Team Policy


 * This article provides a general overview of Team Policy debate. For official rules, see NCFCA team policy rules or Stoa team policy rules.

Team Policy is a form of debate offered by the NCFCA and Stoa. Two teams of two debaters each (called the "Affirmative" and "Negative" teams) debate a policy resolution. Conventionally, the Affirmative team proposes a specific plan, and the Negative team argues that the plan is a bad idea.

Round setup and speech order
http://www.homeschooldebate.com/wiki/images/Debateround.png

The figure to the right illustrates the conventional setup of a team policy round. The Affirmative team sits at a table on the left side of the judge, and the Negative team sits at a table on the right side; debaters deliver their speeches from a lectern in the center, directly across from the judge. The location of the timer varies. (Other setups are also used, primarily in small rooms or rooms with an awkward setup.)

Each round consists of eight speeches, which are divided into two blocks: four constructives (8 minutes each) and four rebuttals (5 minutes each). After each constructive speech, the debater who just finished speaking is cross-examined by a debater from the other team. New arguments may only be presented in the constructive speeches (see new argument in the rebuttals); the rebuttal speeches are used to respond to previous lines of argument, and crystallize the arguments in the round into voting issues.

Each team has a designated "first" speaker and "second" speaker, who cannot change places halfway through the round. The four debaters in the round present speeches in the following order:


 * Constructive speech by the first Affirmative speaker (1AC, 8 minutes)
 * Cross-examination of the first Affirmative speaker by the second Negative speaker
 * Constructive speech by the first Negative speaker (1NC, 8 minutes)
 * Cross-examination of the first Negative speaker by the first Affirmative speaker
 * Constructive speech by the second Affirmative speaker (2AC, 8 minutes)
 * Cross-examination of the second Affirmative speaker by the first Negative speaker
 * Constructive speech by the second Negative speaker (2NC, 8 minutes)
 * Cross-examination of the first Affirmative speaker by the second Negative speaker
 * Rebuttal speech by the first Negative speaker (1NR, 5 minutes)
 * Rebuttal speech by the first Affirmative speaker (1AR, 5 minutes)
 * Rebuttal speech by the second Negative speaker (2NR, 5 minutes)
 * Rebuttal speech by the second Affirmative speaker (2AR, 5 minutes)

Each team also receives a total of 5 minutes of prep time, which they can use before their speeches. Prep time can be used in a single chunk, spread out between speeches, or not used at all.

Typical Affirmative and Negative roles
Team Policy resolutions generally take the form "Resolved: That X should Y"; for example, "Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its criminal justice system." The Affirmative team argues for this resolution; the Negative team argues against it.

In a typical round, the Affirmative team will use their first speech (the 1AC) to present a pre-scripted "case" (that is, a proposed reform that falls within the bounds of the resolution.) For example, when debating the criminal justice resolution, the Affirmative team might argue that the Federal Government should abolish mandatory minimum sentences. Cases can take any number of forms, but they generally include definitions of key terms, a specific set of mandates to enact, and a discussion of problems these mandates will solve and the advantages they will create.

The Negative team will then argue against this case. They may argue that the problems do not exist, they will go away by themselves, the Affirmative's plan cannot solve them, or that enacting the plan has major disadvantages. Other more complicated arguments, such as counterplans and kritiks, may occasionally be seen.

Teams alternate between the Affirmative and Negative sides; in the preliminary rounds of a typical tournament, a given team will debate Affirmative three times and Negative three times.

Theory concepts
Team Policy debate involves many "theory" concepts - that is, concepts that are not necessarily laid out in the rules, but are a logical result of the structure of debate. Some of the most common theory concepts are summarized below.

Stock issues
Debaters often categorize the arguments in a round into four "stock issues". In general, an Affirmative team must win all four stock issues to win the round.


 * Topicality: Concerns whether the Affirmative's case falls within the bounds of the resolution. Essentially, topicality arguments ask, "Are they debating about the right thing?"


 * Significance: Concerns whether the Affirmative's case is important enough to be worth considering, and addresses a significant problem that is worth trying to solve. Essentially, significance arguments ask, "Is this a significant issue that needs addressing?"


 * Inherency: There is some disagreement over the best definition of "inherency", but it generally concerns whether the Affirmative's case is actually addressing the core cause of the problem. "The problem is going away by itself", "Another law that will solve the problem has just been passed", or even "Their specific plan is already being implemented" are all examples of inherency arguments. Essentially, inherency arguments ask, "Is their plan really necessary to solve the problem?"


 * Solvency: Concerns whether the Affirmative's case will actually solve the problems they are trying to solve. Essentially, solvency arguments ask, "Will this plan actually work?"

As an alternative to stock issues, some debaters categorize arguments using three questions: "Is it needed?", "Will it work?", and "Is it worth it?"

Evidence
Team Policy debate rounds generally involve a large amount of evidence - that is, quotes and statistics from expert sources that the debaters use to support their arguments. Evidence is generally compiled in advance into documents called briefs. Many teams accumulate very large amounts of evidence by the end of a debate season, and must use roller cases to carry their evidence from round to round.

Sourcebooks, commercial books of research that debaters can buy, are often available.