('I

)

-'I

l , I 'j

: J

I 1 : I J : )

, ]

J

J J J

//

www.vlctorybrlefs .• com

.. -..../

Mastering Championship Debate Written by Andrew Bradt & Caitlin Talmadge

What is policy debate? How do you argue inherency? The concept of fiat.

Counterplans and presumption. Handling kritiks. How do you adapt for a stock issues judge'? What is a policymaking paradigm? What about hypothesis testing? Writing and selecting an affirmative case. Structuring disadvantages. Kicking out of a disadvantage. Debating topicality, Working with your partner. First negative

strategies. Effective cross-examination. DG,tbyering the first negative rebuttal.

Perfect affirmative rebuttals .. Raising your speaker points, Becoming a champion!

© 2000, Victory Briefs. All rights reserved. Unauthorized duplication ofthis material is a

. breach of United States copyright laws.

\ \.

www.victorybriefs.com

"

MASTtRING C'HA.l\1~10NSHIP DERATE Bradt & Talmadge

About the Authors

Andrew Bradt is currently a student at Harvard University pursuing an honors degree in the Social Studies Department, focusing on American Intellectual History. While a high school debater at Greenhill School in Dallas, Texas, Andrew won the 1998 NFL National Championship and TF A State Championship in Policy Debate. During his senior year, Andrew also won the Harvard Round Robin, the Mid-America Cup, and the Barkley Forum for High Schools at Emory University, and finished second at the Tournament of Champions. After clearing as the tenth seed at the NDT during freshman year in college, Andrew retired from competitive debate to focus on other avenues of interest. Currently splitting his assistant coaching duties between Lexington High School in Massachusetts and Highland Park High School in Texas, Andrew teaches summer institute at The Championship Group at the University of North Texas and the Zarefsky Scholars program at Northwestern University.

Caitlin Talmadge is currently a student at Harvard University. During her four years of debate at Greenhill High School in Dallas, Texas, she was the 1998 National Forensic League Policy Debate Champion and two-time Texas Forensic Association State Champion. She was the runner-up at the 1998 Tournament of Champions. Caitlin also won the Barkley Forum and the Glenbrook Round Robin. She was the top speaker at the 1998 TFA State Tournament, the Mid-America Cup, the Barkley Forum, the Glenbrook Round Robin, the Harvard Invitational, and the Isidore Newman Invitational. She was twice named second speaker at the Tournament of Champions and won other speaker awards at virtually every tournament of 1998 and 1999. Now Caitlin enjoys working as an assistant coach at Lexington High School in Lexington, Massachusetts. She also worked at the 1999 Dart'mouth Juniors Workshop and Dartmouth Debate Institute. In her free time, she enjoys reading and watching "Law & Order."

Acknowledgements

So many people have indirectly aided in the writing of this book, both through their formal instruction and through their attention to our personal development. To list them all here would be impossible. As such, we thank all of our friends and families for their love.and support. Most especially, we thank our parents Dave and Ellen Bradt, and John and Dana Talmadge, for their constant encouragement of our involvement in debate.

Part of what makes debate so special to us is the enduring bond that grows among competitors, coaches, judges, and teammates through the intensity of the activity. There are several people directly .. cQ'nQ~cted to debate whose guidance contributed invaluably to our success arid to the ideas in this book, an,! we.want to thank them for their help: David Glass, Corey Rayburn, Bill Russell, Ken Strange, Scott Deatherage, Dallas Perkins, Steve Lehotsky, Grey Mead, and Alan Coverstone. We also thank our former teammates from whom we learned so much: Matt, Stolbach, Sohail Yousuf, Logan Wright, Margaret Boren, Rashad Hussain, Kate Eickmeyer, John Oden, Dustin Marshall, and Josh and Jeremy Goldberg.

Finally we thank our former coaches at Greenhill School, Alex Pritchard and Aaron Timmons. Words cannot truly describe what they have given us in terms of education, support, and, most importantly, friendship. It is a tremendous understatement to say this book would never have been written without their countless hours of devotion. It is a great privilege to have been, and to remain, their students, and we hope that through this book we can pass on at least a fraction of what we have learned from them.

A.B. and C.T. Cambridge, Mass. May 25,2000

. J

© 2000, Victory Briefs

(

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Section One! General Information 1

1.1: Introduction 1

1.2: The Most Basic Basics 2

1.3: Basic Format of a Debate 4

1.4: Basic Debate Terms 8

1.5: Tournament Tips 14

1.6: Disclosure, Debate Etiquette, and Ethical Matters 16 '

Section Two: Paradigms of Debate 20

2.1: Stock Issues , 20

2.2: Policy-making 24

2.3: Hypothesis-testing 26

2.4: Judge Adaptation : 27

Section Three: Research and Preparing to Debate 35

3.1: Role of Evidence in Debate 35

3.2: Research Tips ; 36

3.3: Selecting the Affirmative Case 38

3.4: Writing the Affirmative Case 40

3.5: Structuring Disadvantages 42

3.6: Making Briefs 43

3~7: Filing 45

Section Four: Arguments 48

4.1: Extending Disadvantages 48

4.2: "Kicking Out" of Disadvantages 53

4.3: Impact Analysis ~ : 54

4.4: Debating Topicality 56

4.5: Introduction to the Counterplan :.:.:.:.:.:.:~.:.:.:.:.:.:.:_:.:.:.:.:.:_~:.:.:.:: .. :.~:.:_:~:.:_.~!_. _

4.6: Examples of Counterplans 68

4.7: Counterplan Theory 71

4.8: Introduction to the Kritik 72

© 2000, Victory Briefs

J

I -

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE Table of Contents

Section Five: Speaking 78

5.1: Speed in Debate 78

5.2: Flowing 79

5.3: First Affirmative (IA) 82

5.4: First Negative (IN) 88

5.5: Second Affirmative (2A) : 94

5.6: Second Negative (2N) 102

5.7: Raising Your Speaker Points - Fast! 111

5.8: Speaking Drills 114

5.9: Cross-Examination 116

5.10: Insides & Outsides .' 117

© 2000, Victory Briefs

I

1 I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 1: General Information

Section One: General Information

1.1: Introduction

Welcome to Debate!

There is no more rewarding and educationally intense high school activity than debate. Debate challenges a student's ability to speak, organize, research, critically think, evaluate arguments, and solve problems. These skills are useful far beyond debate; the tools debate provides will aid in all aspects of education in high school and beyond.

High school policy debate at the tum of the century is also, however, a technically intense activity. Like any competitive activity it nurtures unique skills. Nowadays, debate often takes place at a fast rate of speech and uses lingo which makes it almost a language of its own. Many in the forensics community criticize debate for these characteristics, yet fortunately, most debaters are able to translate what they learn into language accessible to the non-debater. They can do this because they love their game.

Why do they love it? Well, it's fun, challenging, and the best way to test oneself in a battle of wits with other motivated, smart, interested students. Some debaters love debate so much that they continue in college, or make it their life's work. Overcoming fears of public speaking, or seeing hard hours spent in the library payoff tangibly in victories is intoxicating. Also, some of the most lasting friendships are made in debate, through intense competition, traveling to tournaments, and summer institutes. There are few activities where competitors share. such rich and rewarding bonds. Hopefully, this book will help you get started in policy debate, be more successful at it, and enjoy it more.

About This Book

No textbook about policy debate can ever hope to be comprehensive. To do that would require many different perspectives and would be as large as the Encyclopedia Britannica (if not larger). This book will also not give suggestions about specific arguments related to specific topics, or provide you with a set of theory briefs. It will not give you in depth discussion about controversial debate issues (for instance, don't look here for ten reasons why conditional counterplans are illegitimate).

What we do offer are basic introductions to how to debate, and tips for how to grow and improve as a debater. In this book you'll find explanations of how to run particular types of arguments (disadvantages, counterplans, etc.), how to speak better, how to research more effectively, and, hopefully, how to win more debates.

No textbook can help you as much as experience will. In fact, some of the more complex articles and parts of articles in this book will not make sense until you have been to a debate tournament. What we suggest is reading the articles that interest you, especially those in the first section, and then referring back to them after tournaments. This book is not meant to be read in one sitting; instead, it provides a reference source on various topics you may encounter as you debate.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

J , 1

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 1: General Information

The beginning debater will find instructions for getting started. The more advanced debater will find suggestions to raise his or her skills to the next level, and to remind him or her of the basic skills that make for better clash and better debate. Reading this book alone won't win you the NFL Championship, but constant practice and applying the ideas in this book to your own debating will make you a more successful debater.

A Word on Perspective

Everyone sees debate a little differently. This book is not authoritative. If you come into contact with an instructor or coach who disagrees with some of the opinions in this book, try both methods out and decide for yourself. Part of what's great about policy debate is that there are no rules except the time limits. Feel free to ignore anything in this text with which you disagree. Every debater must experiment to some degree and find his or her own unique style.

However, we, as two debaters who were reasonably successful, can offer the tips that helped us throughout out debate careers. Most of what's in the pages that follow is from the perspective of a policy-making paradigm. but other paradigms of debate are explained and given their due. We also include extensive analysis on how to adapt to different varieties of judges. The good news is that even though policy-making informs much of our analysis in this book. policy-making is in fact the dominant framework for viewing debate today. And the .even better news is that the tips about argument, clash, and speaking are applicable to debate in any paradigm.

Here we go!

1.2: The Most Basic Basics

What Is Policy Debate?

