CHAPTER ONE: A FIRST LOOK AT DEBATE

CHAPTER TWO: THE ACTIVITY CALLED POLICY DEBATE

CHAPTER THREE: THE FORMAT FOR A DEBATE?

CHAPTER FOUR: TOPICALITY

CHAPTER FIVE: AFFIRMATIVE CASE THEORY

CHAPTER SIX: FUNDAMENTAL NEGATIVE THEORY

CHAPTER SEVEN: COMPARING ELEMENTARY THEORY

CHAPTER EIGHT: BASIC ARGUMENTATION TERMINOLOGY (BAT)

CHAPTER NINE: FLOWING

CHAPTER TEN: RESEARCH AND PREPARATION

CHAPTER ONE: A FIRST LOOK AT DEBATE

Everyone's first year in debate is extremely confusing. Expect to be confused. Confusion and chaos effect everyone in debate. That includes those who choose to pursue debate as an extracurricular activity as well as those whose experience never goes beyond the classroom.

One of the main reasons debate is so confusing is that debate is a little bit different to everyone. Even though there are certain ideas about debate which are fairly standard, there are other ideas about debate which are very controversial. Perspectives on these controversial ideas may vary from coach to coach or debater to debater in the activity.

Part of the fun of debate is figuring out where you stand on some of the more controversial ideas about the activity itself. As you learn more you may change your mind, then change it back again on any number of different issues (or, of course, you may not!). In any case, you will find yourself swept up in the chaos, trying to make some order for yourself and those with whom you come into contact in the activity.

One of the most interesting things about debate is that debaters often argue not only about issues in a round, but about the way those issues should be presented, discussed, and evaluated. In other words, debaters not only debate about issues, but about how they should debate!

A story about different attitudes toward debate...

One of my all time favorite questions is: "If it's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game, why do we keep score?

At tournaments, debaters from different schools often get together after rounds of competition are over. Many go out to dinner together. Frequently, tournaments will sponsor dances or other parties for debaters attending their competition.

At one such party, a large group of debaters were discussing their views on the activity, and what it meant to them. They discussed the importance of winning. Some stated that achieving recognition gave them a personal sense of satisfaction that made debating an activity worth pursuing.

Ultimately, one very successful debater essentially said: "Hey, let's not kid ourselves by saying that debate is something we do for our own education. It's also not something we do just for fun. Look at it this way, if there were no judge to decide the rounds, would you still invest your time and energy in debate?

A few of the debaters said no. For them, spending time and energy working on debating would be pointless if there were never anyone around to evaluate them on their efforts. A few of the debaters said yes. For them, debating was an activity they enjoyed doing, and the recognition they received for their successes (and yes, there were successful debaters in this group) was less relevant than the fun they actually had just debating.

Most of the debaters did not express an opinion in either direction. Many had never even really considered this issue before. Deciding what the activity meant to them would either become a new challenge to tackle or a new issue to avoid...

The point is: debate is more than just a way to improve vital skills such as listening, research, critical thinking, speaking, organization, and others. While it will improve those skills, debate is an activity which provides one a chance to explore yourself, especially in relation to other people and in a competitive environment.

CHAPTER TWO: THE ACTIVITY CALLED POLICY DEBATE

Before we look at the format of a debate, we can avoid a lot of confusion by thinking about what what happens in the activity itself.

Debate is local, regional, national, and, to some extent, an international activity. At this point debate is still very limited at the international level, so let's focus on debate within the United States. There is a national organization called the National Forensics League (like the National Football League, it's referred to as the NFL-- although it's less famous, it was around first!). The NFL recognizes two types of debate, Lincoln-Douglas (LD) debate, and Policy debate (also called team debate, cross-examination debate, or Oregon- style debate). This book teaches the second type-- policy debate.

Most schools, whether or not they are members of the NFL, agree to debate a single debate resolution (also called a topic) for the entire year. This debate resolution is announced each year in the spring for the following school year. Some debaters get started researching the resolution immediately. Some attend debate institutes which are one day to five week camps, usually hosted by high schools or colleges. Some debaters purchase handbooks of evidence. Some research on their own or with other people from their school. Others merely think a lot about the topic and what it means over the summer, and wait to start their real work until the fall.

For many debaters, tournament competition starts in the fall. Tournaments are literally held all over the country. Some involve only two nearby schools and are very informal. The largest tournments host schools from dozens of states around the country. As you might guess, the vast majority of tournaments are in the size range in between.

A tournament involves debates between teams of two persons, almost always from the same school. These two are called partners. Sometimes, partners will be changed from tournament to tournament-- the same person does not have to debate with the same other person for the entire year. However, generally speaking, partners must not be altered during a tournament. The person with whom one debates doesn't change during the course of the tournament.

A tournament schedule will usually be given to coaches and debaters at or before the registration. This schedule announces the planned events for the tournament. A schedule for a policy debate tournament might look like this:

The schedule outlined here is one of many possible ones for a tournament. Some tournaments are only one day. Some are three days. The NFL National Tournament is one week long! Tournaments have different time schedules and even different numbers of rounds. [Editor's note: local topurnaments in Vermont are only three rounds and follow the Saturday schedule above with the Awards Ceremony replacing Round Four.]

Tournaments are usually held at a host school (typically a high school or university). Debaters usually wait in a lobby or other central location for postings (also called pairings or schematics) to be released. The pairing may be distributed by tournament officials or merely posted on a wall for everyone to copy. Each two-person team from each school will be listed on that pairing. The pairing contains information for which team debates which other team, and in which room and sometimes, which judge is assigned to the debate.

Usually, the pairings for the first rounds of a tournament are decided in advance by the tournament officials. Teams from the same school are ordinarily not paired against one another, and some officals at national tournaments do their best to make sure teams from the same area do not debate each other, also. In any case, a sample pairing for a debate round might look like this:

In this pairing for Round One, teams have been designated to debate each other (with the exception of Manning TS, which, due to the odd number of teams, has drawn a bye, or a round off. Most tournaments count a bye as an automatic victory for the team which receives them. Barring unusual circumstances, a team will receive only one bye during a tournament.

In this pairing, teams have each received a code, of which they will have been notified before the tournament. In this case, the tournament officials have chosen to designate teams by their school name plus the first two letters of each person on the team's last name. For instance, Southside's team of BL (the first team designated to be negative) might stand for the lastnames Byron and Lance, whereas Southside has another team entered (Southside VT is the fifth team listed on the Affirmative side), and that might indicate partners of the last names Vernon and Tyler.

A debate round generally lasts about an hour and a half. It begins when both the affirmative and negative teams arrive, with whatever files they may have with them, in their respective rooms, and as soon as the judge arrives and asks the debaters to begin. We'll look at the format for a debate in the next chapter, but, as a quick preview, each debater will give two speeches. The speeches follow a designated pattern and are interrupted only by periods of cross-examination (questioning), and preparation time. Neither judges nor the other team are expected to interrupt a debater while they speak, and a judge will not typically ask questions of intervene during a round.

