Synopsis of Policy or CX Debate

Like other forms of debate, Cross-Examination (C-X or Policy) Debate focuses on the core elements of controversial issue. Cross-Examination Debate develops important skills, such as critical thinking, listening, argument construction, research, note-taking and advocacy skills. Cross-Examination Debate is distinct from other formats, with the exception of Parliamentary Debate, in its use of a two-person team. Cross-Examination Debate also places emphasis on questioning or cross-examination between constructive speeches. While specific practices vary, Cross-Examination Debate typically rewards intensive use of evidence, and is more focused on content than on delivery.

Case Preparation and Case Resolutions

The topic for Cross-Examination (Policy) Debate is typically called a "resolution" or "proposition." Different types of propositions may be used in a Cross-Examination (Policy) Debate, but policy propositions tend to be the most common. Different leagues, organizations or individual tournaments may use a particular resolution for a particular debate.

So that clash might occur in a debate, debaters should engage in research on both sides of the topic. Research is primarily the job of debaters. Teachers and coaches may conduct research in order to improve their job performance and to facilitate the learning of their students, but should limit the amount of research they conduct for debaters.

Resolution Interpretation

Cross-Examination (Policy) Debate involves two teams, each consisting of two people. One team takes the affirmative position and is responsible for defending and supporting the resolution. The other team takes the negative and is responsible for refuting the affirmative, which may be done in a variety of strategic ways.

The affirmative team is responsible for the initial interpretation of the resolution, and for presenting a case that defends and supports the resolution. The negative team may challenge this interpretation if they believe the affirmative team's interpretation is unreasonable.

A Beginners Guide To Debating

Arguing for the Resolution

The objective of the affirmative team is to construct and present a case that defends and supports the resolution. An adequate case (one that meets a certain burden of proof) depends on what type of proposition is debated. Individual topics and tournaments determine what burden is required.

Arguing Against the Resolution

The objective of the negative team is to refute the affirmative case, which, by extension, is an argument against the resolution. Depending on the topic and the type of proposition, the negative may have a variety of possible strategies available when refuting the affirmative case.

Rules to Follow During the Round

1. In-Round Research is Prohibited: Topic research must be completed prior to the beginning of a debate. Once the debate begins, the participants may not conduct research via electronic or any other means. No outside person(s) may conduct research during the debate and provide it directly or indirectly to the debaters. Debaters, however, are allowed to use a dictionary to determine the meaning of English words.

2. Citations are Mandatory: Debaters may cite or refer to any public information. When doing so, they should be prepared to provide complete source documentation to the opposing team and to the judge, upon request. A team's documentation of cited material must be complete enough so that the opposing team and the judge can locate the information of their own. Ordinarily, such documentation would include the name of an author (if any), the name and date of a publication, the URL of a Web site (if the information was retrieved electronically), and a page number (if available).

The Formatting of a Normal Debate Round

1. First Affirmative Constructive (1AC)

a. Cross-examination of First Affirmative by Second Negative

2. First Negative Constructive (1NC)

a. Cross-examination of First Negative by First Affirmative

3. Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC)

a. Cross-examination of Second Affirmative by First Negative

4. Second Negative Constructive (2NC)

a. Cross-examination of Second Negative by Second Affirmative

5. First Negative Rebuttal (1NR).

6. First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR)

7. Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR)

8. Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR)

The Differing Roles of Speakers

The Cross-Examination (Policy) format embraces debate as a team activity. In the Cross-Examination format, each debate team is composed of two individuals who stay together through every round of competition. Each team alternatively debates the negative and affirmative positions in alternating rounds.

Although Cross-Examination (Policy) Debate is a team activity, the only debater allowed to speak during a given moment in the debate is the one assigned by the format to do so (see above). Team members may not assist their teammates by offering suggestions or by answering questions on their behalf. During the cross-examination period, it is generally expected that only the examiner may ask questions, and only the speaker may answer them. Typically, no spoken communication is allowed between either the examiner or the speaker and their teammates. Some tournaments may have different policies regarding the method by which cross-examination may be conducted.