In the phrase "policy debate," you can probably figure out what the "debate" part means-people get together and advance arguments about a particular topic - both for and against. However, the word "policy" may have a slightly less clear meaning. Most people would agree that a policy is a formal course of action designed to solve a certain problem or achieve a certain objective. So basically, what it means is that in policy debate we evaluate competing policy options, different ways to solve problems or achieve certain objectives. Whichever team proves its policy to be best wins the debate (even if that policy is to do nothing or to simply continue doing what is

. already being done, but more about that later).

Policy debate stands in contrast to the type of value debate which occurs in Lincoln-Douglas rounds. In LD, debaters are arguing over which value is best, as in a liberty versus equality debate; these values are usually used to guide ethical decision-making. LD debates tend to be more general and more theoretical, with debaters pondering timeless, abstract questions about . morality (though of course any good LD debater has to be able to provide real-world examples to make his or her case and of course values are an important debate topic).

Meanwhile, the purpose of policy debate is, as we said, to compare policies and therefore to decide which policy is best. Instead of considering more abstract ideas about values, policy

© 2000, Victory Briefs

2

www.victorybriefs.«:om

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § I: General Information

'I , I

debate tends to be very concrete and specific. It also tends to be very current. Whereas in LD debaters often read evidence that is ten or twenty years old and base their arguments on even older texts such as Mill's nineteenth-century book On Liberty and the like, policy debate is very rooted in the present. Evidence more than ten years old is usually disregarded out of hand, and any evidence more than about two years old is always subject to question.

Getting Started in Policy

There are two sides in a policy debate round: the affirmative and the negative. Each team has two debaters. Policy debate begins with a resolution, just like LD debate (although in policy there is only one resolution for the whole school year). A resolution is the statement defining the topic to be debated and, more specifically, describing the general position the affirmative must take in the debate. The 1997~98 resolution provides a simple example: Resolved: That the federal government should establish a program to substantially reducejuvenile crime in the

United States. All affirmatives debating during 1997~98 would have to defend this statement.

The way most affirmative teams would defend this statement is by giving a plan. A plan is a specific proposal under the umbrella of the resolution which the affirmative team chooses to defend-it is an example of the resolution. On the 1997 ~98 topic, for instance, "plans" could have had the federal government increase community policing programs or increase funding for drug education programs, since these are examples of the federal government establishing a program to substantially reduce juvenile crime in the United States. The resolution is a big framework, and the plans fit within it.

I I

The affirmative case explains the reasons the plan should be enacted. Usually the affirmative argues that the plan should be enacted because it accrues certain advantages, such as saving lives or easing human suffering. Note that this is one of the ways in which policy debate differs from value debate: a judge tends to vote for the plan which, to put it crudely, has the lowest body count. The judge is usually not interested in which team upholds liberty or equality or whether that's good or bad; the judge wants to know which proposal will save the most lives.

So in policy debate, the affirmative explains why its plan is a good idea, and the negative's job, unsurprisingly, is basically to explain why the affirmative plan is not a good idea. The negative can do this in several ways, all of which will be discussed in great detail later in this book. The important thing to keep in mind is that there are three basic ways the negative can attack the affirmative: 1) the negative can argue that the affirmative plan may make a particular problem worse or cause more problems than it solves (a substantive argument); 2) the negative can agree that there is a problem with current policy but that there is a better way to solve that problem than the affirmative's plan (another substantive argument); and/or 3) the negative can simply argue that the affirmative plan does not fit within the framework of the resolution to begin with and hence should be disregarded by the judge (a procedural argument).

I I

If you're confused by now, don't worry. You willieam more as you debate and as you read the rest of this book. For now let's take a look at the basic format of a debate round.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

3

, I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 1: General Information

'I

1.3: Basic Format of a Debate

A debate takes place between two teams - one defending the affirmative side of a resolution, and one advancing the negative side - with two persons per team. This debate takes place through a series of speeches and cross-examination periods of specified duration. The speeches are as follows:

First Affirmative Constructive (lAC) 8 Minutes
Cross-ex: lN questions the IA 3 Minutes
First Negative Constructive (INC) 8 Minutes
I Cross-ex: IA questions the IN 3 Minutes
Second Affirmative Constructive (ZAC) 8 Minutes
Cross-ex: IN questions the lA 3 Minutes
I Second Negative Constructive (lNC) 8 Minutes
Cross-ex: ZA questions the lN 3 Minutes
J First Negative Rebuttal (lNR) 5 Minutes
First Affirmative Rebuttal (lAR) 5 Minutes
Second Negative Rebuttal (ZNR) 5 Minutes
Second Affirmative Rebuttal (ZAR) 5'Minutes The above needs some explanation. As you can see, a debate basically consists of three parts: constructive speeches, cross-examination periods, and rebuttal speeches. There are four of each, one for each debater. In other words, every debater gives both a constructive (8 minute) and a ' rebuttal (5 minute) speech. Each debater will also ask questions during a cross-examination period (3 minutes), and answer questions during a cross-examination period (3 minutes).

Because there are two debaters on a team, the high school debate community has developed a way to identify and to refer to each individual member of a particular side. The two debaters on the affirmative team are referred to as the "IA" and the HZA." The two debaters on a negative team are r ferred to as the "IN" and the "ZN."

1 I

Do these eferences signify anything? Yes. Typically, an individual debater will take either the first or t e second set of speeches in the debate for their side.· Thus, for example, on the

affirmati e side, one person will give both the "first affirmative constructive" (lAC) and the "first affi atiy~n:butfal" (lAR). This person is thus known as the "first affirmative" or the U1A." The other affirmative debater will give the 'second affirmative' speeches (the "lA" gives the 2AC and the ZAR). The same thing applies to the negative. The "IN" gives the INC and the

I NR. The "ZN" gives the lNC and the 2NR. . .

During the four cross-examination periods in a debate, the debater who just gave the constructive speech will usually be questioned by the debater who is not busy preparing for the next speech. Thus, after the lAC, the IA is questioned by the ZN while the IN is getting ready to give the INC.

. (Note: There can be exceptions to this division of labor, which will be discussed in § 5.10.)

© 2000, Victory Briefs

4

www.victorybriefs.com

, I

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 1: General Information

I 1

I f 1

the "l A"

gives the first set of affirmative speeches (the first constructive and the first rebuttal)

the U2A"

gives the second set of affirmative speeches (the second constructive and the second rebuttal)

Now let's think about the speeches graphically.

INC CX

8 3

CX 3

lAC 8

1 I

2NC 8

the "IN'

gives the first set of negative speeches (the first constructive and the first rebuttal)

CX 3

lAC 8

the H2N"

gives the second set of negative speeches (the second constructive and the second rebuttal)

2NR 5

ex 3

2AR 5

INR 5

tAR 5

Note that the affirmative team gets to speak both first and last. To make up for this, the negative team gets 13 minutes straight of speech time in the middle of the debate - the 2NC and the INR (split. up only by a brief cross-examination period by the "2A"). This chunk of time is referred to as the negative block.

Each team also receives a certain amount of preparation time (usually 8 minutes, but sometimes 5 or 1 0 depending on the tournament) to be used between speeches during the debate. Each team can choose how they want to use their "prep time" but speeches or cross-examination periods cannot be interrupted mid-stream for prep time.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

5

I

I 1

I 1

I

J I

f 1

www.vtcterybrlefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 1: General Information

These time limits are basically the only official rules of debate. Everything else is, well, debatable.

After the debate is over a judge will vote either affirmative or negative based on which side persuaded him or her that their policy (even if it is the status quo) is more desirable. The judge will pick the winner of the debate and will assign speaker points to each debater on a scale ofO~ 30. The judge will also rank the order of the speakers in the debate. A team need not receive higher speaker points in order to win the debate.

A Brief But Closer Look at the Speeches

Let's look at the purpose of each speech. Far more in-depth descriptions can be found in the sections about each speaker position later in this book. This should, however, give a broad road map to how debates normally play out, though each one is unique.

The First Affirmative Constructive (lAC)

The lAC'sjob is to outline theaffinnative case. The lAC presents the inherency (what about the status quo prevents or fails to include the plan), the harms (what the problems are that are perpetuated by the status quo), the plan (what you aim to do about it), and the solvency for the plan (how and why the plan solves the harms). Basically, the lAC deploys the affirmative team's best evidence in defense of its plan, and explains its advantages.

The First Negative Constructive (INC)

The INC's job is to deploy the negative positions against the affirmative case. These may include a variety of arguments made directly against what the affirmative team says in their case (in the lAC). For example, the INC could argue that that the affirmative's plan will not solve the problems they point out. The INC could argue that the harms asserted by the affirmative are overstated or already being solved. These challenges to what the affirmative team argues in their case are called "on-case" arguments because they are made in direct response to each of the affirmative's specific claims.

The 1 NC may also advance what are called "off-case" arguments. These arguments, while related to the affirmative team's position and plan, are not made in direct response to any particular affirmative argument (a claim of solvency, a claim of advantage, etc.), but in response to the affirmative position or approach as a whole. For example. a negative could argue that adopting the affirmative plan could undermine the United States' military preparedness, thereby risking American lives. This argument would not be made against any particular argument that the affirmative made in the lAC. but would. rather. be a general problem should the affirmative plan be adopted. This argument would need to be developed by the negative team - much like an affirmative case - with specific explanations, reasons, and evidence. Such an off-case argument would be presented by the I NC in what is called a "shell" - which is nothing more than a structured set of arguments (with evidence) setting forth the negative position. Off-case arguments may include disadvantages to the plan, procedural objections like topicality. counterplans offering alternative ways to solve a problem, and/or kritiks criticizing the

© 2000, Victory Briefs

6

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 1: General Information

assumptions behind the affirmative plan and evidence. All of these will be explained in greater detail later in the book.

