Policy debate is much too broad of a debate to be collapsed down into 10 key points in my opinion. I would start on the National Debate Coaches Association website to get a general idea. A lot of really good coaches have posted good resources to use. You should probably explore the "Novice Basics" section, and work your way from there. At the beginning, the best novice debaters are the ones who are able to comprehend the general idea of the activity, not the ones with super specific strategies. After you understand the basis of it, you can start focusing on specific techniques to become competitive.
When you start researching and come up with questions, you can post them here and myself and others will gladly answer them. I'll try to explain the general gist of it right here:
Policy debate involves two teams, one argues affirmative and the other argues negative. Each team is made up of two partners. Four debaters total in any single given debate. The affirmative reads a plan that falls under the scope of the resolution. (This year's resolution is... Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic engagement with Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela). The affirmative doesn't defend the resolution as a whole, just a portion of it. For example, a popular affirmative case is to remove the Cuban embargo. That falls under the resolution because removal would increase economic engagement with Cuba.
The affirmative would read the 1AC, an 8 minutes speech supporting their plan. Policy debates are largely evidence orientated, so the 1AC is almost entirely reading evidence from various sources. (Later in the debate, much more time is devoted to actually debating out the arguments within the evidence). The 1AC (1st Affirmative constructive) has "advantages, which are just advantages to passing their plan. Using the Cuba embargo for example, the affirmative might argue that removing it would help decrease poverty and instability within Cuba.
The Negative then has their 1NC (1st Negative constructive) where they can read several different types of arguments. Their goal is to prove that the plan is either a bad idea, or it isn't part of the resolution (a.k.a., Topicality)
Topicality: The negative argues that the affirmatives plan does't fall under the resolution, thus, it shouldn't even be part of the debate. The negative defines a word in the resolution, then says why the plan doesn't match it. For example, against the Cuban Embargo, the negative might read a definition of the word "Substantially" saying that "Substantially means a considerable amount", then say that removal of the embargo would only result in a small increase in economic engagement with Cuba.
Disadvantage: The negative reads something bad that will happen as a result of the plan. For example, a popular one this year is the China Disadvantage. The negative says that China is engaging with Cuba now, but that U.S. engagement with Cuba is zero-sum and will push out China, hurting the Chinese economy and hurting U.S./China relations. The negative would argue that the problems with doing the plan (Hurting China's economy, would outweigh the benefits of the plan)
Counterplan: The negative proposes another solution to all or part of the affirmative's advantage. The goal of the counterplan is to provide a better policy that is mutually exclusive with the affirmative's plan. The negative might say "Counterplan: The United States federal government should fund anti-poverty programs within Cuba". That solves the affirmatives poverty advantage.
As it stands though, there's no reason that the Unites States wouldn't pass both policies. That's why the negative needs to have a "net benefit" to the counterplan, which is usually in the form of a disadvantage that links to the affirmative, but not to the counterplan. The negative would argue that since giving Cuba money for poverty prevention isn't actually a deep engagement with the country, there's no reason it would push out China. Thus, the China disadvantage is a bad thing about the affirmative's plan that isn't triggered by the negative's counterplan. Doing the negative's counterplan solves the affirmative's case, while also avoiding the disadvantage. here would be absolutely no reason to implement the affirmative plan because the counterplan solves the good parts of the affirmative, while avoiding the bad.
Case: The negative needs to attack the affirmative case. In the context of Cuba, the negative might say that removing the embargo doesn't decrease poverty in Cuba. Thus, there's no benefit to implementing the plan, and the chance of the disadvantage is a reason why we should stick with the status quo.
That should be the basics of the debate. Speech times and positions and such will all be on the National Debate Coaches' website. Also, here's an example 1AC that should help show the basic structure of it. If you have any more specific questions, don't hesitate to ask.