League Policies
Policy Debate Judge Orientation Video
Policy debate challenges students to think critically about laws, regulations, and policies that impact societies. It seeks to identify possible problems with current conditions (the status quo) and weigh the advantages and disadvantages associated with making a change in policy. The requirement that debaters alternate between affirming and negating a resolution helps students learn that there are reasonable arguments for both sides of most policy proposals.
Debaters use different ways to structure cases and arguments, but most rounds will feature the following elements.
- Assessment of the “status quo” or the way things are
- The affirmative team will generally identify a problem with a current policy (or the lack of policy) and try to explain the resulting harms or benefits withheld.
- The negative team may call into question whether the alleged harms are really serious, or whether they can be solved some other way.
- Clash over a proposed plan to change the “status quo” or the way things are
- The affirmative team generally proposes a plan for a policy change that will provide advantages when compared with the status quo.
- The negative team may question whether the proposed plan will actually solve the alleged problems with the current situation. They may also point out disadvantages and argue that those outweigh the possible advantages. Or, they may present an alternative approach.
What to Expect from Experienced Policy Debaters
- Expect Solid Argumentation. Debaters should explain the logical connections between arguments and how those arguments support their position.
- Expect Support for Claims. Debaters should support claims they make with examples, analogies, their own analysis, or cited sources (known as evidence).
- Expect Clash: Debaters should engage with their opponent’s most important arguments, and explain why their own arguments are superior. While they may legitimately decide to agree with their opponent on some issues, they should also identify areas of disagreement and defend their own positions regarding those points.
What NOT to Expect of Policy Debaters
- Do not expect a perfect plan from Affirmative Teams: No policy is perfect, so the Affirmative Team should not be held to an unreasonably high standard for what a proposed policy change will achieve.
- Do not expect perfect preparation from Negative Teams: The range of policy-change proposals that teams can introduce when they are assigned as the Affirmative Team in a round can be staggering. It is entirely possible for the Negative Team to hear a policy proposal idea for the first time during the first Affirmative speech. This does not remove the burden for the Negative Team to convince the judge that the plan should not be adopted, but it may mean that the Negative Team must rely on probing questions, logical assessments, appeals to common sense, and generic arguments that pertain to evaluating any policy change.
- Do not expect answers to every argument: With limited time, debaters must often choose which arguments to prioritize, so ignoring or “dropping” a lesser argument that is outweighed by a more important one should not necessarily be considered a losing move.
2025-2026 Policy Debate Resolution
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly reform Congress.
- Assessment of the “status quo” or the way things are