How Important is the Judge?

The judge will determine a winning team based on the arguments presented during the debate. If the judge believes the affirmative team has proven its case, it wins the debate. If the negative team undermines the affirmative team's arguments for the resolution, the negative team wins the debate.

After the final rebuttal, the judge will deliberate and reach a decision regarding the winner and the points to be assigned to each speaker. The judge will then complete the debate ballot.

In some competitions, tournament administrators will decide that judges may disclose their decisions and offer debaters oral critiques. If this is the case, the judge may announce the outcome of the debate and provide constructive feedback to the debaters following the competition of the debate ballot. Under no circumstances can the judge change the decision or points based on any discussion with the teams involved.

In all cases, a judge should consult with tournament administrators to make sure that disclosing decisions and offering oral critiques are permitted for that competition.

Key Terms Defined and Examples Provided

Resolutions. Resolutions in team policy debate are always of a policy nature, usually governmental policy. The affirmative team almost always defends the resolution by means of a particular example, known as a "case"; if they can show the example (case) to be true, then the general proposition is also shown to be true. For instance, the first resolution I ever encountered in team policy debate was, "The federal government should adopt a comprehensive, long-term agricultural policy in the United States." Some typical cases teams ran under this resolution were: that the government should institute a program restricting the use of pesticides; that the government should institute a program to insure genetic diversity of crops; that the government should institute a program requiring farmers to switch from land-farming to hydroponics (i.e., growing food in great big tanks of water); that the government should abolish crop subsidies and price supports; etc.
Style. Team policy debate is focused on evidence gathering and organizational ability. Persuasiveness is not considered important -- or at least, not as important as covering ground and reading plenty of evidence. The best teams have huge fileboxes packed to the gills with evidence on their own affirmative case and all the possible cases they might have to oppose. If you ever walk into a high-level team debate round, expect to see debaters talking at extremely high speeds, reading out the contents of page after page of evidence, gasping for breath between points, and using lots of jargon ("I cite Jorgenson, Jorgenson post-dates Bronstein, that kills PMR 4, flow that Aff!"). There is very little discussion of values such as freedom, justice, equality, etc.; usually, the ultimate criterion on any issue is how many dead bodies will result from taking or not taking a particular action. This form of debate can be fun, it encourages good research and organizational skills, and it is good for getting novice debaters used to speaking in front of people. But if you want to learn how to speak persuasively, this form of debate is not for you.

Scouting (Dont do it)

Debate, by its very nature, is public. Therefore, all debates in UIL district and state competition shall be open to the public with the exception of debate teams competing in that tournament. Competing debaters shall not observe preliminary rounds of district or state competition in which they are not debating. To discourage the “scouting” of a possible future opponent by either a debater, a coach, or anyone else, the penalties for note taking are explained below. The contest director makes all final decisions regarding scouting.

Note Taking Rules

Taking of notes. With the exception of the final debate in district and state competition, only the judge and the four student participants may take notes. For example, anyone may take notes in the debate which determines first and second place, and the debate which determines third and fourth place.

Sharing of notes. During a tournament, participants or judges may not give or accept notes taken during that tournament. For example, a judge participating in the district contest is neither allowed to give nor accept notes regarding any rounds in that tournament from anyone else during that tournament.

Penalty for debaters. Violation by debaters of the scouting rule is grounds for disqualification of the debate team from the current competition. The contest director makes all final decisions regarding scouting. Such violations may be grounds for suspension of the school from team debate for the following year.

Penalty for coaches. Violation by coaches of the scouting rule is grounds for disqualification of their teams from the current competition. Coaches who violate scouting rules will also be subject to the full range of penalties as outlined in Section 700 of the C&CR, and such violations may be grounds for suspension of the school from team debate for the following year.

Prompting

Debaters shall receive no coaching while the debate is in progress. Viva Voce or other prompting either by the speaker’s colleague or by any other person while the debater has the floor is prohibited. Time signals are not considered prompting. See Section 1001 of the C&CR for details. If prompting occurs during a round, the team in violation shall be assigned a loss in the round in which the prompting took place.