At the end of the debate, a judge may take some time to formulate his or her decision, then will usually fill out a ballot indicating whether they believe the affirmative or the negative team won the debate. Additionally, most tournaments require judges to rank the individual debaters in speaking ability as a seperate part of his or her decision. Sometimes a judge will disclose (make known) his or her decision after the debate round, and may even offer an oral critique or review of his or her evaluation of the debate. Many tournaments, however, have rules against this practice. Even those tournaments which do permit the disclosure of decisions immediately after a debate do not compel (force) judges to do this.

With very few exceptions, tournaments require teams to debate switch sides. In other words, teams must debate both sides of the resolution. This means that teams who were affirmative in Round One will most likely be affirmative in Round Two.

Many tournaments practice power-matching. This means that as the tournament progresses, those teams with the best records are matched against each other, those teams with mediocre records are matched against each other and those teams with poor records are matched against each other. If this practice were to begin in Round Three, for example, teams with 2-0 records (two wins and no losses) would debate each other. Teams with 1-1 records would debate each other, and teams with 0-2 records would debate each other also. This practice would continue through the sixth round.

At the completion of the sixth round in the case outlined above, the preliminary rounds of the tournament would be over. The preliminary rounds are those in which every team debates. Based on the results of the first six rounds, tournament officials determine those teams who will continue to debate in the elimination rounds. The elimination rounds constitute a "playoff" between the teams who had obtained the best records in the preliminary rounds, then the seeding process begins. The team with the best record is positioned in the top seed, and will debate the team with the worst record of those who have qualified for the elimination rounds (in this case, our tournament breaks or clears teams to quarterfinals, allowing eight slots for which the seventeen teams compete). The team with the next-best record will debate the team which is seeded sevents, and so on. Much like an athletic tournament would proceed, a bracket is then formulated for the progression of the elimination rounds.

For example, based on a prelimary round rating of the following (where record ties were broken by tournament officials in individual speaker evaluations on the basis of speaker point and speaker ranks), our list of teams clearing or breaking, might look like this:

It may well be that there were other teams who finished with a 4-2 record. Unfortunately, elimination round constructions usually only allow a limited number of teams. Thus, those teams who were not rated as highly individually are often referred to as those who missed on points, or who had sufficient records to break (clear) but whose individual speaker points were not quite high enough to qualify them for the elimination rounds.

In the elimination rounds, if one team "upsets" another (or defeats another of a higher seed), the victorious team then assumes the seed of the higher for one. For instance, if the eight seeded team in our tournaments (Southside BL) were to defeat the number one seeded team (Hyde SP) in the quarterfinals, they would assume the top seed for the rest of the tournament. In the semifinal debate, the first seeded team debates the fourth seeded team, so in our example, if Southside BL were to defeat Hyde SP, they would debate the winner of the quarterfinal round between the Vance AF and Tyler VF. This process is then continued until there are two teams left for the final round, then those two teams debate for the first place award at the tournament.

Usually held at the end of the tournament, an awards assembly recognizes the individual debaters and teams which have been judged to be the best. Most tournaments chose to recognize the individual debaters who have received the best speaker points and speaker ranks as assigned by judges during their debates. These awards are independent of the teams records. For example, a team may lose a debate but still receive higher points from the judge in the round for being better speakers than the other team. Just because a debater is an eloquent speaker does not mean they are always right.

Awards are also given to the teams that continue to advance throughout a tournament. Usually a tournament will recognize those debaters who have cleared and lost in their first elimination round. And then recognize those who lose in each round thereafter, until, after the final round, awards will be given to the team that places first and the team that comes in second. These awards may be trophies, plaques, or certificates. However, many tournaments have striven to be more creative in the awards they offer, giving away T-shirts, pen sets clocks, gavels, or other more practical items instead.

On any given weekend throughout the school year, debate tournaments will be taking places in different areas all over the country. Because many debaters choose to attend a large number of tournaments, debaters from different schools often debate each other frequently, and even become friends and rivals. Many debaters research positions or cases simply because they know they will come in handy against a certain team or teams that they wish to defeat. Others merely research when they choose on the topics they choose, essentially disregarding the positions and cases run frequently at the tournaments which they attend.

In fact, a large number of debaters who continue in the activity for many years form lasting friendship which continue long after their debate careers have ended. Many debaters name this factor as one of the key elements in their decision to continue to debate. The next chapter takes a brief look at the elements which may motivate an individual to chose debate as an extracurricular, not just a classroom activity.

CHAPTER THREE: THE FORMAT FOR A DEBATE?

The format for a policy debate is simple and logical.

Each debater gives two speeches-- a constructive and a rebuttal. Each debater is questioned after his or her constructive, and is assigned the primary responsiblility for cross-examining a debater from the opposition after their constructive. During speeches interruptions are not permitted, either by the judge or a member of the other team.

The policy debate process is as follows:

The rebuttal times listed above vary because, as of this writing, many high school tournaments followed the five minute rebuttal rule, while others followed the four minute rebuttal rule. Four used to be standard, but more and more tournaments have been moving to five minute rebuttal times. The reasons for this switch will hopefully become clear when we examine rebuttal strategies in a later chapter.

Preparation Time

The one vital element of a policy debate not included in the chart above is a fixed amount of preparation time for each time. Teams may use this preparation time at any point in the debate besides during speeches and cross examination periods, and the judge or a designated timekeeper will keep a running track of how much prep time has expired, and how much remains. Many tournaments allow each team 10 or 8 minutes preparation time, although some may allow 5 or even 3.

Teams rarely take preparation time before their opponents are scheduled to speak, since their opponents will usually use their prep time then, and since they wish to save their allocated prep until immediately before their speeches when they feel they need it most.

Cross-Examination

Cross examination is a period in which a debater from one team questions another. There are no real limits on the questions asked (aside from logical rules of common courtesy, such as not to interrupt or ramble excessively), and the questions should be pertinent to the arguments and evidence presented by the previous speaker.

The procedures for the order of cross-examination are simple and logical, like the debate process itself. Each speaker is questioned after her constructive speech, and the person who questions is the one who spoke previously. For example, when the first negative (1NC) is finished with her speech, the first affirmative, who spoke previously, will ask her questions for three minutes. After the first affirmative (1AC), since there was no previous speaker, the second negative (2NC) will ask questions.

The cross examination process is designed to favor those who speak next, by providing them with three "free" minutes of preparation time. Whenever two parties in the debate are involved in a cross-examination period, one of the other two will be the next speaker. For example, when the second negative constructive (2NC) cross examines the the first affirmative constructive (1AC), the first negative constructive (1NC) will be preparing to speak. Thus, the person who delivers the next speech is allowed three minutes to prepare during that time.

In a later chapter, we will look at the responsiblities of each member of the debate (the first affirmative, first negative, second affirmative, and second negative). In order to tackle those responsibilities, however, we must look at the basic theory behind debate first.

CHAPTER FOUR: TOPICALITY

Entire debates can be decided on the issue known as topicality And a debater who lacks a solid grasp of the fundamental theory of topicality will be lost until she solves that problem.

As explained in the previous unit, the national high school debate resolution is set for an entire year by a national council, and almost all policy high school debate tournaments will designate that resolution as the one which is to be debated at the tournament they host (usually, it is printed on the tournament invitiation to avoid any possible misunderstanding).