The Second Affirmative Constructive (2AC)

'I

The 2AC's job is to answer the negative's INC arguments, both on-case and off-case. In terms of the negative's on-case arguments, the 2AC will discuss each of the negative's responses and address them one-by-one. For each of the off-case arguments, the 2AC will typically group the arguments and offer a list of numbered reasons that attack the components of the INC shells.

The Second Negative Constructive (2NC) and First Negative Rebuttal (INR)

These two speeches comprise thirteen straight minutes of speaking time for the negative (broken up only by the cross-examination following the 2NC) called the "negative block." As with the INC, the negative can advance additional negative positions or arguments. Typically, however, the negative block speeches will instead narrow the strategy of the negative by "extending" some of the INC positions and "kicking out" of others. In other words, the negative block abandonsor "kicks out" - some of the INC positions by conceding some of the 2AC's responses. The negative block will choose other positions to "extend" by developing them in much greater depth using evidence and analysis. These speeches are meant to develop rich, detailed strategy options for the 2NR and to put pressure on the lAR

1

You might be thinking, how can we consider the 2NC and the INR as one "block" when one is a constructive and one is a rebuttal. Officially, the first four speeches in the debate are constructives, and the last four speeches are rebuttals. However, this is a fairly old-fashioned division. Most people believe that the rebuttals really begin with the JAR, since the 2NC and

I NR act like one long negative speech. After all, the 2NC and the 1 NR are each allowed to take any of the negative arguments they choose. However, as a widely practiced courtesy to the affirmative (some would even consider it a rule), if the negative is going to read a brand spanking new argument, such as a totally new disadvantage, it should do so in the 2NC, not the INR.

The First Affirmative Rebuttal (1 AR)

, I

The tAR's job is very difficult because he/she only has five minutes to answer the thirteen minutes of negative block arguments. The 1AR must be selective because it's impossible to answer all of the block's arguments, but they must be careful to extend a variety of arguments from the 2AC and cover all the positions adequately to give the 2AR a chance to win the debate. Being a rebuttal, the I AR is normally limited to extending 2AC arguments. Whatever a person thinks about the "negative block," most people believe that new arguments are definitely not allowed beginning in the 1 AR- unless the new arguments constitute a specific response to a new negative argument. For instance, if the negative reads a new disadvantage in the 2NC, the lAR is obviously allowed to respond to that. However, the JAR is usually not allowed to make new answers to a disadvantage run during the INC. We believe that it is perfectly legitimate for the IAR to make "new" arguments to answer any unique arguments that were made for the first time during the negative block.

I I

© 2000, Victory Briefs

7

I I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 1: General Information

The Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR)

'I

The 2NR's job is to pull the debate together and win for the negative. They must select one

. strategy (though composed of multiple positions and arguments) to win the debate. The 2NR needs to analyze how these positions interact and provide a coherent reason to vote against the affirmative plan.

'I ]

The Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR)

I J

The 2AR's job is, obviously, to win the debate for the affirmative. It must defend the case against the negative's attacks and explain why the plan is better than the negative's policy option, be it the status quo or a counterplan. Or, it must defend the plan against the negative's other positions, be they kritiks, topicality arguments, etc. The job of the second rebuttalist is to analyze the positions and arguments remaining in the debate and convince the judge that they interact in a way that results in a favorable ballot.

1.4: Basic Debate Terms

If you have ever heard a policy debate round or read briefs written by a policy debater, two questions may have come to mind: first, why are the debaters using all these strange terms? And second, what do the terms mean? This section will attempt to answer these questions.

! I I

Policy debate does indeed employ a special vocabulary. This vocabulary is not meant to confuse anyone; instead, if used properly, it can help communicate more clearly and concisely the argument a debater is making. In having a special vocabulary, policy debate isn't too different from many other activities: for instance, the legal, medical, and film industries all employ a unique set of terms, as do sports teams. These special words help the people within the activity speak precisely but efficiently. Debate is the same way.

The terms we are about to discuss are flexible, because arguments do change. Obviously. you should describe your arguments as you see fit. However, a good grasp of the basic words most policy debaters tend to use will help you become a better debater yourself. The following definitions will help get you started.

And don't worry if you don't completely understand every word the first time you hear it! Just consider it a foreign language you are learning one word at a time, and remember that this book contains entire sections devoted to several of the terms. Of course, you will also learn more about all of them as you gain more experience actually debating.

I

Resolution

This is the statement defining the topic to be debated and. more specifically. describing the general position the affirmative must take in the debate, i.e. . what should be done. The Framers write it at the beginning of the season, and it is the same for an entire school year. (This is different from LincolnDouglas resolutions, which change during the course of a year.) The 1997-98 resolution provides a simple example: Resolved: That the federal government

I , f

© 2000, Victory Briefs

8

(I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 1: General Information

Plan

Topicality

1

I I

Fiat

Paradigm

I 1

Status Quo

Inherency

© 2000, Victory Briefs

should establish a program to substantially reducejuvenile crime in the United States. All affirmatives would have to defend this statement.

This is the specific proposal that the affirmative team defends. It is almost always an example of the resolution. On the 1997-98 topic, for instance, "plans" could have had the federal government increase community policing programs or increase funding for drug education programs, since these are examples of the federal government establishing a program to substantially reduce juvenile crime in the United States. The resolution is a big framework, and the plans fit within it.

The first part of this word, topic-, offers an important clue to its meaning: it deals with whether or not the plan is part of the topic described by the resolution. For example, on the 1997-98 topic dealing with juvenile crime, one could argue that an affirmative plan increasing the funding for space exploration would not be appropriate, because such a plan would be untopical. Topicality asks, is the plan an example of the resolution? If not, the affirmative should lose, because it is the affirmative's job to upholdthe resolution. Also, it is unfair to the negativeto debate a case outside the resolution, since those cases are unpredictable.

Many times an affirmative proposes a plan which would never be adopted in the real world; however, both teams assume that the plan actually is adopted in order to. debate its merits. This assumption-that the affirmative plan will actually be enacted if the judge votes for it-is often referred to as the "power of fiat" or "waving the magic wand of fiat." It just means that both teams and the judge pretend they are all real policymakers instead of simply people talking in a room. It dispenses with what are commonly referred to as "should/would questions." The debate is about whether the plan should be done, not whether it would be done. For a fuller discussion of fiat, see section 4.8, which deals with kritiks.

This is also known as a "judging philosophy." This is the framework that a judge uses when evaluating a round. Because different judges may believe certain arguments or ideas are more important than others, his or her paradigm can strongly influence which side is deemed the winner. We will examine some common paradigms in section 2.

If a judge votes to preserve the status quo, he or she is choosing to let things stay the way they are right now, without the changes the affirmative plan would bring. The negative defends the status quo unless it runs a counterplan or a kritik. Those will be discussed in great detail in section 4 of this book.

This is the barrier to enactment of the affirmative plan in the status quo; in other words. it forces the affirmative to answer the question. If your plan is so great, why isn't the government doing it now? If it isn't being done, that may

9

'1

r ]

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 1: General Information

Significance or Harms

Solvency

Contention/ Observation

On-case & Off-case

Disadvantage

J J

Uniqueness

© 2000, Victory Briefs

be because there's something wrong with it, in which case the negative would like to point that out. And if it is being done, then the judge doesn't need to waste his or her time voting for it. Or, there could be political or bureaucratic reasons why the plan does not currently exist. There are several different types of inherency which will be discussed more thoroughly in section 2.1, "Stock Issues."

This forces the affirmative to show the problems the plan would solve and to prove why those problems matter. The affirmative basically has to answer the question, Why should anyone care about the plan? Or Why would a world with the plan be better than the status quo?

After the affirmative has shown that there is some type of problem in the status quo, the affirmative has to show why its plan would fix, or solve, that problem. Often solvency is held to the following burden: Is the plan both necessary and sufficient to solve the harms inherent in the status quo?

To help make its case more clear to the judge and the other team, the affirmative will often divide it up into several numbered sections called "contentions" or "observations." This makes sense, because the affirmative is observing a problem with the status quo or contending that a problem needs to be solved in a certain way.

Negative arguments can generally be divided into two categories: arguments "on" the case and arguments "off' the case. On-case arguments directly refute the points the affirmative makes in its lAC; they often consist of attacks on the affirmative's inherency, significance, harms, or solvency. By contrast, off-case arguments discuss external effects of or more general problems with the plan. For instance, the affirmative plan by itself may do something good-like increasing privacy-but the plan may spend so much money that it hurts our economy or takes away money from other important ' programs. Therefore "Spending" would be an off-case argument. Generally speaking, an effective negative strategy will employ a mix of on-case and offcase arguments.

As the name implies, a disadvantage is something bad that would happen if the affirmative plan were adopted; literally. it is a disadvantage to doing the plan. The disadvantage is the most common negative argument. The "Spending" argument explained above is a perfect example. Disadvantages usually consist of four components. all of which will be defined below: uniqueness, link, internal Iink, and impact. Disadvantages themselves are explained more fully in section 4.1

If a disadvantage is unique to the affirmative plan, then the disadvantage is not happening in the status quo and will occur only if the judge votes for the affirmative plan. So "uniqueness" is the degree to which the disadvantage is

10

'I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 1: General Information

1

uniquely caused by doing the affirmative plan. If a disadvantage is not unique, that means that the disadvantage will occur even if the judge votes against the plan. Thus, a non-unique disadvantage - a disadvantage that would occur anyway - is not a good reason to vote against a plan. Uniqueness is usually the first subpoint of a disadvantage and requires evidence to support it. For instance, if the negative were running Spending, it would have to

. prove that no new government spending is going to occur in the status quo.

