Basic Assumptions

Argumentation
Debate Issues & Format
P. M. Harris-Jenkinson
Forensics Reasoning: Facts (observations) compare with some code (standard) resulting in a final conclusion.
Definition: The dictionary defines "forensic"as: adj. “of, characteristic of, or suitable for a law court, public debate, or formal argument. n. (pl)debate or formal argumentation.” The word is derived from the Latin words “forensis” meaning public and “forum” meaning marketplace. (Guralnik, David B. (ed.), Webster's New World Dictionary, New York: Avenel Books, 1978, p. 293).
Historical Background: In ancient Greece, the word “forensics” meant “speaking for judgment,” a definition certainly still appropriate today. Forensics described legal speaking or courtroom oratory. In ancient Greece, people had to serve as their own advocates. Forensics, as an intercollegiate competitive speaking activity, came into being in the late 19th century in the form of public forum debates.
You must be careful in establishing facts and you must clearly define the code.
Affirmative/Negative Definitions:
Negative: Supports the status quo. Things are fine the way they are and there is no reason to change it.
Affirmative: Advocates a change in the status quo. Claims that there is something wrong with the way things are and advocates a way to change it for the better.
It is important that you understand the burdens here. If you are in favor of the drug testing in the military (it is the status quo in the military), you are actually negative when a case advocating eliminating drug testing in the military is being debated.
Basic Assumptions:
Presumption - lies with the status quo. It is presumed that I will continue on the way I am heading unless I get a reason to change. No reason? No action.
Status Ouo - the present system. Whatever is at issue (the norm). Presumption lies with the status quo. Also tells you who has the burden of proof.
Burden of Proof - the flip side of Presumption. If you are the one advocating the change, you must “prove” the case. You must overcome presumption.
Proposition - If you agree with the status quo, then there is no reason to change. You must make an actual claim: “We should change the way we do business.” In academic debate, all propositions begin with “Resolved.” Example: “Resolved: That the United States should provide military aid to non-democratic countries.” This is often called “the resolution.”
Three Types of Propositions:
Fact The “what is?” of the proposition. The issue in question only has to do with what something is or isn’t. Although this is usually not the proposition the whole debate is based upon, it is often a part of the debate.
Value The “what is the value?” of the proposition. You must put a value on something (i.e. good, bad, better, worse, etc.). This includes a fact proposition, but adds onto it.
Policy The “what will we do?” part of the proposition. A proposal to do something (implied or otherwise). We should do something; we ought to do something. You present facts, value judgments about those facts, predict future facts, make value judgments about future facts, then submit a policy change based upon the facts and values.
Stock Issues Model for Policy Debate
Assume a Problem/Solution format. There are four issues that come up every time. They serve as a criteria to see if there is something or some reason to change. If the Affirmative “wins” all four issues, the Affirmative wins the debate. If the Affirmative loses even one issue, the whole affirmative case falls and the Negative wins.
1. Harms - Is there a problem? Does a “harm” actually exist? What is the ill that needs to be addressed? (If no problem, there is no reason to change.) Do we have to do something about it now?
2. Significance - If there is a harm, how bad is it? (If not bad enough, no reason to change). Significance can be either quantitative or qualitative.
3. Inherency - Where does the problem lie? What is producing the harm? Can this problem be solved without a structural change in the status quo (without the affirmative plan)? (If not, then a minor change in the status quo will solve it and there is no significant change needed.) Is the Affirmative’s solution (plan) the only way or the best way to approach the problem? (If not, no change.) Inherency may also be called “uniqueness.” In some books, it’s called “blame.”
4. Solvency - This is a prediction question; a question of future fact. It has to do with the affirmative plan and if it will work (workability). There are actually two components of solvency:
a. Plan Meet Advantages (PMA): Does the plan actually solve the problem the affirmative states exists? Example: If the Affirmative case states that murder is on the increase, will the plan reduce the number of murders? (If not, why adopt the plan?). Also known as Plan Meet Need (PMN).
b. Disadvantages (DA): Will the plan actually cause significant disadvantages? Do these disadvantages, on balance, outweigh the advantages that the affirmative claims their plan win have? Example: If the Aaffirmative plan provides money for the poor, will this actually be worse than not providing money to the poor? Will this create a society where no one works because they get paid anyway? If so, will technology come to a standstill? (If this disadvantage is perceived as more significant than the advantages of poor people having enough money for food, then it would be folly to adopt the Affirmative plan.)
*5. Topicality - In academic debate, there is another stock issue often argued: Topicality. If the debaters agree to study the influence of drugs in the workplace and the Affirmative’s case actually addresses recreational use of drugs, the Affirmative has placed an unfair burden on the negative. The Affirmative’s case is not topical; that is, it does not address the topic the debaters agreed to debate. If the Negative can provide a strong enough case to show that the Affirmative is not topical, the Affirmative will lose the debate.