The format for a policy debate designates the team upholding the affirmative side of the resolution as the team with the first speech. In that speech, the affirmative team is expected to initiate a defense of the resolution. Policy debate resolutions are usually very broad in that they do not specify particular actions for the agent (remember, this is usually the Federal government or the United States). Therefore, affirmative teams commonly decide to isolate what they consider to be a major example or examples of the resolution as their particular plan and case.

While these are terms which will be more fully defined in the next chapter on affirmative case theory, you should understand that most debates focus on a particular action proposed by an affirmative team which they believe serve as an example of the resolution to be debated.

Topicality is the burden of the affirmative to abide by the resolution in choosing its plan. If an affirmative chooses to defend a plan which outlines a course of action which is not an example of the resolution, the negative may chose to topicality as an argument against an affirmative plan. In this instance, the negative argument is typically referred to as a topicality violation.

In this case, a typical negative topicality argument might choose to define a particular word in the topic (usually using a definition from an acceptable source such as a dicitionary or a well-known author in the field of research to which the topic pertains), then state the interpretation that this definition creates (that is, explain the meaning of the word as it relates to the resolution).

Next, the negative would argue that the manner in which the affirmative had chosen to argue the topic (that is, the specific example or examples that the affirmative had chosen to defend), does not comply with the interpretation the negative's definition gives the resolution. In other words, the negative would state that the affirmative's plan does not meet the interpretation offered, and therefore was not, in fact, an example of a topical case.

By far the prevalent belief today is that an affirmative plan which is ruled to be non- topical by the judge results in a loss for the affirmative team. The rational can be made very simply: if the affirmative does not debate the subject matter set forth in the resolution in the manner in which it was intended to be presented by those who fashioned the topic, they are not abiding by the rules of the game, and should lose the round. Therefore, topicality is commonly held to be a voting issue for the negative: if the negative is successful in proving that the affirmative is not topical, they win by default, since the affirmative has failed to ensure any debate about the resolution is able to take place.

Ocassionally an affirmative team will challenge the importance of topicality in a debate, especially in cases in which they can make it appear that they are pretty close to what the resolution intended the teams to debate. In fact, some affirmative teams can be very persuasive as to why topicality arguments which are just picky word games designed for an "easy win" by the negative should not be considered. These and other arguments about the importance of topicality are considered in a later chapter.

Affirmative teams usually chose to respond directly to the topicality violation or violations offered by the negative. In responding to topicality arguments, affirmatives will often offer counterdefinitions, or alternative definitions of terms of the resolution. This is useful for affirmative teams who may have a slightly different definition of a term than the negative definition, but only in situations where the difference in the definitions suggests an alternative interpretation (counterinterpretation) which would include the affirmative's plan.

Look at it this way: it is certainly possible to disagree as to whether or not a certain policy proposal (affirmative plan) falls within the boundaries of the resolution. The negative may offer a definition of a term in the resolution, then argue that the affirmative does not meet that term in the resolution, and that the affirmative team should lose. The affirmative, in responding, may provide an alternate definition which allows them to argue that they are topical under a counterinterpretation of that term.

When this happens (as it quite frequently does), the debaters must resolve the question of which teams' interpretation of the resolution is actually superior. This is done through debate about the grammatical context of the term in the resolution, or about the effect of the interpretations on the ability of the topic to be debated fairly by each side. More about standards for topicality (criteria which allow a comparison of interpretations), is presented in more advanced chapters.

Of course, if the affirmative belives that the negative is in error when they argue that the affirmative plan violates their interpretation (that is, if the affirmative believes that their plan actually does meet the negative's interpretation), then at least one of their arguments should be an explanation to that effect.

CHAPTER FIVE: AFFIRMATIVE CASE THEORY

As the previous chapter details, it is the duty of the affirmative team to uphold or defend the resolution. Since policy debate resolutions are ordinarily worded in a very broad fashion, it is now generally held acceptable for the affirmative to isolate a specific example of the resolution in order to narrow discussion.

Policy debate resolutions usually include an agent of action (or agent), followed by the word "should," then state the area for discussion. Almost all high school and college resolutions in the past two or three decades have followed this formula. Most have started with "Resolved, that the United States should...", or "Resolved, that the Federal Government should..." In these examples, the Federal Government or United States is the agent of action, and whatever comes after the word should is the area for discussion.

Since policy debate resolutions typically include the word should, it is generally held that affirmatives are required to prove that action is necessary in the particular area in question. An affirmative defense of a policy which already exists is usually not held to be legitimate, since such a strategy would not be fulfilling the affirmative's obligation to prove that the agent (usually the United States or the Federal Government), should do something.

Thus, the affirmative is required to defend some change in the agent's current position or positions on the issue which the resolution call into question.

The example of this resolutional change which the affirmative team chooses to isolate and defend is called the affirmative case (or case). The specific proposal that the affirmative makes regarding this subject area is known as the affirmative plan (or plan).

Affirmative teams usually run (argue) only one plan and case in a round. Many affirmative teams run the same plan and case for the entire year in debate, making only slight modifications in their arguments defending the case, and updating its evidentiary support. It is perfectly legitimate, however, for a team to run a new case in any given round. Some teams have run several different cases throughout the course of the year. Some have even prepared four or five new cases for a single tournament, and run a different case in each debate. On most topics, certain affirmative cases become popular, and many teams will run that same case (each, of course, with its own evidence and variations).

Generally speaking, it is the ultimate responsibility of the affirmative to prove that their case is indeed an example of the resolution (sometimes negatives will challenge this point), and, furthermore, that their case is net beneficial, or more advantageous, than the course which the negative defends (usually the United States or Federal Government's current approach to the area which the resolution addresses).

The affirmative's case usually operates under the assumption that the negative will defend the agent's current approach to the topic area, and proceeds to introduce their defense of their plan in their case structure. Affirmative cases may isolate a number of different advantages to the implementation of their plan over the present system in order to prove that their plan is better.

Proving their advantages requires proving three things: that their chosen area of the topic to address is, in fact, not being adequately dealt with currently (inherency); that the problems created by the current inadequate policies are important (significance); and that the plan which they present is, in fact, a better solution to the problem or problems which they isolate (solvency).

Because these three issues are the major elements of an affirmative case, we will deal with them each seperately and extensively.

1. Inherency

Inherency used to be one of the most important and heated areas of discussion in any debate. For reasons which will become clear in a later chapter on advanced theory, it is rarely even argued by many teams anymore. However, in many areas it remains a critical issue for any affirmative. In any case, an affirmative which is clearly not inherent is not on safe ground.

The reason should be obvious. Inherency essentially means that the affirmative's plan (or something reasonably similar) is not being done or will not be done by the present system. For the affirmative to argue that United States should do something it has already done is usually considered to be irrelevant. For that reason, an affirmative which cannot prove that it's proposed change is in fact not already in place has reason to worry about the validity of its claim. The real "bottom line" reason that the plan (or some reasonably similar policy) is not being implemented is also referred to as the core motive. The core motive for inherency usually falls into one of three catagories.

The first, structural inherency, claims that something tangible, (a law, for example) is prohibiting their plan from going into effect, and therefore the present system will not do their plan, even though it should (presumably part of their proposed plan would then, of course have to propose overturning the law).

