Although some standards of policy debate are widely recognized, no one standard can be applied in all situations. In fact, sometimes debaters argue about "how to fight, how to judge, and how to have a policy debate", under certain circumstances. This is the so-called "theoretical debate". Usually, this kind of play appears in the debate field because one side thinks that the other side's practice is unfair and should be judged according to the debate theory. When the active party puts forward a plan, they naturally have to bear the "overall burden of proof" to prove that the plan should be adopted. They must prove that their plan is appropriate and a good idea. In order not to reduce the debate to nonsense, the active party must present evidence to complete the burden of proof, and the evidence must come from public publications.

3. 1. 1 core issues

The traditional evaluation method of policy debate requires that the active party must successfully demonstrate some important issues in order to win. These issues are "core issues". Generally speaking, the core issues are as follows:

3. 1. 1. 1 importance

How much impact will this plan bring?

3. 1. 1.2 Solvability

How much harm can this plan solve (how much demand can it meet) and whether it can be successfully implemented in the real world?

3. 1. 1.3 Advantages

What problems exist in the current situation that make the implementation of the plan fully justified? Is the plan important enough to need detailed consideration and implementation? The core topic of "advantage" usually includes another related topic "importance", such as whether the harm is significant. However, these two issues are largely integrated into another core issue "demand".

3. 1. 1.4 root attribute

Why didn't the positive policy come into being spontaneously under the current situation? Or does the square plan actually exist under the current circumstances?

3. 1. 1.5 Compliance

Is planning a way to meet the requirements of debate? Does the policy put forward by the positive side conform to the literal meaning of the debate? "Advantage" refers to the positive effect of the plan, and most active teams will build their own defense framework around the advantage. On the other hand, the opposing party often points out the negative consequences of the positive plan, that is, "disadvantages." In order to ensure that one side can beat the other side in the "ratio of advantages and disadvantages", debaters often show extremely serious disadvantages such as genocide or nuclear war.

3.2. 1 negative theory

"No" means that the opposing party only needs to oppose the affirmative plan without debate. Accepting the negative theory is to allow the negative to put forward a "counter-proposal" that meets the requirements of the debate, that is, the negative position is not a positive proposal. After the defense is put forward, the other party can attack the defense from the following angles:

3.3. 1 integrity

The opposing party believes that the positive party has not made a plan at the request of the debate, and no matter how much advantage its plan will have, it should be judged as negative immediately. This is a kind of "meta-debate": both sides spend time arguing about the definition of debate vocabulary and think it is best to adopt their own definitions. In most annual debates, there will be at least one or two highly controversial positive debates. Therefore, the setting of "coherence" is to deter and restrain these enchanting frameworks.

disadvantage?

The opposing party can claim that the positive plan will lead to unfavorable or adverse consequences, which will exceed all the benefits brought by the plan. The disadvantage is that the disadvantages outweigh the benefits, and the opposing party must prove that the adverse consequences of the positive scheme are "obviously greater" than the benefits it brings.

3.3.3 Anti-phase plan

The opposing party can admit the harm or demand put forward by the positive party, and then put forward irrelevant solutions. Therefore, opponents need to demonstrate that the reason why their opposition plan does not solve the harm by combining topics is because the disadvantages of the pros are rooted in the policy plan required by the debate, so adopting the opposition plan will not bring the above disadvantages. The exertion of the counter-plan makes the scope of the issues in the case limited to the root attribute, solving power and the ratio of advantages and disadvantages (no need to discuss the requirements). As the opposing side, most debaters will focus on attacking the resolution and disadvantages of the opposing side after adopting the opposing side's plan.

Kritik

The opposing party can claim that a wrong square idea or assumption is unacceptable, so it must reject the square scheme based on it, or propose mutually exclusive alternatives at the same time. Kritik sometimes rejects the whole positive position without evaluating its specific policies; At other times, Kritik can make judgments within a unified framework, just like active defense. The bad ideas that Kritik opposes include the right to life, racism, centralized government, anthropocentrism and so on. Kritik rose in the 1990s, and the first Kritik opposed the fuzziness of language with the philosophical view of structuralism. After development, today's Kritik also includes the practice of "agreeing with the position of positive debate but disagreeing with the bad ideas contained in it, and then proposing alternatives on this basis". These Kritik will argue that some ontologies will be implied in supporting positive reasons, which will lead to some inevitable disadvantages, so these bad ideas must be rejected. In this way, Kritik can bypass the question of how much benefit the square plan itself can bring and focus on the part of the square plan that reflects these bad ideas. At the same time, the opposing party can put forward its own corresponding alternative plan: only replace the part of the positive plan that contains bad ideas and let the rest pass completely. This type of alternative is usually called PIK (plan inclusive kritik Alternative).

3.3.5 Theory

Sometimes a positive argument will cause extreme inequality between the two sides at the beginning of the game. In this case, the other party can protest against the procedure and content of affirmative defense. These protests are often "theoretical" because they want to demonstrate from the debate theory what kind of adverse effects positive methods will bring to the debate itself.