Why I Love Policy Debate

In high school, I was part of the speech and debate team for a few years. I joined out of sheer boredom and with the suggestion from my mom, who basically said, “since you argue with me all the time, you might as well put those skills to use”. However, upon signing up for Policy Debate (a.k.a. Team Debate, a.k.a. Way-Better-Than-Boring-Old-Lincoln-Douglas-Debate. That’s right. I said it.), I discovered that debate was so much more than just standing up and telling some guy that he’s wrong and I’m right. What’s policy debate like?

Policy debate is like…football.

Don’t laugh, although I do realize that comparing a bunch of nerdy guys and girls arguing about anthropocentrism to a group of finely tuned athletes that enjoy inflicting pain on each other may seem absurd. Both activities involve intense preparation; while football players go through grueling physical drills and two-a-day practices, debaters lock themselves in the library researching arguments from obscure and sometimes deranged philosophers and practice reading “Fox in Sox” backwards as fast as they can with a pen clenched between their teeth. Football players strain their bodies trying to improve their 40-yard dash, policy debaters strain their vocal chords and jaw muscles trying to read a 30-page case in 8 minutes. Linebackers smash into quarterbacks with enough force to blow a door off its hinges and debaters…ok, so there’s no analogy for that.

More after the jump!

Here’s some things you have to know about policy: there’s two teams of two, an affirmative team and a negative team (Aff and Neg for short). There’s also one resolution per year, for example “Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should establish an ocean policy substantially increasing protection of marine natural resources”. The Aff team has to come up with a plan that affirms the resolution (we’ll set up marine protected areas), and the Neg team has to argue why that plan is bad (it won’t work, bad things will happen if the plan is passed) and/or come up with a counterplan (we should consult Japan before doing their plan). The teams take turns arguing in 8 or 5 minute time blocks, with cross-examination time in between. There is a judge who keeps track of the arguments and decides who wins and loses at the end of the debate.

So now that you know the basics, the reason why I love policy debate is this: it is just so dang crazy.

You want to save baby seals? Too bad, because THIS WILL HAPPEN!!!

1. Since one of the objectives of your team is to try and outweigh the other team’s impacts, debaters are always able to link anything to NUCLEAR WAR. For example, the neg team could say: your plan to set up marine protected areas won’t work if you don’t consult Japan about it. Japan is a key international player in ocean policy, and any attempt to enact such a policy without Japan’s approval will lead to increased tension between US and Japan, which will decrease US hegemony in the world, which will cause hostile nations to get more hostile, which will lead to NUCLEAR WAR AND THE EXTINCTION OF THE HUMAN RACE!!!

The Aff team could in turn say that their plan protects biodiversity, which is extremely fragile and on the brink of a catastrophic imbalance. Not enacting the plan would not only cause the extermination of the human race, but the DEATH OF EVERY ORGANISM ON THE PLANET!!! That’s right, you have to read your impacts with that kind of emphasis.

2. In debate, there’s something called a “turn”. That’s when you turn something that seems negative into a positive, thus not only denying the argument, but turning it into an advantage. It can be something as basic as “you said that our plan will decrease tourism, which is bad, but we’ll turn that and say that decreasing tourism is good”. However, this can get a little out of hand. For example, when the neg team says that your plan will cause nuclear war, one could turn that and say “nuclear war is good”. Believe it or not, these arguments exist, with evidence (many times from crackpot philosophers).

The “Spark” argument says that nuclear war is good because humans are getting so scientifically advanced that in a few decades, we’ll have weapons that go beyond nuclear; these weapons will be able to rip holes in the space/time continuum, which will lead to the annihilation of the entire universe. Thus, nuclear war and the extinction of the human race is a good thing, so that we don’t destroy the universe. Uh…what? This argument can be easily picked apart in cross-ex with simple questions like “So who is this Spark guy?”, “How do these ‘dimensional weapons’ even work?” and my favorite, “Dude. Are you serious?”

3. There’s arguments called “kritiks”, which are basically philosophical arguments like “your plan is inherently racist” or “your plan justifies genocide”. One of the most common ones is the feminism kritik. Basically, it says that the word “woman” is offensive and is an example of patriarchal domination because it has the word “man” in it. This argument comes up so often and is so incredibly annoying that many teams just go and change all the “woman”s in their cards (evidence) to “womyn”. That’s right. Womyn. With a Y.

Your typical performance-oriented debate team.

4. Every now and then, you’ll run into the dreaded “performance aff”. The affirmative will stand up, prepare their cards, and instead of reading their case, they’ll break out into song, dance, a rap, a poem, or a dramatic monologue. They will then justify this by saying stuff like performances have a real effect on the audience viewing them (the judge and you), while traditional debate is just trying to pass a fake plan. This team is a pain to deal with because even if you have good answers to their “performances good” arguments, it’s hard to compete with an 8-minute freestyle rap about dolphins and baby sea otters, complete with a beatbox accompaniment and choreographed pop n’ locking. It just deflates your morale.

Yep, unlike most speech events and LD, policy debate is fun and interesting because of all the crazy things that can happen in a given round. I’ll admit that I learned a lot about a variety of topics, from mental health to UN peacekeeping, while doing policy debate. It was a profoundly educational experience and helped to cultivate a love for philosophy and subsequently  apologetics. It also taught me valuable life skills like public speaking, logical reasoning, and improvisation. Debate was one of the most rewarding activities that I’ve ever done.

…But seriously, I had a ton of fun running the “Consult Your Mom” counterplan.