This is' usually the first subpoint of a disadvantage and requires evidence to support it.

'1

I

I

Brink

To understand this term, let's start with an everyday example. If you say, "Mr. Manes is on the brink of insanity," you mean that he is at a crucial turning point-he may go insane or he may not, but whatever way he goes, he is going there soon, and now is the key time for him to go one way or the other. This is kind of what we mean when we use the word "brink" in debate-we are saying that a particular decision is about to be made or a particular trend is about to be established. We don't know which direction the decision or trend are going to be in; but we know that now is the key time. In the government spending disadvantage, for instance, we might say; "Government spending is on the brink-Congress has not decided whether to spend a lot more money, but now is key." Note that this is different from uniqueness, which predicts or identifies a specific decision which has already been made or will be made, such as "Congress has decided that no new spending will occur in the status quo." A brink is descriptive and neutral, while uniqueness tends to be predictive and clearly pointing in a certain direction. Like uniqueness, brink evidence can be the first subpoint of a disadvantage. It sets up a disadvantage to say, "Things are uncertain right now, but affirmative definitely takes us in a bad direction." By contrast, uniqueness sets up a disadvantage to say; "Things are actually good right now, and the affirmative messes that up."

I

I 1

I

Link

A link shows the direct connection between the affirmative plan and the disadvantage. This is usually the second subpoint of a disadvantage and again requires evidence to support it. In the Spending example, the negative would have to explain specifically why the affirmative would spend money. Ifthere is no "link" between a disadvantage and the affirmative's plan, then the disadvantage would not be a reason to vote against the plan.

Internal Link

An internal link shows the connection between the immediate effect of the plan - for example, spending money - and the larger consequences of spending money - namely recession and a possible war. An internal link basically serves to strengthen the logic of a disadvantage and to explain more fully why what would occur if the judge vote for the plan. It often presents the threshold for the disadvantage; that is, it shows how strongly the affirmative must link to the disadvantage (in this case how much money it

J , I

© 2000, Victory Briefs

11

f -

'1

I

j I

J

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 1: General Information

Impact

Turn

Empirical

Counter plan

© 2000, Victory Briefs

must spend) in order to cause the impact. This is usually the third subpoint of a disadvantage and again requires evidence to support it.

This is usually the last subpoint of a disadvantage and requires evidence to support it. An impact shows the final, most dramatic consequence of voting for the plan. In the spending example, the internal link said the increased spending of the plan would cause an economic recession. The impact evidence would now need to say that economic recession itself is bad; probably because it increases the likelihood that countries would go to war with each other. So the final impact to the disadvantage is war.

This is an argument which can be read by either the affirmative or the negative; it "turns" the other team's argument on its head and is an offensive (as opposed to defensive) argument. More than saying that the other team is just not right, a turn says the other team is actually flat-out wrong-that the opposite of what they say will happen, happens.

For instance, the negative might run a solvency turn arguing that instead of increasing privacy, the affirmative plan actually decreases it-in other words, the affirmative actually worsens the problem it is trying to solve. Note that this is distinct from simply arguing that the affirmative doesn't fix a problem, that it doesn't increase privacy-here the negative is arguing that the affirmative actually causes there to be less privacy than there would have been if the affirmative were never adopted at all!

Meanwhile, the affirmative team can also run turns against the negative arguments. If the negative were to run the spending disadvantage we discussed above, the affirmative could turn the disadvantage by showing that the plan actually helped the economy or that it actually saved money. Note again that this is distinct from simply arguing that the affirmative doesn't spend money at all-in this case, the affirmative is arguing that is actually causes there to be a better economy than there would have been if the affirmative plan had never been adopted at all.

A turned disadvantage is a new advantage for the affirmative, just like a turned case is an advantage to the status quo reason to vote for the negative team.

Empirical means based on experience in the real world. If an argument by either team is "empirically denied," it means that real-world experience proves the argument wrong.

A counterplan is a proposal offered by the negative, a plan to counter that of the affirmative. Counterplans are discussed extensively in sections 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7.

12

r 1

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 1: General Information

, J

Permutation

Critique or kritik

J j

I

Overview Underview

Brief or Block

I 1 J I

Cards

Tag

Citation

Shell

j ]

I J

Frontline or Firstline

© 2000, Victory Briefs

A permutation is a type of affirmative response to the counterplan. It says basically that the judge should "do both"- that the judge should vote for all of the affirmative plan and all or part ofthe counterplan, because one does not preclude adopt of the other.

A critique is a particular type of philosophical attack on the affirmative plan which will be discussed in more detail in section 4.8. Kritik is simply the German word for "critique," The K-spelling if often used simply because many of the philosophical arguments require a type of analysis developed by certain German philosophers. Don't be confused! The two words mean the same thing in debate,

An overview or an underview is just a debater's summary of what is going on in the debate; it is a general analysis and usually does not involve reading evidence. If it occurs before the debater begins specific, evidenced argumentation, then it is an overview. If the debater gives it at the end of a particular issue. it is called an underview.

A brief or a block is the page on which your arguments are written. When you "make blocks," you put your evidence on a page, For more information on this. see section 3.6.

A card is an actual piece of evidence, like a paragraph cut out of an article. It is what you read in a debate round after making into a "block" or "brief,"

A tag is a short phrase or sentence which explains the evidence you are reading and why it matters in the debate. It is important to make tags concise and to put the most important words in a tag at the beginning so that the judge will be most likely to catch them and write them down.

A citation provides the source of your evidence. If you cut your card out of a Time magazine article from June 5, 1999, then your citation or "cite" would say, "Time, 6/5/99," For more on citations, see sections 3.2 and 3,3.

This is the structured set of cards that you read in the 1 NC that together forms a disadvantage. It usually includes evidence for (at least) the uniqueness, link, and impact. When you are writing a'shell, you want to put your best evidence in it and think carefully about how to write your tags so that they apply to as many cases as possible. Usually a shell is fairly generic since it is read in the first negative speech before you know everything about the affirmative case; then back-up evidence is used to make the argument more specific in later negative debates.

These two terms mean the same thing. They are numbered lists of arguments, usually attacking an affirmative case advantage. They can be written in advance if you know what a particular case is going to say. They are usually read in the first negative constructive.

13

J

, ]

www.vlctorybrlefs.eom

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 1: General Information

"Line-by-line" "Line-by-line" debate is direct refutation of what an opponent has said. It is called "line-by-line" because to do it debaters generally go line by line on their flow (their written record of what an opponent has said) and answer arguments one by one. It stands in contrast to "big picture" debate or overviews, which advance general arguments and broad comparison about the debate. Good debaters have to strike a balance between "line-by-line" debate

and the "big picture." '

A Word About Jargon

As with any activity, mastering that activity requires an understanding of its unique terminology and language. This will take time and practice. Suppose you heard a debater say the following in the first affirmative rebuttal: "Go to spending. 2AC #1. No link. Group their numbers I to 8. #1. Tum ..... " What does that mean? (The answer is In the next paragraph.)

J argon is important to master and to understand. This does not mean, however, that you should necessarily use that unique terminology and language in a debate round. It would be sheer lunacy to start ranting about "shells" or "first-line" or "kritik" in front of a parent or volunteer judge who has never even heard of debate. In such a case, instead of saying "Go to spending. 2AC #1. No link. Group their numbers 1 to 8. #1. Tum" you might say: "Now let'sturn to their argument that the affirmative plan causes too much spending. Remember what we said in our last speech. We first pointed out that their alleged disadvantage does not apply to our plan, because our plan does not spend money. They gave 8 arguments in response that can considered together as a group. Our first response is that their arguments actually support our side .... "

To be successful at many larger national tournaments, however, well-experienced judges and debaters will tend to use and expect you to use more jargon. In any event, at all levels of debate, a champion debater must have intimate knowledge and familiarity with jargon, and be able to use it effortlessly. So it is worth taking the time to master it.

1.5: Tournament Tips

How Tournaments Work

There are several different types of tournaments: single elimination, double elimination, round robin, etc. The vast majority of high school debate tournaments are single elimination tournaments, but you will want to be sure to be familiar with the tournament format of each tournament you attend. Single elimination tournaments involve debating a certain number of preliminary rounds in which you debate an equal number of times on both sides of the resolution (affirmative and negative). After that, the teams with the best preliminary round records (based on wins versus losses, and speaker points) "clear" or "break" to the elimination rounds. These teams play offagainst one another in a single elimination bracket format. Winning teams move on to a later round (i.e., from quarterfinals to semifinals), while losing teams are eliminated from the tournament. They play off to a final round, which produces a tournament winner.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

14

: )

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 1: General Information

How to Succeed

There are some very simple things you can do at debate tournaments to improve your performance. Some of these will seem obvious, but we list them anyway, as friendly reminders.

1.

Get sleep!

Staying up late to cut extra cards is often counterproductive. If you're too tired to debate in the morning, it won't matter. Get plenty of sleep.

2.

Eat!

Even if you're nervous at tournaments you should eat when you have the opportunity. Your brain functions best when after you've eaten. Sometimes there's not much time to get food. You should pack some snacks for yourself. Apples are usually effective, if you're health conscious. Health consciousness is not the strong suit of the debate community. If you pack ho-bo's you won't be out of place.

