My explanations of Team Policy debate back when I was a non-debater went something like this:
First off, there's this thing called the Resolution. It tells you what they're debating about. So like, if the Resolution said, hypothetically, that we should reform our revenue generation policies, than the Affirmative team would come up with a Plan that reforms a revenue generation policy or two and then roll with that. But then, the other team, called the Negative, gets up and says "No, no, no, no! Stick with the stuff you know! It is better by far to keep things as they are. Don't mess with the flow, no, no! Stick to the Status Quo!" And then the Affirmative has to talk again about why their plan is good. It's not as hard as it sounds. Well, it sort of is. But you get the idea.
Except they usually didn't get the idea. So I try something less ramble-y and more professional now that I actually debate:
Ok, let's try something less ramble-y and more professional. Basically, we have a, um, topic that they give us that we need to debate about. So the
They can usually understand all of that except the last sentence.
But just in case it doesn't click, try this:
Ok, so, there's one team that argues something and then the other team disagrees with everything they say.
Debate in a nutshell, people. Let's pretend that Counter-Plans don't exist, and that no one cares if they're Topical or not. It's best to avoid any mentions of theory, speaker points, timers, flowpads, breaks, records, stock issues, and judges that fall asleep mid-round when trying to portray our little sport to those who have no clue what you mean as it is.
LD is a little easier.
One person argues with another person against what they should like better.
Boom. You're welcome.
You're homeschooled. I hope that makes sense.