From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
“In a heated argument we are apt to lose sight of the truth.”
Policy debate is an activity in which high-school and college students deal with issues that are irrelevant, improbable, or idiotic in a hyper-rigorous format involving assertions, rebuttals, and time limits. Policy debate is the college-prep equivalent to other, lesser methods of discussing policy questions:
- The lower classes apply themselves to questions of human existence in places like Parliament, or in televised debates designed to get them into Parliament.
- The even lower classes take up the same questions from their respective stools in the pub.
- The absolutely bottom rung simply sits on its collective ass and watches Judge Judy do it.
There are typically 6-8 preliminary debate rounds per tournament, while the best debaters move on to elimination rounds to determine who is the king for the day. Each debate round consists of eight speeches (4 constructive and 4 rebuttals), as well as 4 cross examinations. There are two people on each team, armed with mountains of evidence known lovingly as "tubs". There are reports that some debaters actually "Love" their tubs (in a biblical sense) but these reports remain unconfirmed.
The sport was popularized by a man known simply as "The Framer". The Framer was worshiped by policy debaters in every round possible. He is almost never mentioned anymore during a match, because everyone realizes he was an idiot and doesn't belong in debate anymore. Unfortunately, policy debaters are still in self denial about how they don't belong in debate anymore.
edit The Stock Issues of Policy Debate
- Significance: Why the hell do we even care about the problem
- Solvency: How much spillage your plan can absorb compared to the leading brands
- Topicality: A cop out argument for when the tubs fail the debaters and he tries to use logic
- Harms: What I do to myself after watching a round of this shit
- Inherency: Why no one in reality is doing the plan you are proposing
There are also sub-issues that a debater must use depending on if they are affirmative or negative
The Burden of Proof- This says that the affirmative debater, mostly the 2A must be held accountatable for every little thing that may happen because of the plan. Even if that thing has little or nothing to do with the what The Framer set up for them to debate about.
Presumption- this says that the negative debater has the obligation to make the affirmative debaters look like idiots.
edit The Structure of a Debate Round
There are two teams: The affirmative and the negative. The affirmative has the job of presenting a case to a judge, and the negatives must negate that idea using any form of bullshit possible.
- 1A-This stands for 1st Affirmative.
- 2A-This stands for 2nd Affirmative.
- 1N-This stands for 1st Negative.
- 2N-This stands for 2nd Negative.
We included the above because CX debaters are typically too stupid to use logic and figure this out for themselves.
These are the debaters' names. If you refer to a debater by anything other than this callsign they will not respond, and the judge may castrate you with a spork. This never happens, however, because there are no balls in a policy round anyway. They just do what a more experienced policy debater (who has already lost all balls) tells them to.
The round goes as follows:
- 1AC - The 1A talks as fast as humanly possible for eight minutes, making sure no one can understand him/her and using as little real world logic as possible.
- Cross-X - The 2N gets three minutes to try and figure out what the hell the 1A just said. This cross-x supposedly has a mythical purpose that only an LD Debater can figure out as it requires logic to be skilled at.
- 1NC - The 1N talks about "off case" topics that (usually) have nothing at all to do with what was said in the previous eleven minutes. The judge, who has already decided the winner, has fallen asleep by now.
- Cross-X - The 1A gets three minutes to talk to the 1N about anything they want. Popular topics include nuclear war, world hunger, and asking the opponent for their phone number. Hopefully, the phone number is not given so that illogical beings are not reproduced.
- 2AC - This speech is eight minutes. Usually the debate round is shifted into a different language at this point, mostly Mandalorian or Trandoshian is used. Probably the smarter of the two because the 2A actually has to think for an entire constructive. The thinking required in this speech is so hard for the 2A that they are given almost 30 minutes to recover.
- Cross-X - The judge wakes up to the sound of yelling. The judge, angry, docks speaker point from the louder of the two bitches.
- The Negative Block - The negative team get 13 minutes to "split the block". At one point in time, these words had meaning, now they are lost to the idiocy of novice debaters having an IQ of little more than a shovel (although the varsity squad's IQ is only equivalent of that of a caterpillar's). The negative team says as much illogical bullshit as they can.