3. Look after your timer.

Debaters are notorious for walking offwith people's timers. Don't be a victim. Write your name on your timer and keep track of it. Another good tip is to open up the back and tum the battery upside down so it's inoperative when you're not using the timer. This will keep the battery from running out at an inopportune time (like the middle of the 2NR) and will keep your timer from going off in embarrassing places, like class, airport security, or the library.

4. Keep your pairings.

You should keep pairings sheets at tournaments and after tournaments. That way you can keep track of who is debating whom, and who has been judged by whom. You can track down your friends and get information about the teams against whom they have debated and the judges they've had. Your friends can be your best source of frank information.

5. Keep a notebook.

Take extensive notes after each debate about the team you hit and the judge's comments. You'll want to look back at these later, like when you research and strategize against that team at home and when you have that judge again at another tournament. If you want to get really organized, you can even get a binder with alphabet tabs and organize information by case or by team. By the end of the year you will have an amazingly useful "play book" containing a record of your strategies and results.

6. Do speaking drills at the tournament.

You should do drills at the tournament before your first debate and in the mornings. Speaking is the physical part of debate, so treat it that way. Just like you stretch before you run, you should limber up your speaking instrument before the round. No one sounds good first thing in the morning, so knock the rust off your voice by doing some drills.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

15

'I

]

} I J

\

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 1: General Information

7.

File your updates as soon as you get tbem.

It's a waste of time to have all your recent updates in a big stack before during the tournament. You're trying to find cards that you're not sure are there. File stuff immediately after you get it. You'll have an up-to-date inventory of what you have and you'll know where it is.

8.

Don't disparage your opponents or judges in tbe hallway or at the hotel.

You never know who your next judge will be, or what they look like. He might coach that team you just called "galactically moronic" or something worse. Oops. Also, steer clear of this behavior at the hotel.Misbehavior might be noticed by someone who can't punish you then, but could punish you later-with a ballot.

9.

File meticulously after your debates.

Do it immediately. Don't wait. You won't have time later. If you don't it'll eat time that should be spent prepping in the next round. You're going to have to wait for the judge's decision anyway, so you might as well file.

10.

Have fun!

Tournaments are fun experiences. You get to see friends from other places that you don't see often. Enjoy it! Don't pass those chances up when there's down time. When it's time to work and prepare, do it. But leave time to socialize and see your pals. Not only does that have inherent worth, but it will improve your debating. It will keep your attitude in high spirits and judges like to vote for teams who look like they are glad to be there.

L6: Disclosure, Debate Etiquette, and Ethical Matters

Disclosure

Disclosure refers to how much teams tell other teams about what they are running before debates begin. Different regions of debate have different standards for what you are expected to disclose on the affirmative or the negative. Some areas of the country that could be described as more traditional expect no disclosure at all and frown upon asking for it. In college debate, affirmative (but not negative) disclosure is expected, and negatives usually can read the affirmative plan before the debate. Every area is different, but the prevailing attitude in national circuit debate is that the affirmative team should disclose their case (unless it is new, in which case they should simply say that it's new) and its lAC advantages (unless they are new) but not the plan text.

Negatives are not expected to disclose anything. .

}

, }

I I , I

This is the sort of disclosure we advocate in this book. The affirmative should always disclose their case unless it's new, and the negative should not be expected to disclose anything. This may seem unfair at first glance, but it is actually quite reciprocal and provides the most educational debate. Having affirmatives disclose their cases creates an atmosphere of collegiality and allows the negative to adequately prepare before the round. This preparation fosters the most fair debate because the affirmative has unlimited time to prepare their case and wins a majority of rounds anyway. Affirmative disclosure equalizes ground. Also, affirmatives who must rely on the "surprise" factor of running their same old case without giving the negative the advantage of

, I

© 2000, Victory Briefs

16

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERlNG CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 1: General Information

'J ( f

disclosure are in trouble anyway. If your case is really good, you shouldn't be worried about the negative having a few extra minutes before the debate to organize arguments against you.

If the affirmative has to disclose shouldn't the negative also have to disclose? No. That's an unfair burden to the negative. They should be able to listen to the 1 AC evidence and have flexibility with respect to their strategy. Also, there's nothing to prevent the affirmative from changing the plan" text or case to avoid the disclosed negative strategy. Most importantly, if the

negative gives away their entire strategy before the lAC is read, the cross-ex ofthe-lAC--1oses-its---strategic value, because the lAC knows what positions are coming. Good luck to the 2N in

getting links to disadvantages. If this process still strikes you as unfair, consider that reciprocity

comes when the teams meet again (which happens often on local and national circuits) on

opposite sides when the new affirmative (former negative) team will disclose their case.

} 1

Obviously these are decisions that you'll have to make yourself, but on the national circuit you win look pretty amateurish if you don't disclose the affirmative case. If you're negative ask the other team if they disclose their affirmative, informing them that you will not be revealing the negative strategy. If they say no, don't pursue the issue. If the affirmative says they won't disclose their case unless you disclose the negative strategy, inform them that to be fair, when" you debate again and you're affirmative you'll disclose your case to them. If they're still unsatisfied, then politely say thank you and wait for the lAC to find out what the case is. Usually if a team won't disclose it's because their case is not a work of pure genius.

J 1

If you're affirmative and the other team asks you about your case, tell them what it is. Don't answer questions about your tricks or 2AC answers, just acknowledge what the case is. Then

don't ask them about their strategy. That's our advice. .

Above all, don't lie about disclosure! If you disclose that you're running something, run it. If you disclose a case or advantages, run them. Lying about disclosure is unethical and just plain uncool. Judges have been known to vote against teams who disclose dishonestly, and with good reason. Lying in this manner hurts the atmosphere of openness and friendship that prevails in the community.

Debate Etiquette

There are some conventions on etiquette prevalent in the community. You won't run afoul of these as long as you treat everyone you meet with respect and remember that everyone participating has the common goal of education. Keep that in mind and you'11 have no trouble.

" J }

There are some things you just do because they are traditional. These rules are relaxed somewhat at the college level, but in high school where teachers are predominantly the judges you should break convention at your own risk. You should dress reasonably well, not too dressy, but not too casual either. Guys should be equipped to wear a tie; women should wear the equivalent. Stand up when you speak; more judges will dock your speaker points than will find it "cool" for you to give speeches while seated. Shake hands with the opposing team after the debate.

" 1

© 2000, Victory Briefs

17

: I

'l f

1

1 1

'; 1

} .J

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 1: General Information

As far as other etiquette you should do your best to be respectful at all times. If you know the other team and judge well some jocularity is to be expected. But if you don't know them some otherwise playful jokes could be taken the wrong way, so watch your use of ad hominem. Politeness in the cross-ex is a must, but don't confuse this with not being aggressive. Just be nice and treat your opponents how you would want to be treated.

It is expected that the other team should be allowed to peruse your evidence and plan or counterplan texts after your speeches. Give it to them, and feel free to ask for theirs. Whether you hand them cards while you're speaking is your own choice. Judges are certainly allowed to read whatever cards they want after the debate. If teams ask to copy down your plan text or get some cites from you after the debate, let them and feel free to do the same. You should all be learning from one another.

When you interact with the judge you should just be respectful. If you don't know them and want to ask them questions before the debate about their paradigms and opinions on arguments, do so. They are likely to want to answer your questions thoroughly. Thank the judge when they leave the room. Remember that they are donating their time and are doing the best they can. After debating a good bit on your local circuit you'll get to know many of your judges. You'll even be on a first name basis with some ofthem. That's terrific. Judges are people too, treat them that way.

Ethical Issues

The debate community takes ethics very seriously. Being dishonest is unacceptable and will win you more enemies than friends. The most amazing thing about the debate community on the whole is how intensely the debaters compete with one another while also being tremendously close friends. Long after your last rebuttal you'll treasure the friends you have made debating. These friendships, and the congeniality of the community as a whole, are built on honesty. A good rule of thumb is to always be honest; never cheat.

Most ethical issues that come up are related to evidence. One is cheating with respect to reading evidence in debate. Sometimes debaters take advantage of the speed of the debate and only read certain words of cards, or say they read more of cards than they actually did. This is often referred to as "cross-reading." Judges can usually tell if you are cross-reading. You'll be rewarded with zero points and a loss. Don't do it.

There are also ethical issues with respect to cutting evidence. Sometimes evidence is cut "out of context," meaning you are distorting the meaning of a card by leaving out words or surrounding sentences, or you are reading cards completely inconsistent with the author's argument. In the past some teams have even been caught writing their own evidence. Getting caught doing this is disastrous and will likely bring shame upon you and your entire program, not to mention disqualification from the tournament.

Be careful about accusing other teams of ethical violations, though. You are making a serious attack on someone's character, and it should not be taken lightly. If you think a team is reading a card out of context you need to have a copy of the full article or book with you to prove it. A baseless accusation is not usually enough to prove such a large allegation. If you make an ethical

© 2000, Victory Briefs

18

( }

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 1: General Information

'l

allegation .against another team and you're wrong you'll usually lose the debate, and look like a . huge jerk, so don't do it unless you're sure. Avoid using the words "out of context" unless you mean because some judges see this as an ethical challenge. Also avoid referring to other teams' arguments as lies-some judges might get the wrong idea about this as well.

The only other area where ethics come up occasionally in debate is in disclosure. Disclosure refers to what either team tells the other team what they will be running before the debate begins. Never lie about disclosure. If you say you're going to run something, run it. If the other team discloses and lies, call them on it. No one in the community should have to tolerate dishonesty.

Play fair and you won't run into any trouble.

