The formal debates that have been described are specifically policy debates. In the States there are at least two styles: the team style (whose name I can’t recall) and L-D (Lincoln-Douglas). In the team style the emphasis is on evidence and argument structure, with weight going to speaking ability/style; in L-D the emphasis is on oration, but it hinges on evidence and argument. For example, in the team style everything leads to nuclear war or global catastrophy (sp?), whereas in L-D the arguments are more reasonable in a common-sense sense.
But enough about that. Policy debate:
There are four stock arguments: Harm, Inherency, Plan, & Solvency.
Harm: There is a problem that is harming people. E.g., global warming is going to wipe out life on earth.
Inherency: Absent the affirmative’s plan, the problem will not be solved. E.g., if we don’t paint every building roof white, global warming will not go away.
Plan: The affirmative has a plan that won’t be too harmful. E.g., painting every building roof white isn’t going to cause more problems than it solves.
(This is where the Disadvantages come in: the negative tries to show that the plan will be too painful relative to the harm it purports to solve. E.g., painting all the roofs white will not only wipe all life on earth, it will torture us first as well.)
Solvency: The affirmative has to show that the plan will solve the problem. E.g., painting every roof white is going to save us from global warming.
The affirmative must win every one of the four Stock Arguments to win the debate. If there is no harm, there is no need to adopt the plan; if something else can solve the problem, why adopt the affirmative’s plan? (this is important because the negative can offer a Counter Plan by admiting that there are harms, but their plan is better!); if the plan will do more harm than good, it should be avoided; and if the plan won’t solve the problem, then why bother?
That is the essence of debate.
There are subsidiary arguments such as Topicality; i.e., the affirmative’s arguments don’t actually address the resolution. There are arguments over definitions. They can call into question the evidence offered.
So an affirmative case might be like:
I. Harms: 1. Global temperatures are rising; quote some fact or expert to attest to this. 2. This temperature rise is man made; quote some fact or expert. 3. This temerature rise will cause a shift in where grains grow best; quote fact or expert. 4. This will cause an imbalance in the U.S.-Russian power balance; quote expert. 5. This imbalance will cause nuclear war; quote expert.
II. Inherency…
The arguments continue like this.
The negative will have tons of pre-prepared briefs and arguments for every conceivable argument—being able to come up with something no one else has thought of can leave your opponents with nothing and you win.
From these they lay out counter arguments, hitting every argument made by the affirmative. E.g., the increase in CO[sub]2[/sub] will increase world crop production and ultimately be beneficial for humanity could be used to counter the link where the affirmative claims that the crop zones will shift.
Any argument that you fail to hit is “dropped,” and your opponent automatically wins the argument you have dropped. Because the affirmative has its last constructive and first rebuttal speeches back-to-back, one tactic is called “spreading.” When one tries this, they attempt to put down so many arguments that the first negative rebuttal simply cannot cover them all. When my team was negative, I was the guy who did the first negative rebuttal and I succeed by being good at figuring how to group the affirmative arguments, by talking fast, and by not wasting time on pointless arguments.
The judge tracks all these threads of argumentation, judges who won what, and from that declares a winner. Points or whatever (I can’t recall) are awarded for speaking ability.
Thems the basics of policy debate.
Last thing to note: I am convinced that there ain’t no way to get smarter faster than by joining your debate team. You’ll embarrass the hell out of yourself; but debaters don’t care about that—they know who’s good and who’s not and they have a good sense of humor about it all. But it is an outstanding way to learn to actually think about much of our world. Working for local government, I wish more people debated simply because it could help avoid so many idiot policy decisions.