Key Links:

What is Big Questions Debate?

BQ as an event is in it’s infancy (2016) which means it is primed to grow and have community norms be established. the John Templeton Foundation created the format and incentivizes participation through grants that are facilitated by the NSDA. Students will be asked to approach abstract ideas and create logical proofs for how a given position should be regarded as the most true. This is a critical pivot from other debate formats where ballots are decided by forecasting likely outcomes; rather in BQ ballots are decided by how confident a judge feels a given position is true with the presented/defended case. BQ is for students who like philosophy, like to think abstractly, and are in search of “truth”.

Example Topics (changes anually)

Traditional Case Structure

  • (Optional) Opening quote from a philosopher

  • (Optional) Topicality/Definitions.

  • (Optional) Lay the ground work of the status quo. What is and is not happening 

  • Framework: This is where you establish the philosophical approach to the resolution and how the judge should evaluate what is true in the round

  • Contentions: This is where facts, figure, statistics meet morality

  • Sub point A (optional): 

    • Link to resolution

    • Harms/Impacts (this should like like a confidence/probability assessment of the truth value)

    • Solvency/link to value criterion (this should look like a logical proof that supports the truth value)

  • (optional) Sub point B

Speeches and Speech Times

Each competitor can take 3 minutes of discretionary in-round preparation time

  • Affirmative Constructive (6 minutes)

  • Affirmative case presentation

  • Negative Constructive (7 minutes)

  • Negative case presentation and/or refutation of the affirmative

  • Cross Examination (3 minutes)

    • Debaters ask questions for clarification and dismantlement

  • Aff Rebuttal (4 minutes)

    • Refute the points of negation,  reaffirm your case, refute the negative case, narrow the scope of the arguments and establish the voting issues, no new contentions, new evidence is permitted

  • Neg Rebuttal (4 minutes)

    • Refute the points of affirmation,  reaffirm your case, refute the affirmative case, narrow the scope of the arguments and establish the voting issues, no new contentions, new evidence is permitted

  • Cross Examination (3 minutes)

    • Debaters ask questions for clarification and dismantlement

  • Aff Consolidation (3 minutes)

    • Refute the points of negation,  reaffirm your case, refute the negative case, narrow the scope of the arguments and establish the voting issues, no new contentions, new evidence is discouraged

  • Neg Consolidation (3 minutes)

    • Refute the points of affirmation,  reaffirm your case, refute the affirmative case, narrow the scope of the arguments and establish the voting issues, no new contentions, new evidence is discouraged

  • Aff Rationale (3 minutes)

    • Refute the points of negation,  reaffirm your case, refute the negative case, narrow the scope of the arguments and establish the voting issues, no new contentions, new evidence is prohibited. Synthesize the round, advocate for the affirmative case over the negation, and win the voting issues.

  • Neg Rationale (3 minutes)

    • Refute the points of affirmation,  reaffirm your case, refute the affirmative case, narrow the scope of the arguments and establish the voting issues, no new contentions, new evidence is prohibited. Synthesize the round, advocate for the negation case over the affirmative, and win the voting issues.

Questioning

BQ Cross-Examination (CX) is shared between competitors and both can ask/answer questions. This is the most combative phase of any debate but there is an amount of mutual respect and sportsmanship expected. For many this is where speaker points are decided.

Key Terms

  • Framework: Framework in BQ is done both through unique definitions and the philosophical approach the the assertion of the resolution. This can vary widely but you want to think of this as the foundational reasoning for how a judge can evaluate the truth value of a position.    

  • Contentions: These are the complete packaged arguments that have a direct link to the resolution, addresses the framework, and furthers the confidence in the truth value as a reason to vote. this can take shape as a case study or thought experiment followed by evidence which supports the claim.  Contentions should be numbered for easy reference such as 1, 1a, 1b, 2, 3a, 3b.  This allows both the judge and the opponent to flow the debate more easily.  If an opponent did not address one of the numbered contentions the debater is encouraged to call this out to the judge during their rebuttals, this is known as “dropping an argument”.

  • Impacts/Voter Issues: Voter issues and impacts are different in BQ compared to other debate formats as it is not valued via hypothetical policy outcomes but rather how confident a judge could say that one position is likely more true than the other. To help you facilitate this ask yourself which statement is the most true; 1) Creativity is a more powerful force than intelligence or 2) Intelligence is a more powerful force than creativity. This is the ultimate question you have to find a way to evaluate for your judge.

  • Flow: This term is in reference to the notes taken during a debate that comes from the “flow” of arguments. A judge is encouraged to write down every argument/contention of each team and gauge whether the opposing team addressed/clashed with their opponents contention.

  • Clash: Clash happens when there are two proposed positions that are in direct conflict with one another.  A good debate should have plenty of clash, students are encouraged to directly attack the contentions, values, value criterion and framework of the opposition, not just defend their position.