To: The Karl Popper Debate Program Listserv
Copies to: dcezar@cpcpub.sfos.ro
Subject: Two Person Format Hello Cezar, (and others) Katherine let me know that you were interested in various styles
of debate. I thought I would fill you in on my area of
expertise, which is called either 'two person' or 'policy' format
debate. 1.) There are four people involved - 2 from each side. I'll
refer to them as... 1A -- The First Affirmative Speaker
2A -- The Second Affirmative Speaker
1N -- The First Negative Speaker
2N -- The Second Negative Speaker 2.) They each give two speeches: One "constructive" and one
"rebuttal": A "Constructive" refers to the first four speeches of the
debate. The goal of these speeches is to 'construct' each
side's main arguments. A "Rebuttal" refers to the last four speeches. The goal of
these is to rebut the other side's arguments and to compare
the arguments. I'll give more detail on the goals of the speeches later,
but the shorthand is to refer to speeches as follows 1AC - means the First Affirmative's Constructive,
2NR - means the Second Negative's Rebuttal, and so on. 3.) Each person participates in 2 cross-examination periods
(asking questions once and answering questions once).
Participants always answer questions immediately after their
constructive, and play the role of asking questions when they are
not the next ones to speak. 4.) The resulting format then is this, with typical time limits
but those can of course be changed: 1AC - 8 minutes
C-X - 3 minutes (2N asks, 1A answers)
1NC - 8 minutes
C-X - 3 minutes (1A asks, 1N answers)
2AC - 8 minutes
C-X - 3 minutes (1N asks, 2A answers)
2NC - 8 minutes
C-X - 3 minutes (2A asks, 2N answers)
1NR - 4 minutes
1AR - 4 minutes
2NR - 4 minutes
2AR - 4 minutes *A specific amount of prep time is allowed each side -
usually 8 minutes. 5.) Much could be written about the goals of each speech, but in
general it goes like this: 1AC - Presents the case, in a policy debate this usually
includes 1.) a plan (the policy that the affirmative
supports), and 2.) an advantage (the reason why the policy
would be good). This is more fully explained in the new
version of the case chapter in the KPDP book. 1NC - Responds to the affirmative's advantage, for example
minimizing the advantage and showing that there is not a
great need for action. 2AC - Answers the attacks of the 1NC, building up the
advantage again. 2NC - Responds to the affirmative's plan, for example
showing that the plan won't solve, or will lead to harmful
disadvantages. 1NR - Continues the attack on the affirmative's advantage,
answering the arguments made by the 2AC. ** Note that there
are two negative speeches in a row (2NC, 1NR). This is
called the "negative block" and it is important for the 1NR
to avoid simply repeating the arguments made by the 2NC.
For this reason, it is common for the 1NR to address the
advantage while the 2NC addresses the plan. 1AR - Defends both the affirmative's plan and advantage by
dealing with all of the arguments in the two prior negative
speeches. 2NR - The closing speech for the negative, it usually
focuses on a few central reasons why the negative has won. 2AR - The closing speech for the affirmative, it answers the
arguments of the 2NR rebuilds whatever is being attacked in
the affirmative's case. 6.) There is one judge, or three judges who flow the debate and
determine a winner. The standards of evaluation are not much
different from the Karl Popper format. When policy topics are
being used, however, there is more emphasis placed on being able
to back-up what you say with quotations from experts. We may
have our own views on employment policy, for example, but the
conclusion that full employment would work and would help the
economy probably requires an expert. 7.) Right now, you are probably thinking - 'wow, what a complex
format.' I agree. But there are some advantages and
disadvantages to teaching this format: a.) Disadvantages 1. It can be complicated. Learning the format and
figuring out 'who does what' is one of the first tasks
that novices need to master, but once that is done, the
sequence of speeches and goals seems natural. 2. It is a long debate (one and one half hours if the
debaters are organized, two hours if they are not), and
it involves only 4 students at a time. 3. It can get very redundant, based on the number of
speeches. If students keep saying the same thing over
and over again, the debate gets a little old about
midway through. b.) Advantages 1. It allows for a very deep focus on policy issues.
If we are debating an issue with some complexity, like
housing, employment, the expansion of NATO, etc., then
the number of speeches really allows for some detail. 2. It allows for extension of arguments. Instead of
making your point and then seeing what the judge has to
say, the sequence of 8 speeches allows for arguments to
be modified and strengthened with each speech and
arguments are built upon the opponent's refutations. 3. It allows for equality within teams. Everyone is
speaking for the same amount of time, and everyone is
giving very important speeches. 4. It promotes clash. By requiring each speaker to
deliver two speeches, it emphasizes the need to go
back and defend what you have said previously. It is
one thing to make an argument, and another to go back
and rehabilitate that argument once it has been
attacked. In this format, everyone does both. 5. It promotes teamwork. To be successful, the two
team members must be working together or they will
fail to make a consistent argument throughout the
debate. 6. There is a great deal of information written on
this format. Virtually all debate textbooks in the
United States discuss the specific duties and
responsibilities in this format. In summary, the format offers one possibility for your training
repetoir. If you want debaters to become more committed and more
deeply involved in the analysis of a policy controversy, then I
encourage you to try it. Please let me know if I can supply more information, or if I can
clarify any of the points that I've made. --Ken
Kenneth T. Broda-Bahm, Asst. Prof., Director of Debate
Towson State University, Towson MD, USA, 21204-7097, 410-830-2888
Broda@Midget.Towson.Edu
Back to Archive