Models and counter-models in debating: how to set up a policy debate
Jehiel Pather, NSW State Team
· 7 min read
The short answer
In a policy debate (“That we should…”) the affirmative has fiat: the assumption that it has the money and political support to carry out a reasonable version of the policy. A model is a short explanation of how the team uses that fiat, such as how high a tax is or what a penalty is. A negative team can propose a counter-model, which must be mutually exclusive with the affirmative's policy and use the same or less fiat.
This comes from the lesson where students first build a whole case rather than single arguments. A case has three parts: the set-up, the arguments, and a strategy for winning that the team agrees on in prep. Models belong to the set-up, and they're the part of it that students most often skip.
Policy debates and fiat
The most common topic type starts with “That we should…”. The change in the topic is called the policy, the way parliament passes a policy. In a policy debate the affirmative has fiat: we assume it has the resources to carry out a reasonable version of that policy. The resources can be political (is this popular enough to pass?) or monetary (what does it cost?).
Fiat is why a negative team can't win by saying “the government would never do this”. The debate is about whether it should.
The negative gets counter-fiat: the same resources, to propose a different policy instead. More on that below.
Other topic types work differently. “That we support…” debates look like policy debates, but neither side has fiat. There are also interests debates (“That it is in the interests of X to…”) and prefer debates (“That we prefer X to Y”). We teach those later.
What a model is
A model is a short explanation of how your team uses its fiat. It should give the details that change how the debate plays out, and no more.
| Topic | What the model needs to say |
|---|---|
| That we should tax foods with added sugar | How high the tax is. “We will introduce a 20% tax on foods with added sugar.” |
| That we should penalise teams for the poor behaviour of their fans | What the penalty is. “We will deduct points from teams whose fans are abusive.” |
| That we should make it compulsory to wear hats at school | What happens to a student who doesn't wear one. |
Why the model matters
That's the point of a model. It lets the affirmative choose the most defensible reasonable version of the policy and take the logistical nitpicks off the table. You can't use it to shrink the topic, though. A model that bans selective schools only in one suburb isn't a reasonable reading of the topic, and adjudicators will treat it that way.
Counter-models
Some topics hand the affirmative an obvious benefit. Take “That we should build more schools in rural areas.” It's very hard to argue that more schools for rural students is a bad thing in itself. If the negative only defends the status quo, they're in trouble.
So the negative proposes a counter-model: a different use of the same resources. Here, they might argue the money is better spent on online classes for rural students. Now the debate is a comparison between two policies, and the negative has something to win on.
A counter-model has two rules.
- It must be mutually exclusive with the affirmative's policy. If both could happen at once, it isn't an alternative, and the affirmative will simply say “do both”.
- The negative must explain why it uses the same or less fiat. A counter-model that costs twice as much isn't a fair comparison.
Running a counter-model makes being comparative even more important. The negative is no longer arguing that the affirmative's policy is bad. They're arguing that theirs is better, and they have to show it.
Once the set-up is done, the rest of the case is arguments. The next lesson covers how to structure an argument in five steps.
Common questions
- What is fiat in debating?
- Fiat is the assumption that the affirmative has the resources to carry out a reasonable version of the policy in the topic. Those resources can be political (whether the policy is popular enough to pass) or monetary (what it costs). The negative can't win by arguing the policy would never be passed.
- What is a model in a debate?
- A model is a short explanation of how the affirmative will carry out the policy. For “That we should tax foods with added sugar”, a model would say how high the tax is, for example 20%.
- What are the rules for a counter-model?
- A counter-model has to be mutually exclusive with the affirmative's policy, so the two can't both happen, and the negative must explain why it uses the same or less fiat.
- Does the negative always need a counter-model?
- No, but they usually should think about one. It matters most when the affirmative's policy has an obvious benefit that's hard to argue against, because the negative can then argue the same resources would do more good elsewhere.