Public Policy Debate is focused on making a change to the way things exist now. The affirmative team supports a change in policy stated as a Resolution. For example, Resolved: The United States Government should place a ban on the provision for subsistence hunting in the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The negative supports the Status Quo, the way things are now. Any resolution always includes "should" because the debate centers around the policy, not whether the policy could or will be passed and implemented.
1st affirmative constructive speech (4 minutes)-- The 1st affirmative speaker states the resolution, defines the terms in the resolution, and elaborates the need for change, ie. the harms in the present system. As in every constructive speech, the speaker should present evidence consisting of appropriate statistics or quotations of opinions from experts. Logical arguments that follow to conclusions can be used as evidence of the need for change as well. The speaker should show why things won't change unless a policy change is made-inherency. Then, a brief description of the affirmative plan should be introduced.
This is followed by the cross-examination of the first affirmative by the negative. (2-3 minutes depending on the class time frame). If there are two members of the negative team, the cross-examination of the first affirmative will be done by the second negative as the first negative prepares notes to speak. If there are three-member teams, the role of cross-examination and rebuttal will all be carried out by the third negative speaker. This is a time for questioning any disagreement about definitions, logical conclusions, or for posturing points that may come up in the first negative speech.
The first negative constructive speech is in response to what has gone before (4 minutes). It's time to address any disagreement about definitions, and any topicality issues. For example, what is meant by a ban on subsistence hunting may mean different things to different people, but if the affirmative team is only banning hunting of whales, for instance, they are not meeting the complete burden of the resolution. The first negative should try to mitigate the argument that there are harms or needs in the system by use of the negative's own statistics and expert opinions, or show that the harms the affirmative addressed aren't significant, and that even if there were significant harms, a plan such as the one the affirmative team is proposing would not solve it-solvency.
Cross-examination of the negative (2-3 minutes) then takes place, either by the first affirmative in the case of a two-person team or third affirmative if there are three team members.
The second affirmative constructive (4 minutes) begins by refuting any topicality arguments, and elaborating on the plan. In addition, the speaker will try to show how the plan will meet the needs in its solvency requirement. In addition to explaining the plan, the affirmative should claim that there are other benefits that would be gained by the policy. Finally, using expert opinion, the affirmative should try to show the negative team's philosophy is misguided at best.
This is followed by cross-examination (2-3 minutes) of the second affirmative by the first negative or third negative team member.
The final negative constructive speech (4 minutes) focuses the arguments through use of expert opinion and logic on the lack of harms and furthermore if there were harms, the lack of solvency of the plan. Outlawing hunting, for instance, is not going to stop the extinction of a species because the cause of the extinction isn't hunting. The negative should diminish the claimed benefits of the new policy and show why these are not benefits. It should also show that there are disadvantages to instituting this policy that go beyond solving the problem by, in fact, creating new ones. Any additional arguments or pieces of evidence must be introduced at this juncture.
The affirmative will cross the second negative speaker (2-3 minutes).
There is a short break of 5-10 minutes for preparation of rebuttals. The purpose of rebuttals is to make clear to the judge exactly where the debate stands by reviewing the relevant points made and the argumentative stance that each team has taken. Each rebuttalist should explain why the judge should find for its side. The order for rebuttals is for the negative to go first. The negative's advantage here is that it gets a large block of time and attention to pursue its objections to the change of policy and to bolster the status quo. The affirmative advantage is that it gets to speak first and last. During rebuttal no new arguments, statistical evidence, or expert opinions may be introduced. Partly that is because no refutation can be made by the negative after the affirmative rebuttal. In formal debate there are two rebuttals from each side, but for classroom time one may be sufficient. The rebuttals can be 3-4 minutes depending on the class time available. It is best to have the entire debate in one class period if at all possible.
Barbara Walker