Attitudinal inherency, the second classification, has also been recognized as a key reason why an agent may not be pursuing a policy. For example, if the affirmative wanted to propose a tax cut, they might argue that the current political party in power is categorically opposed to a tax cut, and that therefore for the forseeable future their plan will not occur. Their plan would then propose that such a tax cut would be adopted.

Existential inherency, the third classification, is the catch-all for any kind of affirmative inherency claims which do not fit into one of the above. Usually affirmatives which cannot really isolate any particular reason their plan is not in effect will claim that their inherency is existential. If their plan is a fairly radical change which has not even been considered as a policy proposal (for example, banning the use of cars in the United States), they might successfully and persuasively argue that their plan is indeed inherent for existential reasons without being able to document the present system's opposition to their plan.

It is important to recognize that in many areas these terms are not used anymore. Again, however, in many areas they are still very important. In the areas where inherency debates do not become as sophisticated as the above terminology indicates, inherency is still a necessary element of any first affirmative case.

2. Significance

Also referred to as harms, significance refers to the problems that are created as a result of the lack of action by the present system. An affirmative might isolate several different types of harms which are created by inaction, but some proof of harms are necessary elements of an affirmative case. After all, what would it matter that the affirmative had proven that the present system was not enacting the affirmative plan if there were no reason to enact such a proposal. If the affirmative cannot prove there is something wrong with the present system's inaction, it has no case for change.

Harms come in many different shapes and sizes. Some affirmative cases have been known for attempting to isolate a very minute harm (such as inconsistency in the law), and others have claimed that the lack of action in a current area is sure to result in a nuclear war, economic recession and environmental apocalypse very soon.

There are two basic types of harms, although distinguishing between them is often not useful.

Qualitative significance refers to harms which are intangible and can't be counted. For example, if a group of people is discriminated against by a particular government policy, the effect of their displeasure cannot be counted and is not tangible. However, the number of people who feel that displeasure can be counted, and that aspect of the harm would be quantitative. Quantitative significance requires harms which can be counted, for example, the loss of $20 million dollars a year from the Federal budget would be tangible and countable.

Like the distinction between the types of inherency, this distinction is somewhat unclear, and has fallen into disuse in many areas for that reason.

However, like the issue of inherency, significance remains a fundamental element of any first affirmative case, and an affirmative team which cannot prove significance will have difficulty winning debate rounds. For reasons which we shall examine later, cases with greater amounts of significance are not necessarily more successful than those with smaller amounts of significance. In other words, significance may not be a "bigger is better" issue.

3. Solvency

Solvency is what it sounds. The affirmative, after isolating a problem in inherency, proving the harmful effects of the problem in significance, must propose a means to actually solve that problem which falls within the scope of the resolution. The plan, as discussed above, is that proposed solution, and the plan is the basis for solvency.

The affirmative, in their solvency position, will attempt to prove that the adoption of their plan would result in a substantial or complete solution to the problems described in inherency and significance.

Entire debates can hinge on an affirmative's solvency. If negatives can prove that the affirmative's plan actually has little effect on the current situation, then the extent of the harms and their inherent nature in the present system is irrelevant. The mere existence of some harms does not necessarily mean that an affirmative plan should be implemented. If that plan cannot solve the problem, why bother?

In some cases, negative teams even argue successfully that the affirmative plan would actually worsen a problem instead of solving it. Obviously, no judge would actually vote for a plan that makes a problem worse, so affirmatives need to be especially wary of these kinds of attacks. A full explanation of these issues, along with presentation of their appropriate terminology is undertaken in the next chapter.

Since we have briefly but thoroughly examined the three basic issues involved in the affirmative case, it is time to turn our attention to the negative strategy for attacking affirmatives.

CHAPTER SIX: FUNDAMENTAL NEGATIVE THEORY

Many of the potential attacks which the negative may choose to employ can be inferred from the analysis of the affirmative's arguments above.

In a typical debate round, the negative may defend a course of no change. Whenever the negative chooses this strategy, they are said to be defending the present system or the status quo. In other words, the negative's position in such a debate would be that the course of action (or inaction, as the case may be) to which the Federal government or the United States currently subscribes is better than the action proposed by the affirmative. There are instances in which a negative team may chose not to defend that status quo, but those will be discussed in a later chapter.

When the negative defends the status quo, it is generally held that the negative team maintains presumption in the debate. In other words, it is the job of the affirmative to justify why we should make a change in the present system. If the judge cannot decide whether or not change is warranted because he or she belives the debate is simply too close to call, many argue that he or she should vote negative "on presumption." The rational for presumption is simply that we know what we have right now, and change brings uncertainty and risk.

One way a negative may win a debate is to prove that the affirmative is really not an example of the resolution at all. A negative who chooses to argue that the affirmative plan is not topical is arguing that the plan that the affirmative argues is not really an example of the resolution, and therefore does not justify an affirmative ballot, even if it is a good idea. Many people draw the analogy of a court or administrator who would like to give a hearing to a particular idea, but is forbidden to simply because that idea is outside of his or her jurisdiction.

Note this well: topicality is a procedural issue, which is not to be mixed together with substantive issues in the debate. If a negative successfully proves that the affirmative really is not an example of the resolution, that is ordinarily sufficient justification for a judge to vote negative, since there is nothing in the debate to provide the judge a reason to vote affirmative. Indeed, the affirmative may win every other substantitive issue in the debate, but lose on topicality.

Another way a negative might win would be to argue that the affirmative's plan of action, rather than being a better course of action than the one which currently exists, would actually cause the problems that the affirmative isolates in their case to become worse. In most instances, when a negative team is able to prove that an affirmative's approach toward a particular problem would actually worsen that problem, it wins the debate. This strategy is known as the case-turn, because the negative has successfully "turned-around" the affirmative case by showing that their plan would make the problem worse than it already is.

Yet another strategy a negative might employ to win a debate would be to argue that even though the affirmative is able to isolate some benefits of their proposal, their proposal would cause some harmful side effects which would actually be worse than the problem they are attempting to remedy. Negative side-effects which affirmative plans cause are known as disadvantages, and when the disadvantages to a plan presented by the negative outweigh the advantages to the plan presented by the affirmative, the negative usually wins the debate. On the other hand, if the negative proves that the affirmative plan yields disadvantages without proving denying the affirmative case, and the affirmative advantages outweigh those disadvantages, the affirmative will usually win the debate.

Since the issues of inherency, solvency, and significance are explained in the chapter prior to this one, it will be assumed that the negative potential for attacking the affirmative case directly is understood. Therefore, the rest of this chapter deals primarily with disadvantage theory-- how the negative goes about proving that the affirmative plan will actually create harmful sideeffects.

Like the affirmative case, there are three essential elements of any disadvantage, although there are many other terms associated with disadvantages which all, in one way or another, stem from these three basic elements.

The first of these three elements is uniqueness. Uniqueness states that the present system prevents a certain harmful side-effect from occuring, or simply that such a bad effect will not happen in the status quo. This element of a disadvantage is vital because if the affirmative can prove that certain bad consequences will occur anyway, it is irrelevant if their plan actually causes them to occur or not. In that case, the affirmative would be arguing that the disadvantage was non-unique.

There are different versions of uniqueness which may be necessary to distinguish between, and we will discuss those different types of uniqueness after we study the two elements of disadvantages.

