oppression as opposed to improbable extinction level events. These affirmatives are similar to, and often draw from, critical literature, but endorse using the government and policy actions.

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.


Policy NCs

[Brief explanation on how to negate a Policy AC, with a brief description of Impact Defense, Straight Turns, DAs, and CPs.

Note: The responses (e.g. permutations) should go in the appropriate sections (e.g. counterplans).