- 1AR - The most important speech. The difficulty level of this speech can be decreased by a few notches by babbling random things at high speeds (a trait policy debaters learn quite well). Using words and phrases such as "we solve the deficit," "cross apply," "topicality," "disad" and screaming out names of random authors usually works. If the 1AR does decide to babble at high speeds, wild body movements and/or wild hand gestures that can be taken in a sexual manner usually manifest themselves at this time in the debate. If the 1A has no clue what is going on by the 1AR, the affirmative team must perform the Eckoing Ritual, in which the 2A throws random pieces of Ecko clothing at the 1A (including, but not limited to, very pointy high heels). The negative may rebut with a Calvin Klein rebuttal, in which they throw equal amounts of Calvin Klein clothing at the Eckoers
No one cares about the rest of the round, except for policy debaters. This is because the 2NR and the 2AR consist of people "extending across" everything they have already said in the round. Sometimes, debatabots are brought in to do the job of extending. Meanwhile, the debaters make dirty jokes about Michel Foucault's and Harry Bohner's name.
The round is judged by a person who lacks all nescessary qualifications to be considered a human being. Usually the judge uses the time to draw pictures and listen to music. Many judges only have time to access FaceBook while judging debates, because they themselves have no lives other than college debate. It is widely known that to judge novice debate you must be a complete imbecile, have enormous amounts of patience, or be some sort of ninja with the ability to kill people with an itch.
At the end of a round, even the losing debaters must thank the judge. To cope with the pain of lying through their teeth, they cut themselves. The losing team then bums out behind the school or buys pot brownies from the concession stands.
Policy debaters often ceaselessly talk about nothing but debate, which highly annoys their non-debating friends and non-debating members of the Forensics Team, also known as 'Speechies' but who cares about the forensics team...they are all a bunch of dumbasses anyway, creating an atmosphere that would put anyone on suicide watch.
- Dang Judges: This type of Judge doesn't even try. He looks at the flow paper you handed him. Then back to his phone, then he laughs. You own the other team for an hour and a half and make them your bitch, but he doesn't listen to anything except the Neg block. After the round he says it was a good round both teams argued. Also sorry for my phone going off 10 times. You get your ballot back and it reads "Your Case is interest. Nice advantages [Insert randmom advantages that don't exist here]". But I vote for the neg because for 2 speeches in a row you didn't answer their arguments. Facepalm.
- Desperate Housewife: This type of judge consist of a normal housewife, she likes to vote for puppies and saving babies. Loud noises hurt her little ears. She will vote for the affirmative team almost every time. These judges have hearts that are far stronger than the microscopic sensory organ they call a brain (which never seems to make its way into policy rounds anyway).
- Debatist Judges: These judges know how to debate; however, they are not limited to that one skill, as most debatist judges are extremely skilled solitaire players. These judges will often make remarks mid-debate such as “CLEARER” or “SHIT, I hit a mine”. On occasion, the sound of Windows Messenger can be heard from their computer. These judges uses fancy words when they talk about the debaters' performance, like “Your CX was good, but in the 2AC you forgot to hit FD and the P-tix.”. They are known to vote for themselves in particularly shitty novice round becasue both sides sucks. They think that because they were debaters in high school they now have an IQ equivalent to that of Steve Jobs. However, the reason they are judging another policy round is because, simply, this is the only place they seem to fit in with such ridiculously low IQs.
- Gerhardt: Ben Gerhardt is by far the most respected judge in the debatist community. He is easy to recognize, as a young man in his early 30s, with very stylish hair. He may also be wearing a futball jersey from Spain. If you get a Gerhardt as a judge, you may find it hard to resist his charm and astute sense of humor.
- Shitty Judges: Shitty judges are among the most appreciated and respected members in the debate community. These judges are will always vote against you. Shitty judges usually vote for themselves; most debaters feel shitty judges are “illigit”. Debaters usually imagine the judge eating their own excrement and shortly thereafter expiring during their prep time, hence the namesake. See: Debatist Judges
- Narcoleptic Judges: Most narcoleptic judges fall asleep during the 1NC, they are easily identified as the judges with their heads in their Mac pressing down the “F” “G” and “H” keys with their fat noses. Narcoleptic judges vote on volume, and if you wake them up they will vote you down. A recommended strategy with narcoleptic judges is to fill out the ballot for them, and spank the opposing team until they scream in a volume sufficient to wake the judge.
