Hang tight while we fetch the video data and transcripts. This only takes a moment.
Connecting to YouTube player…
Fetching transcript data…
We’ll display the transcript, summary, and all view options as soon as everything loads.
Next steps
Loading transcript tools…
Types of Debates Part 1: Policy and Empirical Debates | Queensland Debating Union | YouTubeToText
YouTube Transcript: Types of Debates Part 1: Policy and Empirical Debates
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
Video Summary
Summary
Core Theme
This content explains the two most common debate formats in the QDU competition: policy and empirical debates, outlining their distinct structures, objectives, and strategies for success.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
there are many different types of
debates that you will encounter in the
qdu competition
each of which will require you to apply
a new set of skills and knowledge
you will encounter a range of topics
most of which will fall into one of four categories
categories
these are first policy debates secondly
empirical debates
thirdly regret and prefer debates and finally
finally
actor debates this video will cover
policy and empirical debates
which are the two most common types of
debates in the qdu competition
for students in grades 8 and below these
are generally speaking
the only types of debates set another
video will explain regret
prefer and actor debates which students
in grades 9 and above may encounter in
the qdu competition
now let's move on to the first and most
common type of debate
policy debates are about solving a
problem usually through the government
committing to some action or policy
generally speaking the affirmative team
in a policy debate
is acting as the government and
proposing the policy in the topic
therefore it should be assumed within
reason that the affirmative
team has the necessary resources
required to implement the policy
you can generally tell that you are
dealing with a policy debate as a topic
will feature the words
we should some examples of a policy
debate include
that we should ban pets that we should
punish parents for the crimes of their children
children
and that we should cease all
at the beginning of a policy debate the
first affirmative speaker often needs to
provide a model
a model is an overview of how you would
seek to implement the policy
using the example of banning pets your
model might be that
effective immediately the breeding and
sale of pets will become illegal
but the adoption of existing animals is allowed
allowed
unlike a definition which sets out the
meaning of words
your model provides a specific plan that
your team are proposing
your model should be clear concise and
not simply be there to help you avoid
the more difficult parts of the topic
for example if you were debating that we
should ban pets
it would be unfair to the other team to
only ban snakes and not other types of
animals you should also refer back to
your model throughout the debate to help
you make your case
sometimes a negative team will propose a
counter model but this is not always necessary
necessary
the first negative speaker only needs to
propose a counter model
if they agree with the affirmative team
that there is a problem to solve
but would like to propose an alternative solution
solution
a counter model cannot be the same or
similar to the model proposed by the
affirmative team
and should be a unique solution to the problem
problem
if your team is happy with the status
quo there is no need for a counter model
in order to win a policy debate as the
affirmative team you must convince the adjudicator
adjudicator
that there is a problem and that you
will solve the problem with your policy
as the negative team you have a few
paths to victory
you can try and convince the adjudicator
that there is no problem
in which case you do not need a
counter-model alternatively you can
persuade them that there is a problem
but the affirmative team's policy is not
the best solution
or that there is a different problem to
what the affirmative team believes there is
is
and that therefore a different solution
is required in both of these cases you
would need a counter model
policy debates can get messy when teams
change their model or counter model
throughout the debate
or don't have a consistent stance in
order to succeed in these debates
it is important to have a good
understanding of the context and keep a
consistent team stance throughout
now to the second type of debates
empirical debates are about what is
objectively true or better
in an empirical debate you're an
impartial outsider arguing about which
side of the topic is more true
empirical topics tend to feature the
words better than are
or is for example cats are better than dogs
dogs
that social media is a force for
democracy or that superheroes are bad
role models
please note that none of these debates
are proposing a specific action
in contrast empirical debates often
require you to set out the criteria
against which you will prove that a
particular thing is true or superior
taking the example of that cats are
better than dogs you might set the
criteria of personality
helpfulness and difficulty to care for
generally the first feminist speaker
will provide the criteria
but as a second negative speaker you may
also provide competing criteria
your criteria should not just be your
points but general characteristics or goals
goals
that both the affirmative and negative
teams can discuss their points in
in order to win an empirical debate you
will need to convince the adjudicator
that your side of the topic is more correct
correct
generally in reference to your criteria
if the opposition also provides criteria
you must explain why you also succeed on
these criteria
or why your criteria are more important
or ideally
both empirical debates tend to get messy
when both teams have competing criteria
and fail to engage with each other's
criteria so make sure that you set your
criteria out very clearly
and engage fully with the opposition's case
now to some final tips first make sure
that you read the topic carefully
so that you are using the appropriate
strategy for that type of debate
as this video has shown the goal posts
for a debate
change depending on how the topic is
worded so it is
very important to know what the topic is
asking of you
secondly engage fully in the
opposition's case
especially if they have a different
model or criteria to you
and finally don't over complicate your
model or criteria
they should be easy to understand and
make your case clearer
thank you for watching this cutie
youtube video on policy and empirical debates
debates
please stay tuned for our video about
other types of debates in the future
if you want to learn more check out our
other videos go along to watch debates or
or
best of all just give it a try the qdu
has many resources to help
students parents coaches and
adjudicators all available from our website
website
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