Debate Formats
There are several formats that can be used in debate. For academic debate, however, there are usually only two: Lincoln Douglas (one-on-one) and Oxford (team) debate.
In both formats, the debaters must tell the audience (judges) why they won the debate and their opponents didn’t. Also, there are two distinct parts which are argued:
1. Case side: The Affirmative’s justification for adopting the plan. Stock issues are: Harms, Significance, Inherency, and Topicality (optional)
2. Plan side: The Affirmative’s solution to the problems cited in its case. This includes the plan itself and the advantages the Affirmative claims its plan will produce. The major stock issue are Solvency-based: Plan Meet Advantage(s) and Disadvantage(s) attacks.
Lincoln Douglas Debate:
Affirmative Negative
8-minute constructive (states & defines

the affirmative case - the case to be argued.)

12-minute constructive (states Negative’s

philosophy & argues Affirmative case &

plan)
6-minute constructive (responds to

negative case & plan attacks, extends

affirmative case & plan)
6-minute rebuttal (argues case & plan;

restates negative philosophy and summarizes

negative’s case)

4-minute rebuttal (argues case & plan

and restates affirmative’s case)

Oxford-Style Debate
Affirmative Negative
8-minute constructive (states & defines

the affirmative case - the case to be

argued.)
8-minute constructive (states negative’s

philosophy & argues affirmative case;

ignores plan side)
8-minute constructive (argues negative

case attacks, extends affirmative case)

8-minute constructive (argues

plan side workability; ignores case side)

NOTE: BACK TO BACK NEGATIVE SPEECHES
4-minute rebuttal (responds to

affirmative refutation of previous case

side attack, extends negative case side

attacks; no new arguments allowed)

4-minute rebuttal (responds to negative’s

case and plan attacks; extends affirmative

case and plan; new arguments allowed

on plan side only; no new arguments

allowed on case side)
4-minute rebuttal (argues case & plan

restates negative philosophy and

summarizes negative’s case)
4-minute rebuttal (argues case & plan

and restates affirmatives case)

Flowing
In order to stay organized, debaters must write down what the other debaters say. This is called “flowing” arguments. For those just flowing the debate, the process stops with just writing down the arguments presented. For the debaters, however, they must not only write down their opponent’s arguments, but the arguments they plan to make in response to those arguments. This is done throughout the debate. This way, debaters can visually “see” what they have argued and what they haven’t argued—and what the other team said and what the other team didn’t say.
Debaters don’t try to write down every single word said in the debate; they attempt to get the gist of the arguments. Flowing is done in outline form. That is why it is necessary for debaters to signpost which argument they are speaking about. Debaters really do say, “Contention I: Harms, Subpoint A. Harms are significant. 1. A large number of murders occur.” This helps them, the other team, and the audience flow the debate.
Try to come up with some standard definitions. They make flowing easier.
Examples:

SQ Status Quo

Sig Significance

* Contradiction

G Government

= Equal to

• 
  Increasing
  

 Decreasing

AD Advantage

DA Disadvantage

EV Evidence

Q Ask Cross Examination Question

PMA Plan Meet Advantages