One team’s job is to argue that the resolution—the statement that a specific change to a national or international problem should be made—is a good idea.
Wake Forest University's debate program claims to have its origins in student literary societies founded on campus in the mid-1830s, which first presented joint "orations" in 1854.
Traditionally rebuttals were half the length of constructives, but when a style of faster delivery speed became more standard in the late 1980s, that time management stricture was dropped.
Wake Forest University introduced reformed speech times in both its college (9‑6 instead of 10‑5) and high school (8‑5 instead of 8‑4) tournaments, which spread rapidly to become the new de facto standards.
In more progressive and larger tournaments, debaters will speak very quickly - often called spreading - in order to read as much evidence and make as many arguments as possible within the time-constrained speech.
A slower style is preferred by those who want debates to be understandable to lay people and those who claim that the pedagogical purpose of the activity is to train rhetorical skills.
In contrast, rapid delivery is encouraged by those who believe that increased quantity and diversity of arguments makes debates more educational.
of the delivery style emphasize that spreading can help increase the quality of debates by enabling more nuanced viewpoints, rather than more general positions.
Given that the affirmative must prove that they are preferable to the status quo (commonly referred to as the squo), the negative team always has presumption for winning the round.
The four stock issues are modeled after U.S. court procedural aspects of administrative law in deciding cases (as opposed to Constitutional controversies): ill (Harm), blame (Inherency), cure (Solvency), cost (Significance).
In an attempt to make sure that their advantages/disadvantages outweigh those of the other team, debaters often present extreme scenarios such as the extinction of the human race or a global nuclear war.
After the affirmative presents its case, the negative can down-vote the case with many different arguments, which include: Evidence in debates is organized into units called cards (because such evidence was originally printed on note cards, though the practice has long been replaced by digital storage).
Often, especially on the national circuit, a debater will share any cards they plan to read with their opponents and the judge immediately before their speech.
Taking the cards during the speech allows the opponent to question the author's qualifications, the original context of the evidence, etc.
A judge is an individual responsible for deciding the winner and loser of a policy round as well as assessing the merits of the speakers.
Some circuits see lay or inexperienced judges recruited from the community as an important part of the activity of a debate club.
Speaker point schemes vary throughout local state and regional organizations particularly at the high school level.
In practice, within these organizations the standard variation is 26‑29, where 26's are given to extremely poor speakers, where a perfect score is considered incredibly rare and warranted only by an outstanding performance.
Many tournaments also drop the highest and lowest score received by each debater, in order to ensure that the speaker award calculations are fair and consistent, despite the preferences of different judges.
Bids are achieved by reaching a certain level of elimination rounds (for example, quarter-finals) at select, highly competitive, and carefully chosen tournaments across the country based upon the quality of debaters they attract and the diversity of locations from across the United States they represent.
RuDI is organized by a five-member board, including Executive Grant Zhang, President Kelly Mu, Assistant Jared Shirts, Outreach Ambassador Ann Schulte, and Coach Joseph Smith.
The RuDI also provides supplemental programs such as leadership development initiatives and career development workshops to champion and leverage the assets unique to rural communities and rural individuals, such as their pride of place, close-knittedness, and diverse set of practical skills.
The report roughly determines a regular season champion called the 'Copeland Award' for the team rated the highest over the course of the year through early February.
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce its military and/or police presence in one or more of the following: South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey.
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its exploration and/or development of space beyond the Mesosphere.
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 non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth's oceans.
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People's Republic of China.
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its security cooperation with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in one or more of the following areas: artificial intelligence, biotechnology, cybersecurity.
Resolved: The United States federal government should significantly strengthen its protection of domestic intellectual property rights in copyrights, patents, and/or trademarks.