What is cx debate

During a tournament, participants or judges may not give or accept notes taken during that tournament. For example, a judge participating in the district contest is neither allowed to give nor accept notes regarding any rounds in that tournament from anyone else during that tournament. Penalty for debaters. Violation by debaters of the scouting rule is grounds for disqualification of the debate team from the current competition. Such violations may be grounds for suspension of the school from team debate for the following year.

Penalty for coaches. Violation by coaches of the scouting rule is grounds for disqualification of their teams from the current competition. Debaters shall receive no coaching while the debate is in progress. Time signals are not considered prompting. If prompting occurs during a round, the team in violation shall be assigned a loss in the round in which the prompting took place.

This site was designed with the. Resolution Interpretation Cross-Examination Policy Debate involves two teams, each consisting of two people. A Beginners Guide To Debating.

Arguing for the Resolution The objective of the affirmative team is to construct and present a case that defends and supports the resolution. Arguing Against the Resolution The objective of the negative team is to refute the affirmative case, which, by extension, is an argument against the resolution.

Rules to Follow During the Round 1. The Formatting of a Normal Debate Round 1. First Affirmative Constructive 1AC a. Cross-examination of First Affirmative by Second Negative 2. First Negative Constructive 1NC a. Cross-examination of First Negative by First Affirmative 3. Second Affirmative Constructive 2AC a. Cross-examination of Second Affirmative by First Negative 4.

Second Negative Constructive 2NC a. Cross-examination of Second Negative by Second Affirmative 5. First Affirmative Rebuttal 1AR 7.

A judge or panel of judges determines the winner based on the arguments presented within the round. Balanced hardworking teams, both in terms of preparation before debates and contributions within a debate, helps provide a competitive advantage during tournaments. Policy debaters are interested in examining specific policies in an intricate and detailed manner. Depth of research is a common trait of successful Policy debaters.

Policy Debate is commonly viewed as the most technical debate event within the Association. When considering what event you should choose, or in which direction to point a student when selecting an event, below are some general traits of successful Policy debaters to keep in mind:.

Policy debate is a two-on-two debate where an affirmative team proposes a plan and the negative team argues why that plan should not be adopted.

The topic for policy debate changes annually, so debaters throughout the course of the year will debate the same topic. The debate unfolds throughout a series of speeches as outlined below:. So the person who reads the 1AC wil also perform the 1AR, for example. Note that the debate begins with the affirmative speaking first, and then switches midway through the debate where the negative speaks first, thus giving the affirmative the ability to speak last.

Policy debate is a very research-intensive activity. Unlike traditional writing where the author may briefly quote or even paraphrase evidence, Policy Debate relies on the use of cards, or pieces of evidence directly quoted word-for-word from the source. A typical piece of evidence consists of three parts: the tagline, the citation, and the evidence. The tagline is the argument or claim that either the evidence asserts or that the debater is asserting based on the evidence.

The author, the title, the publication the source, the page, etc. This information will not be read aloud in the round except for the author and the year or more specific date if necessary. Finally, a piece of evidence consists of the text of the evidence itself. The expectation in Policy Debate is that cards are read verbatim, so the paraphrasing of evidence as it is being read for the first time is discouraged. Instead, the debater should underline or bold the parts of the text of the evidence they deem most necessary.

This is to prevent the affirmative from creating fake plans which has no evidence on either side; therefore, the affirmative will always win. One traditional way to judge policy debate states that the affirmative team must win certain issues, called the stock issues. They are generally interpreted to be as follows:. Does the Affirmative team's proposed policy comply with the wording of the resolution or topic?

Is the plan important enough to even warrant consideration or make a difference? What is wrong in the status quo to justify implementation of the plan? This issue is commonly labeled by debaters as: "Harms".

Example: "Harm 1: Money wasted", Harm 2: Inefficiency. Most affirmative teams today generally frame their case around advantages , which are good effects of their plan. The negative team will often present disadvantages which contend that the affirmative plan causes undesirable consequences. Negation Theory is a theory which dictates that the negative need only negate the affirmative instead of having to negate the resolution. The acceptance of negation theory allows negative teams to run arguments, such as topical Counterplans , which may affirm the resolution but still negate the affirmative's specific plan.

After the affirmative presents its case, the negative can attack the case with many different arguments, which include:. Evidence in debates is organized into units called cards because such evidence was originally printed on note cards, though the practice has long been out of favor.

Cards are designed to condense an author's argument so that debaters have an easy way to access the information. A card is composed of three parts: the tag, the cite, and the body. The tag is the debater's summary of the argument presented in the body.

A tag is usually only one or two sentences. The cite contains all relevant citation information that is, the author, date of publication, journal, title, etc. Although every card should contain a complete citation, only the author's name and date of publication are typically spoken aloud in a speech.

Some teams will also read the author's qualifications if they wish to emphasize this information. The body is a fragment of the author's original text. The length of a body can vary greatly—cards can be as short as a few sentences and as long as two or more pages. Most cards are between one and five paragraphs in length.

The body of a card is often underlined or highlighted in order to eliminate unnecessary or redundant sentences when the card is read in a round. In a round, the tag is read first, followed by the cite and the body. As pieces of evidence accumulate use, multiple colors of highlighting and different thicknesses of underlining often occur, sometimes making it difficult to determine which portion of the evidence was read. It involves two teams of two people each who are assigned the Affirmative and Negative sides of a year-long topic.

Over the course of the round, both teams will develop arguments on their side of the resolution. Of all of the debate events, Policy is the fastest-paced with debaters speaking quickly to make more points and the most evidence-based.

In both high school and college Policy, there is one topic that is assigned for an entire season — this gives teams ample opportunity to do extensive research on core issues ahead of the tournament. Preliminary rounds at tournaments have sides randomly assigned, while in elimination rounds debaters will flip for sides.

Regardless of side, each team will have 2 constructives, 2 rebuttals, and 2 cross examinations.