The second essential element of a disadvantage is the link. The link, as it sounds, states the reasons why the affirmative plan would cause a certain harmful side-effect to occur. Their may be several links necessary to prove the ultimate harmful side-effect of the disadvantage (that is, the negative may argue that the affirmative sets in motion a chain of related events that eventually leads to something very bad). Some disadvantages become very intricate in their explanation of links if they are attempting to prove some far- removed harmful effect.

However many steps or internal links to a disadvantage there are, disadvantages typically end with an ultimate impact. An impact is a delineation of the actual ultimate outcome of the harmful side-effect. In other words, it is an explanation of the importance of the harmful side-effect which the affirmative creates.

Some disadvantages create intricate scenarios in which the entire disadvantage rests on a number of links which all rest on different levels of uniqueness. In other words, a disadvantage which relies on multiple internal links may conceivably be more vulnerable to uniqueness arguments, since each level of the link may be argued by the affirmative to be non-unique, or a phenomenon that is likely to occur anyway.

On the other hand, disadvantages with such multiple links usually end up with greater impacts than those which keep the internal links to a minimum. Generally speaking, the more internal links a disadvantage has, the less unique it will be and the more impact it will have.

There are some other issues that disadvantages face which are frequently debated, and are related to the ones discussed above. Many disadvantages, for example, employ the idea of a threshold or brink to their internal links and even their impacts. In other words, the negative may argue that while the affirmative's effect is not very great, the present system has created a situation in which the risk of a certain side-effect occuring is very great, and one more plan like the affirmative's would be just what could push the present system over the brink and cause that negative side-effect to happen. Affirmatives often respond to such disadvantages with reasons why some other trend or proposal in the present system will be likely to carry the present system over the brink anyway, taking out the uniqueness to the disadvantage. Brinks or thresholds do help the negative establish a higher element of risk that the side-effect may acutally occur, but they also expose the negative to potential risk-reducing arguments by the affirmative that the brink makes the disadvantage non-unique.

Linear disadvantages are essentially the opposite of the threshold or brink disadvantages, claiming that uniqueness is much less important. A linear disadvantage would concede that a certain amount of impact is occuring now due to policies like the affirmative which are occuring in the present system. The negative linear disadvantage would then argue that the affirmative only makes the problem that much worse by adding another plan that would continue the negative side-effect. This type of disadvantage is strong in that it allows the negative to worry less about uniqueness and argue that the negative side-effect is definite and proven based on current policies. However, the affirmative usually attacks such disadvantages by arguing that the small increase in harm that they might create is worth the risk given the magnitude of their advantages.

There are other arguments that affirmatives may make against disadvantages, just as there are other arguments that negatives may make against cases, but these chapters on fundamental theory have provided a brief outline of those issues. It is now time to examine the parallels between affirmative case advantages and negative disadvantages, and how a judge usually attempts to "weigh" a debate.

CHAPTER SEVEN: COMPARING ELEMENTARY THEORY

This chapter should begin to draw together basic affirmative theory and basic negative theory and allow you to compare the two. Additionally, it will enable you to see how comparisons are made between the affirmative's position and the negative's position at the end of the debate. What you learned in the last two chapters may not make sense to you yet, but that's okay. If, however, you do not feel more comfortable with the meaning of the terms involved and the way we make comparisons between affirmative and negative after completing this chapter, you should seek help directly from your instructor.

At the heart of policy debate is the fact that there is a fundamental parallel between affirmative and negative issues and affirmative and negative burdens of proof.

An affirmative case essentially tries to prove three things with its three burdens:

For every harm (element of significance) that the affirmative claims to solve, it may claim an advantage from solving that harm.

While the negative attacks whatever elements of the affirmative case it decides to challenge ( possibly none, but usually at least one), it may simultaneously present one or more disadvantages to the affirmative plan. In these disadvantages, it argues that the affirmative plan in fact creates harmful side-effects. It does this in three elements as well:

If you cannot already see a parallel, consider this:

In other words, affirmative inherency is like negative disadvantage uniqueness. In their inherency, the affirmative argues that there is a problem which will exist without their plan. In their uniqueness for a disadvantage, the negative argues that there will not be a problem without the affirmative plan.

Affirmative significance is like negative disadvantage impact. Affirmatives in their significance argue that the problem they demonstrate in inherency is bad. Negatives in their disadvantage impacts argue that the problem, if it were to come about, would be bad.

Affirmative solvency is like negative disadvantage links. While the affirmative argues that their plan would solve a problem. Negatives argue that the affirmative plan would actually cause a problem.

Remember, disadvantages do not talk about the same harm as the affirmative case. Negative arguments which answer harms of the affirmative case are actually case arguments, and should be kept seperate from the issue of whether or not the affirmative plan actually creates an unanticipated harm.

Debate's "bottom line"

One of the most frequently asked questions by persons viewing a debate for the first time is "How does the judge decide who wins?" While there are many different possible answers to that question depending on one's judging philosophy, the most common and most basic model for deciding policy debates is one which has already begun to be laid out in this chapter.

The easy answer to the question "how does a judge decide who wins the round?" is that he or she decides whether the disadvantages to the affirmative's plan outweigh the advantages of its implementation, and then votes accordingly. If the affirmative would actually cause more impactful or significant harm than it would be able to solve, a judge would decide that the negative team had won the debate. If, on the other hand, the affirmative team had proven that their plan would actually result in the prevention of more harms that it caused, the judge would likely vote affirmative.

This seems logical, and in theory it is, but in practice its sometimes very difficult for a judge to decide if the likelihood of certain harms outweighs the likelihood of being able to solve certain other harms. These comparisons often reflect the decisions policy makers must face in the real world (questions such as, how much money can the government afford to spend on a program to protect rights of women in the workforce as opposed to spending that money on another worthy endeavor such as AIDS research).

By now, you should have enough of an understanding of the basic issues in a debate that you will be ready to practice debate with other students, if you have not already done so. Now might be good time to go back and review the format for a debate, and to start to think about issues relevant to whatever case you may wish to debate.

CHAPTER EIGHT: BASIC ARGUMENTATION TERMINOLOGY (BAT)

Debate is designed as a series of speeches alternating between affirmative and negative (with the exception of the 2NC and the INR, which are two negative speeches in a row-- this is called the negative block). In most cases, speakers are expected to refute (respond to) the arguments of the opposing speaker before them (in the case of the 1AR, then, the speech is expected to respond to both the 2NC and the 1NR).

In constructives, arguments are initiated-- those issues which both sides view as potentially important to the round are delivered. In turn, the opposing side responds with answers (replies) to an argument which the other side offers. In constructives, then, each side runs (delivers or presents) its own arguments and the arguments which it will use to respond to its opponents' arguments.

Cross-examination periods (which occur between constructives) are used primarily for clarification of the issues. In other words, the questioner may ask to view a particular card (piece of evidence, usually in the form of a quotation) from the other team. The questioner may also ask about the arguments that the particular speaker made. More rules and etiquette for cross examination are explained in a later chapter.

In rebuttal periods, arguments are only allowed which extend arguments made in the constructive speeches. Generally speaking, no new arguments are allowed in the rebuttals. (One notable exception to this rule occurs when the 2NC runs a new argument. In this case, 1AR must respond with new arguments, since the 2AC did not have an opportunity to even know about the argument).