1

I J

j

e 2000, Victory Briefs

19

C I

J J

t

l 1 !

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 2: Paradigms of Debate

Section Two: Paradigms of Debate

We have talked about debate basics: pretty much everyone agrees that the affirmative must present a plan that falls under the resolution and that the negative must attack that plan.

But what do you actually have to do to win a real round? The answer to that question depends on whom you ask. After all, you have probably heard of split decisions in debate-rounds where different members of the judging panel vote different ways (5-4, 3-2, or 2-1, for example). You may have asked yourself how several intelligent people who had all seen the same debate could make such different decisions about which team won which arguments. While there is no accounting for taste, part of the differences in the judges' opinions may have stemmed from different judging paradigms; that is, they may have been employing different frameworks to evaluate the round.

We believe that understanding these different viewpoints judges may use to evaluate competing claims is crucial for debate success. You have to know what your judge thinks is important if you want the judge to vote for you! In the following sections we introduce these paradigms and offer some tips for debating under them. These sections are not comprehensive, but they definitely tell you what you need to know as you first venture into policy debate.

2.1: The Stock Issues Paradigm

The Stock Issues Paradigm remains a popular Judging philosophy on many cross-examination debate circuits. Here we will review its basic tenets and discuss some specific tips for the affirmative and the negative when debating in front of a stock issues judge. We will also go over the names of some typical stock issues arguments and devote a special section at the end to inherency.

Basic Tenets

Not surprisingly, the Stock Issues Paradigm is based on the five stock issues, each of which can be thought of as a certain question the affirmative must answer about its case: inherency, harms, significance, solvency, and topicality.

Stock issues judges believe that an affirmative case must successfully answer all five of these questions in order to win the debate. If the affirmative fails even one of these critical tests, the negative should win, because "a table can't stand on three legs," just like a case theoretically can't stand on fewer than five stock issues.

The chart on the following page sets forth the five stock issues:

© 2000, Victory Briefs

20

1 J

l 1·

1

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 2: Paradigms of Debate

THE STOCK ISSUES

Inherency: Are there inherent attitudinal, structural, and/or existential barriers to doing the affirmative plan in the status quo?

Harms: Is something bad happening because the plan is not being done in the status quo?

Significance: Is the problem the plan tries to solve important?

Solvency: Does the affirmative actually fLX the problem it describes?

Topicality: Does the affirmative's proposaljit within the framework of the resolution?

Most stock issues judges believe these issues are absolute-that is, an affirmative either does or does not solve; a case is or is not inherent.

The Stock Issues Paradigm is largely focused on the plan and whether or not it can meet the five burdens outlined above; on-case arguments carry a lot of weight. Meanwhile, off-case arguments like disadvantages are usually considered much less significant, and stock issues judges will usually reject counterplans outright (see sections 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 for more information on counterp lans).

Stock issues judges tend to see the quality and not the quantity of evidence as most important. So if you read evidence, make sure your author is qualified. And don't be afraid to make arguments without evidence as long as they are logical.

Tips for the Affirmative

• Write the lAC so as to clearly outline the stock issues and explain how you meet then.

Often it is a good idea to devote a contention or observation of the lAC to each of the five issues. (See section 3.5 for more on structuring the affirmative case.)

Be sure to thoroughly answer all case arguments. Do not rush through them in order to answer the disadvantages or other off-case positions.

Explain why the plan is still a good idea even ifit does not meet all the burdens 100%. For instance, you can argue that even if the plan does not totally solve every problem mentioned in the harms evidence, it still possesses a comparative advantage over the status quo; that is, the plan is still the best option compared to the status quo. (See section 2.2 for a more thorough discussion of the notion of "comparative advantage.")

@ 2000, Victory Briefs

21

'J

.~

I

I 1 t

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 2: Paradigms of Debate

Tips for the Negative

Do not ignore the case. You will not win debates in front of stock issues judges by running lots of disadvantages and trying to just outweigh the case. Pull out everything in your file that has to do with the actual meat of the case. If you defeat one stock issue, you win the debate. On the negative, you are deemed to have "presumption," which means the affirmative has the burden of proof to show that the plan is necessary. Stock issues as a paradigm always sees risk accompanying change; therefore, you can often convince the judge that affirmative plan is not good enough to risk hidden disadvantages that always come with a change in law!

If you are going to run disadvantages, try to show that the disadvantage turns the case somehow. For instance, let's say that the affirmative tries to increase privacy rights, because, according to the affirmative, rights must always be protected. If the negative then wins a disadvantage with a war impact, the negative can say, "The disadvantage turns the case because if there is a war, people's rightswill be violated!' Sure, that connection is a little tenuous, but it does make the disadvantage seem more relevant to evaluation of the case. If the affirmative actually hurts rights, then they clearly aren't meeting their stock issue burden of solvency-and they're also causing a war!

Run disadvantages on the case. This is similar to the tip expressed above. If you know you can prove that a disadvantage turns the case, putting it on the case flow can make a stock issues judge view it more favorably. '

Frame your arguments in absolutes. Instead of saying, "The affirmative doesn't solve," say, "The affirmative is losing solvency," or "We are winning an absolute solvency takeout." This helps the judge see that they are not meeting a stock issue.

Common Stock Issues Arguments

The more you debate, the more you will find that a good argument is a good argument is a good argument. However, you will also find that different paradigms organize good arguments differently and that if you want ajudge to listen to what you-say, you need to phrase it in a way he or she deems appropriate. Here are some of the stock issues "buzzwords" used to describe

various arguments. .

• Circumvention: A reason that the action of the plan will be circumvented. Example: perhaps the police won't comply with new privacy regulations.

• Alternate causality: The affirmative may solve one cause of a problem but not others.

Example: the affirmative stops police from searching cars but not houses, thereby allowing continuing rights violations.

• Means/motive dilemma: the affirmative solves either the means or the motive for a problem, but not both, meaning there will be circumvention of the plan. Example: the plan prevents employers from gaining access to medical records, so they will just use

© 2000, Victory Briefs

22

'}

t J

t l

J 1 ,j

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 2: Paradigms of Debate

other information to discriminate against employees. The affirmative solves the means (access to medical records) but not the motive (discrimination against certain employees).

Justification: the affirmative does not justify certain words in the resolution and therefore should lose since it is the affirmative burden to prove their example of the resolution a good idea. Example: the affirmative does not justify the words "federal government" in the resolution, because the affirmative does not show why the federal government, as opposed to foreign or state or local governments, should enact the plan. If some other actor can do the plan just as well and there is some negative consequence resulting uniquely from the actor the affirmative has chosen (perhaps a federal spending disadvantage or a case argument showing that the federal government is too bureaucratic to solve), then why should the judge vote for the plan? Many stock issues judges find this argument appealing because it is framed in direct relation to the affirmative case. Justification arguments can also often serve as counterplans in disguise. (See sections 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 for more on counterplans.)

Minor repair: the affirmative harm could be solved by an action less drastic and less risky than the plan. This is basically a type of inherency argument, because it says that the harm is not inherent or intrinsic to the status quo but rather something which could easily be fixed with a tiny change. Example: the affirmative bans all car searches, because the police sometimes overstep their bounds when examining a person's car, destroying property or harassing the driver. The negative says that an outright ban is too extreme and would seriously hurt the police's legitimate efforts to find evidence against criminals.

The problem could be fixed with a minor repair of simply training officers to be more careful, polite, and sensitive when conducting searches. That would protect citizens' rights but also allow police to continue their crime-fighting efforts.

Inherency

We devote a special section to inherency simply because it's a slightly more intricate stock issues argument than the ones above. We will briefly go over the three types of inherency and offer some tips for debating it on the negative.

There are three types of inherency: attitudinal, structural, and existential.

• Attitudinal inherency: there is an attitudinal barrier to the affirmative in the status quo. In other words, there is a prevailing attitude among policymakers or the public which has prevented the plan from being done. Example: the affirmative reads evidence saying many members of Congress hate the plan and will never enact it in the status quo.

• Structural inherency: there is a structural barrier to the affirmative in the status quo. In other words, there is something structural, such as a law or a court decision, preventing adoption of the affirmative plan in the status quo. Example: the affirmative reads evidence from the current law code or a court decision showing the plan can't be done now.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

23

'}

'f

f 1

! J

. I

www.vfcterybrlefs.eom

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 2: Paradigms of Debate

• Existential inherency: there is some barrier to the plan in the status quo. In other words, the affirmative can prove that, for whatever reason, the plan is just not being done right now and is not likely to be done. Example: the affirmative reads evidence saying the plan is not being done now but does not provide a warrant for why it is not being done.

Judges vary in the inherency standards to which they hold the affirmative: some believe the affirmative must meet all three types of inherency, while others believe that only one is necessary. The important thing is to know the different types and be ready to identify them in your own case or in the case of an opponent.

When you are debating inherency on the negative, you can offer several reasons why it is a voting issue:

• Inherency is a stock issue. It's a basic burden that affirmative has to meet. A table can't stand on only three legs, and the affirmative case can't stand on only four stock issues.

Inherency is key to a fair division of ground. If the affirmative can advocate doing something which is about to be done in the status quo anyway, then that takes away ground from the negative. The negative can't be expected to run disadvantages against the status quo--that is what the negative is supposed to be defending!

lnherency can be key to topicality. If the resolution requires a substantial change or increase over the status quo--and the plan or something similar to the plan is about to be done anyway-then the plan is not topical; it is not a big change or increase over what is occurring anyway. For more on topicality see section 4.4.

