What is Policy Debate - Speeches, Sides, Cross-examination and more

This page will cover the ins and out of policy debate, and how to get started. Credits go to Akhil Kolluru, Zayaan Aftab and Jeremy Wilner for this article. 

Event Description

Policy, or Cross-Examination (CX) debate, is a two-on-two debate format that centers the desirability of a certain policy proposal, argued throughout the course of the academic year. The affirmative team stands to argue in favor of the proposal, while the negative offers reasons why the status quo, or the current world without the plan, may be more preferable. Between constructive speeches, debaters have the opportunity to cross-examine each other. Rounds often last 1-2 hours, with the winning team decided by a judge or panel of judges. Often revered as the most ‘technical’ form of debate, policy is the first, foundational, style of debate. In contrast to other formats, rounds often utilize a tech>truth paradigm—teams can present any argument regardless of its merit. 

Debating in the policy format presents significant benefits. It’s known as the most research-intensive style of debate, where teams undergo in-depth research over the course of the year to produce the best arguments. Furthermore, it trains strong critical thinking skills through extreme technical debating.

Topic Description

In policy debate, topics (resolutions) are debated throughout the duration of the academic year, allowing for constant innovation and in-depth debates. They revolve around broad international/domestic policy ideas, often policies that are somewhat controversial and currently hold contrasting perspectives in Congress, preventing passage.

For example, this year's topic:

Resolved: The United States federal government should significantly increase its exploration and/or development of the Arctic.

Examples from previous years:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans. 

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement toward Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela.

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its transportation infrastructure investment in the United States.

As you can tell, resolutions are often broad, vague ideas that allow the affirmative to propose a plan, detailing a specific method and implementation of how the U.S. should approach the topic.

Cross-Examination

Policy debate is often referred to as CX debate, or cross examination debate. Cross examination is an integral part of the constructive speeches, and can be make or break for certain debates. After each constructive, the opposing team will have three minutes to answer the person who has just spoken questions. 

Cross examination aims to clarify arguments, poke holes in arguments, or ask general questions - the goal is to either understand an argument better or to demonstrate how the opponent’s arguments may be flawed (good debaters won’t be easy to crack in CX). 

Anything you say in cross-examination as an answer to an opponent’s question is binding. You are held to it for the rest of the debate, unless you clarify in that cross-examination. 

The person who normally cross-examines the person who just spoke is the debater who isn’t speaking next. This is as follows:

2N cross-exes the 1AC. 

1A cross-exes the 1NC. 

1N cross-exes the 2AC. 

2A cross-exes the 2NC. 

Cross-ex questions can be about anything. There may be rounds where you hear questions such as “What’s your favorite seafood?” You should stray away from questions like these in favor of getting a more thorough understanding of the opponent’s case and arguments. Cross-ex is an invaluable tool to set up arguments later and point out errors before your speech begins.

Speeches

In policy, speeches are much longer than most other debate formats. Speaking positions are divided into the 2N/1A and the 2A/1N. The 2N gives the second negative constructive and rebuttal, while the 2A gives the second affirmative constructive and rebuttal. Conversely, the 2N (1A)  gives the first affirmative constructive and rebuttal, and the 2A (1N) gives the first negative constructive and rebuttal. Here is a list of each speech in order:

1AC - Given by the 1A, 8 minutes long. This is the first affirmative constructive (1AC). It establishes the AFF’s plan and their ‘advantages’ (sometimes, ‘contentions’). Each advantage has one or more ‘scenarios’ with impacts, and an explanation of how the plan will solve for those impacts. Sometimes solvency is grouped into its own contention for organizational purposes. The 1A will spend most of this speech reading from cards. Once your team has chosen a case to read, this speech will be the same in all of your AFF rounds - that means it’s best to practice your 1AC, see if you are over or under the time limit, and then make changes as necessary.