Rebuttals are, therefore, for clarification of the arguments made previously. Rebuttalists will usually choose to omit those arguments they perceive as inconsequential to the ultimate outcome of the debate. Rebuttalists will also make strategic choices, including which arguments to extend, which arguments to drop, and which arguments to kick out (or concede in a way that prevents the other team from capitalizing on the concession). As well, rebuttalists face key issues of time allocation, or how much time to spend on one argument as opposed to another. Finally, the ultimate duty of the rebuttalists, especially in the last two speeches (2NR and 2AR) is to explain to the judge why they should receive the win in the debate.

Rarely does a debate occur in which a team wins every single argument in the debate. "You win some, you lose some" is an expression which applies perfectly to the debate process. The rebuttalists' job is to convince the judge that the arguments which they are losing are few and don't really matter as much as the arguments which they are winning. Weighing the issues, also called weighing the round, is the name for this procedure. This often involves weighing the risks of different claims actually being true, and examining what the implications of all the combined risks are. For this reason, the process is also sometimes referred to as risk analysis or cost-benefit analysis.

Debaters are expected to cover, or respond to the major points covered by the other team in their previous speech. When a debater does not cover an argument, it is said to be dropped, and a team may choose to point to this out the judge. The opposition may even argue that it amounts to a concession of the argument. However, the team which has dropped the argument may attempt to argue that another argument which that speaker made actually answers the argument, even though that speaker did not specifically make reference to it. If the team that dropped the argument in its next speech in fact point out another argument which they believes answers the one they dropped, they may say that the argument cross-applies to the one which was dropped. Different judges provide different degrees of leniency to cross-applications, depending on the circumstances (for example, a judge may wish to consider whether or not the cross-application of the argument was sufficiently obvious so that everyone in the round should have recognized it as such.

When a speaker believes that a certain number of consecutive arguments may by the opposition are repetitive and can be sufficiently answered by the same refutations, that speaker may chose to group that set of arguments. Grouping is a frequently used tactic. In some cases it is appropriate, in others, debaters may attempt to group arguments then find out later that one or more of the arguments they included in their grouping were independent, that is, they were not contingent on the same set of assumptions that the other arguments used.

Whenever a speaker continues an argument which had been initiated in a previous speech (usually answering the arguments that the opposition made against their own argument), they are extending that argument. When they make additional arguments which elaborate on the original structure of the argument, they are making extension arguments. These are occassionally called second-line arguments, since they are the second wave of arguments relating to the larger issue itself. When, in the course of extending an argument, they make reference to a specific argument from the original argument structure, they may be said to be pulling an argument, for reasons which will become obvious after our chapter on flowsheeting, which is the process of keeping track of the arguments in a debate.

Since they are the first speeches of the debate, the 1AC and the 1NC may never be said to be extending, or pulling arguments. There are no previous arguments by their side which they may extend or pull! 1NC may, however, choose to group parts of the 1AC, and he may choose to cross apply arguments from a previous part of his speech in order to answer another portion of the 1AC if he feels that those same arguments also apply to that part.

CHAPTER NINE: FLOWING

What is flowing?

Flowing is the informal name for the notetaking process in debate. Although there are many different variations on the general flowing theme, this chapter will broadly describe the specifics involved in the flowing process.

Flowing is evidence that academic debate is much more structured than any other form of debate. Good academic debate follows a careful and recognized pattern for signposting arguments, so that each speaker and the judge in the debate is able to follow the organized refutation of arguments throughout the debate.

Why flowsheet?

Why is flowsheeting necessary to keep track of the arguments? The best reason is that there are usually more arguments brought up in a debate than one person is inclined to be able to remember. Furthermore, when these arguments are responded to, and when there are responses to those responses (and so on!), it sometimes becomes difficult to focus on the issue. Sometimes debaters who do not flow well will lose sight of an argument which had been made three speeches earlier, and may go off on tangent of thought. These cases are a perfect example of not seeing the forest for the trees!

A debater who makes her speech without any clear sense of the organization of the arguments in the debate will be very difficult to flow if her responses to the arguments appear to be in a random order. For example, if the first thing she says in her speech answers the fifth of seven major arguments by the last speaker and the rest of her responding and extending follows a random order, the speech will make much less sense than if the debater were to follow the flow, answering the arguments of the previous speech in the order in which they were presented.

How to flow

Most debaters find it easiest to flow on long legal pads (8 1/2" x 14"). A few flow on considerable larger material, such as large art pads, while some are comfortable flowing on regular 8 1/2" x 11" size paper. Debaters often argue about which pens are best for flowing, some almost superstitiously swearing by a particular brand, others expressing no preference whatsoever.

In any case, since debate is a progression of speeches, paper is roughly divided into columns according to the number of speeches (8), with one major exception: the negative block, which consists of two negative speeches in a row (2NC and 1NR), should be flowed in one column. There are two reasons for this: first, it is generally expected that the arguments touched upon by the 2NC will not be again dealt with by the 1NR; second, since 1AR must respond to both the 2NC and the 1NR, putting them into consecutive columns would break the logical sequence of responding to arguments. Think about it this way: why would one put 1NR next to the 2NC since, even though the 1NR immediately follows the 2NC, she does not respond to the 1NR-- they are on the same team. Remember this simple rule if you are confused: for flowing purposes, treat the 2NC and the 1NR as the same speech, even though they are different speeches given by different debaters.

Visualizing the flowsheeting concept, then, a page divided by speeches, without any arguments written down, would look something like this.

As a debate takes place, the arguments of the person speaking are written in the column designated for that person. If the debater is following the flow, they will verbally make the other debaters and the judge aware of the argument to which they are responding. Everyone flowing the debate will then turn, on their flows, to that argument, and begin writing the arguments of that speaker in the area of the flow next to the argument to which the debater is responding.

To oversimplify, consider a situation in which an affirmative team stated its first affirmative case in four contentions, and the first negative speaker answered each one of the affirmative contentions with three arguments, and also chose to present one topicality argument and one disadvantage to the affirmative plan. Then, the second affirmative speaker answered the case arguments, grouping some, conceeding others, and then made five arguments against both the topicality argument and the disadvantage.

Later we will examine the necessity to allow sufficient room for the development of arguments by putting major arguments on different sheets of paper. This flow, for example, should probably occupy at least six sheets of paper, rather than the three which are depicted here. Remember, this is an oversimplification in which arguments are represented by "x'"-- these "x's" would actually be the arguments as they were stated in the debate.

Keeping these things in mind, the flow of the debate would look something like this after three speeches.

There are seven important points which may be made to conclude this first lesson on flowing:

First, as a general rule, do not attempt to flow on the back of your paper. Using only the front will avoid any confusion about which arguments are which later in a debate

Second, there is no standard requirement for the number of arguments a particular speaker must have in response to another. There are times when a debater may be confident that one answer is enough to suffice, but there may be times when a debater feels that there are a great number of arguments which they could reasonably offer as responses to a particular argument.

Third, there are times when "grouping arguments" is believed by a debater to be an appropriate strategy. In this case, the second affirmative has chosen to group arguments made by the first negative on both contention two and contention three. Grouping arguments may be done at any time in debate by a speaker, but is only appropriate as a strategy when the arguments being grouped can truly be answered together.