- The Anti-Judge: Anti-judges can be identified by the “999” on their shiny red ass. Anti-judges vote for arguments such as Malthus and affs that would add more undead minions to his arsenal. However, anti-judges are very poor at Minesweeper, and will smite you during your CX if you “make him click the wrong space”. Anti-judges tend to write either “DEATH” or “no links to Malthus” on your ballot.
- Old Bitch: Some old woman that you acquire as a judge because you are desperate. She knows absolutely nothing about debate, and another kick in the balls is that she can't hear, so you stand four feet away, yelling at her. In the end you lose anyway.
- Faustian: These judges have sold their souls, and as such will vote for what ever you tell them to vote on. If you don't tell them shit, then they vote on who has the biggest body count--not for your plan but rather based on actual casualties inflicted during the round.
edit Policy Debate and Solar Implosion
Recent studies, with the aid of science, have proven beyond doubt that policy debates cause solar implosion. This is because instead of attending to the problem of solar implosion, the debaters are debating and the judge is sleeping. Previous science has shown that not attending to a problem causes it to happen. (See Procrastination.) Famine and dehumanization may be big problems that outweigh themselves, but solar un-ontology is so important that it outweighs famine and dehumanization, which means that solar un-ontology outweighs things that outweigh themselves.
One way to win policy debate is to have a cooler hat than your opponent. It is assumed that the reason for this dates back to the great policy round between Hellen Keller and Ozzy Ozbourne in which the judge could understand neither. Hellen Keller then ripped off Ozzy's head and proceeded to wear it as a hat, winning her the round. Many new debaters have continued to attempt this tradition, though out of a desire to keep blood from dripping on their shirts, they prefer to wear feathery hats.
edit The Newest threat, Performance
A new threat has crept into policy debate. Members of other 'forensics teams', known as 'speechies', have begun to take over everything policy debaters hold dear. They blaspheme against The Framer and disregard all of the framer's teachings and regulations and discuss things that have little to nothing to do with the topic. All debaters fear hitting these monsters, for any round they participate in they sacrifice the policy debaters within it to their own deity, The Anti Framer. A select few do not fear these so called 'debaters' and stand up against the new menace. They are called Heg Debaters.
edit Other Forms of Debate
Two other forms of debate are on par with policy debate.
Public Forum Debate (PFD) is for people with IQs even lower than that of the policy debater who rely on nothing but utter bullshit to try and prove nothing substantial true. Their debate topics tend to include topics about themselves: Should Public Forum Retard Debates deal with shit that doesn't really matter?
LD Debate offers hope for Everyone Else. LD means debate in the style of Lincoln-Douglas. Or else it means Learning Disabled. LD Debaters discuss roots of problems, in an attempt to solve the problem at the root rather than real level. This requires immense logic because it requires the debater to access a world separate from the one we exist in and think in said world. To someone who lacks logic, the Value and Criterion appear as pointless, but it is the gateway to a world of truth! Logic has been attempted to be inserted into Policy Debate by LDers switching over and running framework arguments. However, the policy debaters have no clue what that 'bullshit' is and so can never effectively debate it.
Many policy debaters attempt a pull at logic by claiming that policy is superior because it is done at the college level. Unfortunately, many LDers know the truth behind this and don't share it with their counterparts whose logic would be unable to comprehend what they are saying. The reason for this is because the NAACP felt that they could oppress the white man by forcing him to be illogical. The only way to effectively implement such a plan was by having an appealing event in continuing education that appeals to the white man: Policy Debate. In Brown vs. Board of Education, the US Supreme Court determined that the only fair thing was to keep everyone illogical, thus allowing the black man the right to compete in Policy Debate as well. This backfired against the NAACP and their supreme cult overlord demigod, MLK fell into the trap of Policy Debate, ending its ability for the black man to rise to power. If LD Debate were in college debate now (excluding NFA LD which is just more policy debate with LD times) then logic would prevail, not allowing the black man to be on equal levels as the Redskins.
However, LD Debate is not particularly popular for a few reasons. Sometimes people enjoy winning on the affirmative without having to go for theory. Some people believe that both sides should speak for an equal amount of time and others hate being alone without a teammate in rounds.