Why Small Clubs Struggle with Policy Debate
Trish Y asks:
“I have a TP question. My son did LD for 4 years and has switched to TP this year. As a parent, I've not been in the "TP world" till this year and I am wondering how students that are in small clubs are able to do negative prep in order to compete with the students in the larger clubs. My son and his partner are the only TP team in our club. I had no idea that there was this whole network of compiling affirmative cases within clubs so they could work on negative briefs and then share them with the whole club. We've got a couple of other TP friends in small clubs that we've reached out to, and the boys do Ziggy debate, which helps them learn other affirmative cases, but is there some other way to be more prepared? They've tried to write a "status quo" case, but I don't know how effective that will be if there's no evidence to refute a solid AFF case. Any suggestions on how to be more prepared with the neg?”
Trish, this is a very common concern. Every large club started out as a small one that felt overwhelmed by the size and experience of its rivals. Let’s start with a review of basic evidence theory. This may be obvious to some readers, but stay with us - it runs counter to conventional policy wisdom.
Elements of an Argument
The currency of debate is an argument, which contains three components:
Claim: What you want the judge to agree with. “A mandatory retirement age of 25 would hurt the economy.”
Grounds: The logical support for your claim. “The economy can’t operate without the 25+ demographic. If the plan is passed, ever market sector will implode.”
Warrant: The evidence supporting the grounds. “The Bureau of Labor Statistics says that 92% of workers are 25 or older.”
Evidence is used to meet the burden of proof when you make an argument that falls outside common knowledge, common sense, or opponent admission. In policy debate, all four debaters are likely to make arguments that need proof. This is why we research. Think of brief-writing as a way to expand your arsenal of arguments. Now that you have evidence to support it, you can add a certain disadvantage that you couldn’t run before.
Evidence requirements vary from argument to argument.
Some, like: “Donald Trump is the current US president,” require almost no support. Others, like: “Donald Trump will be reelected,” require logical and evidentiary backing.
Many of the best arguments for or against a policy case require evidence. Policy, in general, tends to produce arguments that require evidence more often than value or fact. Thus, a policy debate between two well-prepared teams will typically involve volleys of very specific arguments backed by recent, technical, qualified evidence.
Having good evidence gives you a competitive advantage.
Your club has neither the experience nor the manpower to divvy up the resolution into manageable chunks and build strong briefs against every affirmative you’re likely to hit at the next tournament. Bottom line: you’re probably going to hit affirmatives who have better evidence than you, and your chance of winning will be lower because of it.
You’re right to take this weakness seriously. The good news: it is far from insurmountable. Debaters in small clubs begin the race two steps back from the starting line, but there is plenty of race to run. This weakness can not only be overcome, but it can also be turned into a strength.
In the next few articles, we’ll show you how.