1AC CX - The 2N cross-examines the 1A, 3 minutes long

1NC - Given by the 1N, 8 minutes long. This is the first negative constructive (1NC), where the negative offers off-case positions for why the status quo is preferable and why the affirmative’s plan isn’t feasible. This speech will be different for each case you face, but still usually almost entirely scripted. Many teams prepare 1NCs for every case ahead of time, but if you don’t have one before the tournament, you should construct it in the pre-round. This speech introduces all of your off-case, then also answers the 1AC’s case. It will usually be mostly reading cards, but you should also bring up any relevant points made in the prior cross-ex period. Off-case is usually read before case.

1NC CX - The 1A cross-examines the 1N, 3 minutes long

2AC - Given by the 2A, 8 minutes long. This is the second affirmative constructive (2AC), where the affirmative extends their original plan, while answering the negative’s arguments. This speech will be a combination of extending your case (usually using pre-written overviews, blocks, and extension cards) as well as answering their offcase. Usually, case will be read at the beginning of the speech, then off-case answered afterwards. Since the 1NC had to read off-case and case in the same amount of time as your 1AC, they wouldn't have had time to answer every part of your case. Make sure to extend these dropped points. Off-case positions usually can be answered with premade blocks, but if they read a new counterplan or disad, there are always (generic answers to be made.)[link to answering offcase guide, unless there isn’t one?] 

2AC CX - The 1N cross-examines the 2A, 3 minutes long

During the block (2NC/1NR), the negative chooses certain off-case positions to extend, while also extending answers to the affirmative’s case. These are separate speeches, but since the NEG speaks twice in a row, they are mostly referred to singularly as ‘the NEG block’. Technically, the 2NC is the last chance for the NEG to make new arguments, but depending on your circuit, most judges are lenient about treating the block as one big constructive. NOT ALL POSITIONS MUST BE ANSWERED IN BOTH SPEECHES - this is a common mistake that novices make. Off-case positions and case advantages can be split between the two speeches as desired. The 2NC’s longer time limit usually means they can take on more arguments. However, some teams will pick one strategy to dedicate the 2NC to, making it difficult for the 1AR to respond to. The block starts to move away from cards, especially in the 1NR; scripted blocks and analytics become more common.

2NC - Given by the 2N, 8 minutes long. 

2NC CX - The 2A cross-examines the 2N, 3 minutes long

1NR - Given by the 1N, 5 minutes long

1AR - Given by the 1A, 5 minutes long. This is the first affirmative rebuttal (1AR), where the affirmative team must be strategic and pick certain arguments to extend on each flow, as they’re  faced with answering 13 minutes of the block.  Often called the hardest speech in the round, the 1AR has only five minutes to answer the NEG block. Reading cards is acceptable but somewhat rare. The speech should be spent identifying and explaining mistakes made in the block - since the time disadvantage makes answering everything impossible, the 1A needs to find drops or fatal flaws in each argument and explain their implications for the judges decision.

2NR - Given by the 2N, 5 minutes long. During the second negative rebuttal (2NR), the negative team condenses down the debate to one or multiple off-case positions and arguments on the affirmative’s case, making the final statement on why the proposed policy must not be passed. Similarly to the 1AR, the NEG’s last speech generally identifies drops and/or mistakes in the previous speech, and makes their final justification for why they should get the ballot. Very rarely are cards read in final rebuttals. This speech should also contain impact calc - comparing NEG impacts to AFF’s, and explaining why yours outweigh theirs. Overview and impact calc blocks can be helpful, but no two rounds are the same; the 2NR’s contents depend on the rest of the round.

2AR - Given by the 2A, 5 minutes long. During the second affirmative rebuttal (2AR), the affirmative gets the last statement in the debate—why we must change the status quo, and why the negative’s arguments are ultimately bunk or insignificant. The AFF gets the last word in the debate, giving you a chance to paint yourself in the best possible light without retribution from the NEG. A judge with any experience will pick up on blatant lying, but it’s still an undeniable advantage to leave the final impression before the decision. The general contents of the speech mirror the advice for the 2NR, with the added complication that all of your final arguments must have been in the 1AR. Since the 2AR is a rebuttal, nothing can be new - especially since the NEG can’t call you out for it (there’s no such thing as a 3NR!) Use impact calc and frame the judge’s decision for them.