Inherency can also be used to complement substantive arguments you are making in the debate. For instance, inherency can often be used to locate links to disadvantages or to reveal important solvency problems. If the affirmative argues that its plan is not being done in the status quo because everyone hates the idea, then you have probably just located the basis of a circumvention argument: after all, if everyone hates the plan, then they probably won't comply with it or enforce it! Similarly, if the affirmative argues that the plan is not being done now because it costs a lot of money, then you probably have a good link to a spending disadvantage! So it's a double-bind for the affirmative: either they don't admit these disadvantage links and lose on inherency, or they reveal the reasons they are inherent and lose on the disadvantages their inherency can prove.

2.2: The Policymaking Paradigm

Policymaking is also a popular judging paradigm on many cross-examination debate circuits. Here we will review its basic tenets and make some recommendations on how to debate in front of a policy judge.

e 2000, Victory Briefs

24

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 2: Paradigms of Debate

Basic Tenets

f I

The policy paradigm is substantially less rigid and formal than stock issues; it is also much more intuitive. Basically, policy-making judges take on the literal role ofpolicymakers, treating their decision in the round as they would an actual government issue. They tend to employ a utilitarian framework; that is, they endorse the policy which provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people. And, most important, they tend to define the "greatest good" as life itself. So instead of evaluating the affirmative case based on the five stock issues, policymaking judges tend to weigh the number of lives the affirmative saves versus the number of lives which might be lost due to disadvantages incurred by the affirmative, Stated more crudely, the policymaking philosophy is a body count.

In one sense, policymakers tend to have much higher evidentiary standards than stock issues judges-that is, policymaking judges often require evidence supporting even the most intuitive arguments. In another sense, though, policymaking standards for evidence are substantially lower, since policymakingjudges tend to pay less attention to the qualifications of the person writing the evidence.

Policymakers also rely heavily on the concept of comparative advantage-that is, is the affirmative a good idea compared to the status quo? If the answer is yes, the judge will vote affirmative, even if the affirmative solves only 1 % of the problem it outlines in the lAC. As long as nothing bad happens from voting affinnative-such as a disadvantage-the judge will default affirmative.

This mentality seems a close approximation of the way real policymakers decide real-world issues. For instance, in the 1 970s, there was a big debate in the United States about enacting seatbelt safety laws. Detractors argued that no one would comply with the new laws, but supporters countered that if even a few people chose to wear their seatbelts as a result of the new law, lives would be saved. Twenty years later, seatbelt laws have saved hundreds of thousands of lives-despite the fact that compliance with the law is no where near 100%! So even though the seatbe1t policy did not "solve" completely, it still brought tremendous benefits to. society and carried no "disadvantages." If seatbelt laws had been discussed in a debate round, a policymaking judge would definitely have voted for them, because they represented a comparative advantage over the status quo. But a strict stock issues judge would have rejected the seatbelt laws because they could not have guaranteed absolute and complete solvency.

l I

Tips for the Affirmative

• Do not worry as much about inherency. You simply need to prove that the status quo is not solving the problem you outline, and that your plan is different enough from the status quo to be topical.

Make sure you tum and thoroughly answer disadvantages. This is not to say that you should ignore the case, but just remember that you can win all of the case and still lose the debate if the impact to the disadvantage(s) outweighs the impact to the case.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

25

}

f -

f I 1

1 I

! I !

I J

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 2: Paradigms of Debate

• Frame the case in terms of a comparative advantage over the status quo. Explain at the end of the debate why the affirmative is still a good idea even if the negative arguments about solvency or harms are true. For instance, even though you may not solve all of the problem, or even if the problem is not that bad, as long as you are better than the status quo, the judge should vote for you. (Remember the seatbelt law example.)

• Know how to debate counterplans. For more on this see sections 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7.

Tips for the Negative

Find disadvantage links in inherency. Press the affirmative until they admit why the plan is not being done in the status quo. Then use that information against them! See section 2.1 for examples.

Run disadvantages. It will not be enough to whittle away the affirmative case. If the affirmative case has 1 % solvency at the end of the round and no disadvantage to enactment, the judge will vote affirmative.

• Run a counterplan. A counterplan means you no longer have to defend the status quo against which the affirmative wants to be compared. See sections 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 for full information on counterplans.

• A void plan-repeal-type arguments. For instance, the circumvention argument often accepted by stock issues judges does not tend to fly with policymakers, who often believe fiat solves enforcement questions. If the plan text explains how the plan will be enforced, that is usually enough to convince policymakers that the plan will be implemented a certain way.

2.3: The Hypothesis-Testing Paradigm

Hypothesis-testing, or hypotesting, is a more unusual debate paradigm, and as a result we will devote less time to explaining it. This section simply explains the basic tenets of hypo testing and explains how to defend yourself if the other team tries to make the debate a hypotesting throwdown.

Basic Tenets

Basically, the hypothesis-testing paradigm treats the resolution like a scientific hypothesis which must be tested. The affirmative must therefore defend the resolution as a whole and not simply a specific plan-because otherwise the affirmative wouldn't be proving the whole hypothesis correct but instead just a small part of it. To win, the negative simply must provide one instance in which the resolution is not true, i.e. an example of why the federal government should not increase privacy. Ifthe negative can do this, the "hypothesis" of the resolution is disproven.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

26

-1

'I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 2: Paradigms of Debate

'{

When the negative makes an argument against any part of the resolution, it is making a counterwarrant. Counterwarrants can attack any example of the resolution even if that part of the resolution has nothing to do with the affirmative plan. For instance, assume that the resolution stated Resolved: that the federal government should establish a program to substantially reduce juvenile crime in the United States. The affirmative case might increase community policing and

claim to solve crime. But the negative could attack any federal government program which aimed to substantially reduce juvenile crime in the United States-anything ranging from drug education to poverty reduction would be fair game, because these are all parts of the resolution's "hypothesis." The affirmative would have to defend all of these policies.

r I

Defending Against Hypotbesis- Testing

lfthe other team tries to steer the debate into a hypotesting paradigm, you can argue against it in the following ways:

• Hypotesting decreases education. It makes debate into a generic exchange of random ideas about the resolution instead of a focused discussion on specific policies. There is no clash under a hypothesis-testing paradigm.

• Hypotesting is not real-world. Real policymakers in the government examine specific proposals, not large statements like the resolution. The only reason we have the resolution in debate is to guide our discussions.

Hypotesting is not supported in the literature about the resolution. No one writes articles on the monolithic topics the resolution discusses. Instead, authors write focused articles on specific proposals. Plan-specific debate is therefore dictated by the topic literature.

1

• The plan should be the focus of the debate. It is the only way to be fair to the affirmative and enable the affirmative to make strategic choices about what to defend. No one can possibly expect the affirmative to be ready to debate the thousands of specific ideas which might fit under the framework of the resolution.

2.4: Judge Adaptation

Perhaps the most important, and most oft-overlooked, skill a successful high school debater must develop is the ability to flexibly adapt to different varieties of judges. During their careers, high school debaters will likely encounter judges who subscribe to all the paradigms discussed in Chapter 2 of this book. Successful adaptation is critical to consistent wins.

The first, crucial step to effective adaptation is to take any chip you might have off of your shoulder with respect to how you view debate. It does not matter whether the paradigm you subscribe to is the correct one, because the judge has the ballot. Good judges and bad judges, their ballots all count the same. You can complain about them in the van or in the debate room (not in the hotel or hallway of the tournament-you never know who your next judge will be), but at the tournament you need to do everything you can to pick up their ballot. Once you are

© 2000, Victory Briefs

27

I I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 2: Paradigms of Debate

willing to do the best you can to work within their paradigm, you will adapt much more effectively.

·1

This chapter focuses mainly on adapting to the types of stock issues/speaking skills oriented judges you might find at the NFL National Tournament or non-national circuit type events. For these types of judges you have to adapt your arguments, but you also have to adapt your entire approach to debate, from your style of dress down to how you carry yourself in the round. First we will discuss figuring out how much you really need to adapt. Then we will talk about how to deal with these types of judges. This article is a must-read if you are attending the NFL Tournament or anticipate debating at a lot of local tournaments.

I· I

How Much to Adapt

At tournaments where you there are likely to be a good number of traditional stock issues judges you should come totally prepared to adapt. This means reviewing the "Adapting Your Style" below and coming ready to apply all those principles. However, if you don't know your judge and think you might need to adapt, here are some things to do to gauge how much.

I 1

Some tournaments produce books of judging philosophies. If the tournament produces such a book, keep it and use it. Judges are asked to rate their preferences on various subjects (speed, counterplans, topicality, etc.) on a scale of 1-10, usually with ten meaning highly preferred. Note everything the judge lists about themselves, but take it with a grain of salt. Different regions of the country approach debate very differently. A '9' with respect to speed in South Dakota is very different from a '9' in Chicago. The best way to approach this is to watch the judge and see how he or she flows. The first 30 seconds of the lAC will tell you more than any judge booklet in the world. If the judge is flowing like a typical national-circuit judge then you can probably ease up on adaptation. If the judge is flowing horizontally, or sparsely, or on the ballot, then adaptation becomes the name of the game.

1 J

Furthermore, you can ask the judge some questions when they arrive at the room. (Since you don't know the judge you have taken great pains to be on time and beat them to the round.) When doing this always be very polite and appear interested in what the judge is saying. By no means should you appear to be surprised or insulted by their response, no matter what it is. Don't ask them about specific arguments right off the bat. Don't start, for example, with, "How do you feel about dispositional counterplans?" If they don't recognize or accept those arguments you'll immediately be tagged as an arrogant national-circuit style debater. That can only work against you.