Fourth, there are certain symbols which are used to chart arguments on the flow. These symbols are the choice of an individual, but the ones depicted here are fairly standard. When arguments are designed to answer other arguments, a line is drawn the column in which those arguments fall to the other arguments. When arguments are grouped, a line or a bracket is drawn to the right of those arguments which are being grouped prior to a horizontal line being drawn to the responsive arguments.

However, when an entire set of arguments are being grouped, you may not feel this to be necessary. For example, no vertical lines was drawn next to the topicality argument or disadvantage even though the second affirmative grouped them. In this case, it is obvious that the arguments belong together, and one expects them to be grouped in most cases.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, a debater does not always have to proceed "down the flow." Instead, a debater may chose to answer the arguments in a different order than they were presented and written down. In this case, a debater may notify the judge and their opponents of their intent to do so. Most judges will not deduct this roadmapping from the speaker's time, but a few will, so a debater should always be on gaurd against this possibility. Roadmapping is merely announcing the order in which one will handle an arguments one is covering. For instance, the second affirmative speaker in this debate may have announced: "I will first answer the negative topicality argument, then I will proceed through the case arguments, and I will conclude with some answers to the disadvantage." This order would probably be different from the one in which the first negative speaker had presented the arguments.

Sixth it is most important to remember that the second negative constructive and the frist negative rebuttalist is treated as one speech for the purpose of flowing. In other words, the next two speeches, which are negative, would be flowed in the column following the second affirmative constructive.

In many cases (and this book will advise you to follow this strategy as a general rule), the negative will begin all its major arguments in the first negative constructive. This would mean that the next two negative speeches would be choosing to extend on those arguments. While they may not chose to extend every single argument, the negative team would "divide up" the arguments to extend. For example, in this debate, the second negative constructive speaker might elect to extend the topicality argument and some of the case argument, and the first negative rebuttalist would spend her entire speech extending the disadvantage argument.

Seventh, this progression of argument tracking would continue throughout the rest of the debate, with each speaker in turn referencing the particular argument they wish to refute or extend based on its position on the flow sheet.

Good flowing takes lots of practice, and everyone will develop their own shorthand notation systems and abbreviations. Those who write larger will find that they need more room to keep their arguments from bleeding together. Some will write in script, while others find printing more legible and rapid. There are many other variations as well. Everyone's flow looks different, and everyone's experience with flowing is different. However, learning how to flow well is essential to learning to debate well, for one who cannot keep track of the logical progression of arguments in a debate is obviously at a strategic disadvantage to the opponent who can.

CHAPTER TEN: RESEARCH AND PREPARATION

Overview

For serious debaters, there is no end to the amount of research and preparation which can be done for a debate. There are a very small number of debaters who make researching and preparing for debate tournaments the number one priority in their lives. For these people, researching and preparing for debate tournaments may consume 20 or more hours each week. At the extreme, some debaters expend over 60 hours each week on debate.

However, these cases are extremely rare, and such extensive preparation and research is not even encouraged. By far the majority of debaters spend less than five hours a week in research and preparation for their tournaments. Nevertheless, it is a critical element of learning to debate well. As you might imagine, those debaters who attempt to participate with little or no preparation whatsover are at an extreme strategic disadvantage.

If you are fortunate enough to be using this text as part of an organized classroom effort, chances are you are not only afforded time to do research and preparation as part of your grade in the class, you also will benefit from the research and preparation which other members of your team or your class are doing. In these situations, the amount of research and preparation required by a single individual may be drastically reduced.

Still, the number of possible sources for research and documentation about any particular debate resolution is virtually limitless, and one can never claim to have exhausted the possibilities. For this reason, it is necessary for one to focus one's research and preparation in a particular area. This often involves guesswork, but there are some clues one can take as to where to begin one's search for topic-related material.

Preparation involves the processing of the research one does into a usable form. There are several acceptable forms for processing documentation, and this chapter will present one which the author has found to work quite well.

The information in this chapter should be used merely as a "jumping off" point, however, There are many different research and evidence organization styles. In fact, there are arguable as many different styles as there are teams, for each debater and their partner will "customize" their evidence in small ways. Just keep in mind that the suggestions made in this chapter are general guidelines and not hard-and-fast-rules.

Researching the Topic

Research involves locating and retrieving information that is useful in supporting one's positions. Useful information is usually printed, published material from credible sources. What constitutes a credible source is a highly debateable issue, and there are no exact sources. However, it is safe to say that a debater producing evidence of brutal four- headed purple invaders from Mars which he acquired from a supermarket tabloid is guilty of introducing evidence that is not credible.

On the other hand, daily newspapers, periodicals, journals, and most books are examples of sources which are generally and reasonably accepted as legitimate places from which one may extract evidence. Another underused source of information which is generally perceived as being very credible are the thousands of government documents which are printed each year. These may be reports from government agencies or transcripts of Congressional testimony. On certain topics, debaters have even found court cases extremely fine sources of evidence.

At present, NFL rules forbid the use of evidence from unpublished sources such as leaflets, unless such publications are widely distributed and readily recognized for their availability among the forensics community. An example of this type of research source would be a topic survey done by a University debate professor and mailed to all high schools across the nation which are members of the NFL.

There are a number of very strict rules of evidence which are sometimes more closely followed than others, and these shall be discussed in a later chapter on ethics in debate. For now, however, we shall focus on the general techniques for locating and retrieving credible evidence.

Where to start-- what to research?

The answer to these questions depends to a large extent on what type of information your school's debate program has gained access to in the period prior to your research. If, for example, your school has debaters who attended summer forensics institutes, those persons can tell you about the types of affirmative cases, negative case arguments, disadvantages, etc. which were being run over the summer.

If not, you may have access to a number of handbooks on the topic, which are guides to direct quotation on issues that their editors believe will be widely run on the topic. Those issues which are in the handbooks are always among the ones run, since the handbooks not only guess what will be run, but also define what will be run to some extent.

If, on the other hand, you have access to neither of these sources, you will need to start (as everyone does when the topic is first announced) by braintstorming on the topic. This means that you need to define what the topic means (including what others may construe it to mean if there are more than one major interpretation possible). Your next step is to define areas of subject matter which you believe are pertinent to the resolution. Be as general as possible, and make a list of those terms. Do not limit yourself at all. Brainstorm with others when possible, listing as many possible related ideas and terms as you can think of, and not rejecting any. Also, avoid the use of limiting terms which are likely to lead you to exclude some potentially creative and useful insights for the topic.

If you do already have access to topic information, you may wish to explore new areas of the topic, or attempt to acquire better or more recent evidence than that which has been presented to you formerly. If so, you will need to make your own brainstorming list, possibly in more specific terms since you may wish your search limited to a particular subject matter.

Sometimes the library is helpful in assisting brainstorming efforts. For example, in the course of your topic research, you may come across new terms or terms which you had not anticipated encountering, or terms that you simply forgot to list. When this happens, even more possibilities for research are opened up.

Depending on the purpose of your trip, you may want to explore those options. If your trip to the library has very specifically defined parameters (for example, if your intent in going to the library is to research a single affirmative case idea), it is better to write down or make a photocopy of some of the related terms you find in order to follow-up on later-- at some point, debaters have to "stick to their" guns in the library to avoid spending all their time collecting evidence on unrelated issues.

