Policy debate requires extensive use of evidence

The argument

Policy debate requires the extensive use of research. For teams to prove anything, they must first spend months researching and preparing to debate the topic as well as synthesizing and gathering their sources into a case. This format of debate best stimulates the type of debating that happens in real life, such as in a courtroom or on a congress floor, where lawyers and politicians will spend months building their cases. Because of this, policy debates tend to be the most comprehensive and factual. Teams are so familiar with the topics and so well-prepared in the area that almost any debate will be at the minimum a thought-out discussion between teams who know what they’re talking about. Additionally, because of the evidence that is required, policy debate also ensures that the most factual debates happen. In other debate formats, when people do not know about a topic, at best, they are forced to assume things, and at worst, they will straight up lie about things. However, in Policy debate where teams get an opportunity to research beforehand, this is no longer a problem. Debaters no longer have to panic and scramble after seeing the motion and can instead properly think through their arguments and prepare well.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The process of finding evidence in Policy debate is often tedious and boring. The fact that debaters have to discuss the same topic for an entire year means that the debates become boring and repetitive. Other important things in a debate, such as inferring, thinking, and speaking rhetorically, are deprioritized to make way for evidence. Because of how much time debaters spend prepping, many are forced to use the tactic known as “spreading”, in which debaters speak really fast to try and get through all of their evidence. The problem with this is that debaters never end up actually discussing or arguing for their side. They are simply reading someone else’s opinion or data on something. When another team presents an argument, their opposing team’s response will simply be to give more evidence and arguments in return to try and show that they have out prepped their opponents. If participants are not actually thinking about the world and are simply copying and pasting as much evidence as possible, then this gets rid of the point of debate.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Months of research describes what the format demands, not yet a merit. Whether that demand is a virtue depends on what debate is for, which is precisely the question at issue between these positions. [Rejecting P2] The comparison with courts and legislatures cuts both ways. Lawyers and legislators also work under time pressure, answer arguments they did not anticipate, and speak to be understood — the features the counter-argument says this format sacrifices. Resembling professional advocacy in one respect does not make a format the best training in it. [Rejecting P3] "Comprehensive and factual" does not follow from "evidenced". The counter-argument's description of spreading — reading as much material as possible at speed — challenges whether the evidence is being weighed at all, and the claim that debaters in other formats "straight up lie" is asserted about formats the argument never examines. A year on a single motion also trades breadth for depth, which the premise counts only on one side of the ledger.