However, if you intent in going to the library is merely to delve into the topic at the beginning of the year, you should consider yourself much more willing to be led down whatever areas of the topic the library may lead you.

Library tips

Public and high school libraries are almost always too small to be helpful, and you may wind up becoming frustrated at the lack of material they actually have (their current "holdings"). However, even when they do not have the actual material you want to find, they might have the indexes you need to use to look up the citations for articles which you can then find in other places. Going to a major library with a list of citations in hand which you wish to acquire will make your trip much more worthwhile-- there is no point in spending your valuable time at a major library looking up citations which you may obtain locally. More about finding citations using indexes and catalogs.

If you can, access a college or university library. First, however, ascertain their check-out policy re books and periodicals and apply for a card if necessary and you feel you will be coming back frequently.

At the library, allow yourself lots of time to find the material you want and need. Generally speaking, quick library searches are not especially productive. For in-depth research, an hour is almost never enough, and even two hours is a small amount of time. It may even take an hour just to get together a list of articles and/or books which you wish to find! Finally, allow yourself time to photocopy any articles or portions of articles and books in which you believe you will locate good evidence. Be sure to take money to the library. Again generally speaking, libraries will not allow you to check-out periodicals, so any article you find which is of interest to you will be one you need to photocopy. This can get expensive, so don't count on just bringing some pocket change.

Finding citations

Once in the library, look for both books and periodicals. Of course, the right books and magazine articles will not fly out of the shelves at you, nor will all the material be in one place. For that reason, it is necessary to locate the citations you need before you go directly to the locations of the books and articles. You can find the citations by starting in the reference section of the library.

The reference section contains directories, indexes, and catalogs useful in finding the material.

For periodicals, indexes are widely available. Indexes list, by subject, all the articles published in certain periodicals over a period of time. The most common and most popular of these, the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature, lists articles from many of the nation's major newpapers, along with all the major news digests, and many quarterly editorial publications as well. All of the major newspapers have their own indexes, though, and these list all of their articles, not just the major ones. There are also some more obscure indexes, such as the Alternative Press Index, which indexes only periodicals from a certain side of the political spectrum. For very sophisticated searchers, there is also the Social Sciences Citation Index, which not only lists the articles by subject, but all the articles quoted in that article.

When researching using the indexes, be sure to be aware of the various related words that can be used to describe the same subject matter. Especially when one is researching at very broad levels of the topic, related word searches are almost always necessary in order to get a full scan of the relevant material. For example, if one is looking for articles related to defense, one might also check under weapons, military, national security, armaments, etc.

The same cross-referencing principals hold true when one is looking for books also. When looking for books, the principal source of citations is the card catalog. Most card catalogs at major libraries are now computerized, and will allow you to enter major terms to search for books. The computer will provide you a list of books which contain information about the main subject terms which you type in, and their respective call numbers. The call numbers are numbers used to locate the books in the library. Especially important as you are looking at the list of books is to check their dates. Again, generally speaking, more than three years old gets to be a bit dated. However, if the book looks great, get it anyway.

Once you locate a book, take a few moments to look at the other books in the area around the book which you found. In most major libraries, you will find many of the nearby books equally if not more helpful. Sometimes they may not be ones for which you have obtained the citations since the computer may not have included them under the same search terms for some reason. The lesson is to do some browsing around the places where you find a good book. Be sure to pay attention to the dates, though, because many times very old books may be placed alongside very new books on the same subject.

Upon finding books, do not take the time to examine them at that point. "Set up shop" in the library at a certain location. Try not to leave personal belongings, but do leave all your library books and articles which you have obtained in that place. Stopping to look at each and every book you find as you find it will slow you down and get you "out of the rhythym" of looking for your books and other books with good titles.

Deciding what's good

After you have finished piling up your books and articles, you may examine them. This does not mean read them. It doesn't even mean scan through them thoroughly. It means efficiently looking through certain key parts of the book to see if it fits within certain debate parameters for usability of evidence.

This is a very subjective job. There is no single checklist against which material may be scanned. In fact, chances are good that you will miss some potentially good pieces of evidence in some books which you will want to dismiss out of hand. However, for your time, you will come away with the greatest amount of potentially usable material if you adhere to certain loose guidelines.

Say NO to material which looks too mathematical or scientific. Hard scientific research cannot be matched for its validity, but it generally means horrible debate evidence for many different reasons. Not the least of these is the fact that it is extremely difficult to introduce an equation into a debate round. Whenever a separate speech would be required just to explain the mathematic or scientific principles contained in a particular piece of evidence, it is generally not useful.

Say NO to material which is written in the past tense or appears excessively dedicated to historical facts. Debate generally is concerned with relationships to policies in the present system and to policy systems in future contexts. Books and articles dedictated to the way things used to be or explanations for how they got the way they did are usually less relevant.

Say YES to material which contains articles by a number of different authors on a broad range of subjects. Material such as this is usually offers different perspectives on some problem, or comments on a wide range of problems within a given field. As such, it is sometimes more helpful than the work of one author who follows one writing style and maintains a certain set of conclusions.

Say YES to material which is very recent. Debaters usually place a primacy on recent evidence. Entire decisions have rested on the recent nature of a particular piece of evidence. For example, a piece of evidence from an article dated three years prior which states the urgent need for a particular program will be much less compelling than a piece of evidence taken from an article in one of last week's news digests.

Say YES to material from well qualified sources. When searching for evidence, keep in mind that those books and articles which are written by persons recognized as leaders in their field will tend to be given more credibility than those articles written by freelance journalists with no recognized credentials. Qualifications generally accepted as very credible include advanced degrees from major universities, service on government- sponsored panels or research teams, present or previous employment at a major institution such as a "think tank," and high-level administrative figures at major corporations.

Of course, there are qualifications to these considerations. For example, a nuclear physicist with an advanced degree and participation on major nuclear research projects may have little background which makes her credible to speak out on economic issues. As well, a White House economist may have certain reasons to overestimate the economic trends for the country if her job is to paint a favorable picture which will boost her administration's popularity ratings.

The latter issue is called bias in evidence, and it should always play a role in your own research, and your examination of your opponents evidence in a debate. We examine this issue futher in our next chapter on processing evidence into arguments.

Finally you should allow yourself ample time at the end of your trip to take the necessary steps to obtaining the evidence you need from the material you have assembled. Any material you have obtained which you can check out will save you money on the expense of photocopying material, since libraries often charge as much as three times more per copy than your local copy mat. As well, checking out material will allow you time to look through the pages of the books and articles more thoroughly to determine exactly what portions need to be copied, whereas copying the entire book or article in the library could be much more expensive.

Of course, if you have not obtained a large amount of material, do not have the ability to check out the material you have gained, or have decided against that option for some other reason, you will need to photocopy the material you have obtained. The first step in photocopying the material is to prioritize it, with the material you feel is most helpful as the highest priority (top of the stack) and that material which is lowest priority at the bottom of the stack. Be careful in your prioritizing. Use the criteria to which we referred above, as well as your intution about the quality of evidence you believe you will be able to obtain from the particular source.

Hopefully you will come away from the library with a large amount of material.