Start with deferent and open-ended questions like, "Is there a particular paradigm from which you approach debate?" or "Do you have any preferences with regard to arguments or style?" Usually these judges will consider that an invitation to tell you a great deal about how they view debate, These people are not stupid or malevolent. They just view debate from a different perspective and' want to have a pleasant experience just like you. Do what they tell you to do.

Also, don't be afraid to ask your friends about your judges. Sometimes you have debated kids from your judge's school, or your friends have had that judge before. (Because you keep all the

© 2000, Victory Briefs

28

J

www.victorybriefs.c:om

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 2: Paradigms of Debate

pairings from tournaments with you. you'll know whom particular judges have judged.) Don't be afraid to ask them questions. But be careful not to phrase the questions in a disrespectful way.

Now for a real-life scenario: you are at NFL Nationals and you have two traditional stock issues judges in the back of the room. What do you do? Well, you have to adapt both your style and your substance. Below is a set of tips gleaned from much experience in these debates, tips which enable successful national circuit teams to win the NFL every year.

Adapting Your Style

I I

For many judges debate is an exercise where style outweighs substance. Looking like a winner is often a self-fulfilling prophecy, because these judges are not attuned to the subtleties of arguments or of debate lingo. They consider debate to be an oratorical activity to be treated with respect. If you approach the round with this in mind you will be in good shape. All of these tips are things you may not think of at the time but are none the less essential to adapting to these folks.

J

1.

Make your boxes neat. .

Many of these types of judges look upon the national debate circuit and its accoutrements with contempt. While this view is based mostly on misperceptions, it exists. Therefore, you should eliminate any symbols of your involvement with this type of debate. Get rid of any bumper stickers you have on your tubs (unless they are totally inoffensive or apolitical). Get rid of any baggage tape you have on your tub from air travel. Make sure your files are well organized. Anything you can do to look more organized will help.

2. Dress well.

At most tournaments, business attire will do. Certainly at the NFL, men should wear a jacket and tie, while women should wear the equivalent, usually something like a business suit, though classy skirts are also acceptable. These judges believe debate is a formal activity and expect you to be formally dressed. Not living up to these standards will result in low points at best, a loss at worst. Other things to remember: leave your shoes on during the debate; no hats; don't loosen your tie or take off your jacket; comb your hair conservatively. Remember: style counts.

Certainly, we personally don't think that personal presentation should matter much at all in debate, as long as someone's appearance is not distracting or outright offensive. To us debate is about arguments. However. realize that for many judges, even at a national circuit level, clothes count, and expressing yourself too outrageously can negatively affect your record. A good rule of thumb is to always dress reasonably conservatively, like you might for church or a job interview. No judge will ever dock your points for looking nice. while many will if you look too casual.

But these are your choices. If expressing yourself by wearing your Motley erne t-shirt is that important to you. fine. Just realize you might be expressing yourselffrom the audience during the elimination rounds!

I I

© 2000, Victory Briefs

29

I I

I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 2: Paradigms of Debate

3.

Be on time for your debates.

For many national circuit teams, being coached in the hallway right up until the beginning of the debate is a ritual. Many traditional judges don't like this. In fact, some consider it cheating (though we aren't exactly sure why}. Also, these judges might be inclined to penalize you if you are late for debates. Whatever advantage you are gaining by stalling getting to the round is going to be massively outweighed by how annoyed

your judge will be that your debate is not starting on time. If possible, you should be set up in the room, ready to begin by the scheduled time on the round. However, many tournaments have strict rules about not entering the debate room until the judge arrives. If this is the 'case, then you should be in the hallway waiting for judge to arrive (without your coach) at the scheduled time of the debate.

4. Don't leave the room after the debate begins.

This rule could apply to national circuit style debates as well, though its violation rarely results in retribution by the judge. Don't go out into the hallway for a drink of water, to go to the bathroom, to pace about during prep time, or for any other reason. Unless you are experiencing some sort of kidney-threatening emergency, you should not leave the round. Judges consider this disrespectful behavior and will certainly count it against your prep and/or speech time.

Ifyou'U need water during the debate you should have a water bottle/plastic cup with you. Fill it before the debate so you don't have to make a trip to the water fountain.

The same principle is true after the debate. Many debaters have a tendency to rush for the hallway after their rebuttals are over, or go out to talk to waiting coaches right after the 2AR. This is a mistake with traditional judges. You should sit down and quietly re-file after the conclusion of the debate. The vast majority of the time, these judges will not read any evidence and will not disclose their decision or offer any type of critique. They consider the ballot the appropriate forum for such comments. Just sit quietly until they leave, and thank them on their way out. Again, you are showing deference.

s.

Have your supplies together.

Have all your supplies ready before the debate. This includes paper, pens, and timers. These judges will frown upon your having to borrow any of this stuff. They are also unlikely to call time. and asking them to is a mistake. They don't consider it their responsibility. and they might even forget, which could be a real disaster. Instead you should have your own timer, but your partner should not call time for you. Some of these judges consider that prompting and therefore, cheating. Also, if you do keep your own time set the time for about 5 seconds more than the speech time. For example. ifit's a five minute speech. set your timer for 5:05. That way your timer does not go offbefore the judge's, After their timer goes off. turn yours offbefore it beeps.

6. Have your files organized.

Organization counts for these judges. Always give your speeches in an organized manner. Don't drop briefs on the floor. Have your pages in order before you get up to speak. Have the lAC ready to go before you stand up.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

30

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 2: Paradigms of Debate

Also, don't spread your briefs out on the floor or on the table. Many judges consider that kind of creative disorder a mess. You should approach the debate as if it were a business presentation. Keep all your papers neatly filed until you need to use them, then replace them.

'1

7.

Exercise total decorum throughout the debate.

This means doing all the little things to show the debate your respect. Push your chair in when you get up to speak. Don't ever get up or talk during your opponent's speech. Don't continue speaking or prepping after the time has expired. Little things count! Pay attention to them!

I I

This list is not exhaustive, but it should give you a good idea of the types of things you must do to adapt. If you make the judge mad for any reason, the arguments you make, no matter how brilliant, might be wasted. Don't chance it.

Adapting Your Substance

I J

Obviously, you need to change your arguments and how you present them for these judges as well. Most of the nuts and bolts for how you should do this can be found in section 2.1 on the stock issues paradigm, but these additional suggestions can help you adapt those arguments to the traditional judge.

J I

1. Remember that the stock issues are offensive arguments.

To win a stock issues judge you don't necessarily need to win a disadvantage or turn to the affirmative case. You need only win that the plan does not solve its advantage or that the harms of the case are not significant. Press hard on these areas on the negative, and defend them vigorously on the affirmative. The case is where the real crux of the debate happens. Many of these judges, in fact, dismiss most traditional debate disadvantages and their nuclear war impacts as "absurd," and prefer looking at stock issues like inherency and harms, Use this to your advantage on both sides of the debate. Often nuclear war impacts to disadvantages can be defeated by logical internal link presses while the most irrelevant plan-meet-need arguments (arguments which claim the affirmative case is not sufficient to solve the advantage because there are other causes of the harms that the plan does not address) loom largest.

2. Be very conservative in your argument selection.

Extremely non-traditional positions like kritiks are generally not winners in front of these types of judges. Nor are complicated theory arguments about conditionality, dispositionality, illusory fiat, and the like. Instead, you'll want to stick to case turns and traditional disadvantages as much as possible. However. this does not mean you cannot run your other arguments. You simply need to cast them in a different light.

J

Make your kritik arguments solvency attacks or PMN's against the case. Talk about how people could circumvent the solvency of the plan, or how the plan might solve the means to a particular harm. but not the motives that created it in the first place. Those at fault could simply find a loophole in the new law. Turn your counterplans into 'justification"

I j

© 2000, Victory Briefs

31

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP I)EBATE § 2: Paradigms of Debate

I I

arguments. These arguments prove there is another means to solve the case, proving the plan is not necessary and sufficient to solve the advantage. The beautyof these arguments is that you can run them without any risk. Turns don't apply to justification arguments the way they might apply to counterplans because you are not advocating anything as a policy option.

3. Tone down your disadvantage impacts.

These judges are very suspicious of large impacts to disadvantages. They fear that debate is now only about absurd "nuclear wars" and often reject those impacts on face. As such don't get involved in that debate. Don't bother reading your "economic decline leads to nuke war" card. "Economic depression" is impact enough. On the affirmative, you should exploit this. Dismiss disadvantages as silly, especially ones relating to the political process (without belittling your opponent, of course).

4. Use cross-examination to your advantage.

For many of these judges, especially the ones for whom flowing is not a strong suit, cross-ex is paramount. It is the one time in the debate where the two sides interact with one another. A good performance in the cross-ex can win you the debate. The cross-ex should focus on logical attacks against the case or disadvantages, and sometimes pimping the evidence. Judges are not likely to read cards after the debate.

If you think: a card doesn't say what they claim it does, then point this out in the cross-ex. But don't make it an ethical violation against the other debaters; this could backfire in a big way. Definitely never use the words "out of context." Generally, however, anything you can do to intelligently diminish your opponent's logic will help you.

Also, remember that politeness remains at a premium. Cross-ex should be conducted While looking at the judge, not at your opponent. Be aggressive, but do not go for the jugular. Make your point and move on. Do not linger over one subject.

Finally, use all of the cross-ex time. Sitting down before the three minutes are up is bad form, even if it has some strategic purpose.

5.

Provide theses to negative positions.

While not used much anymore in most policy debate, theses to disadvantages are still expected by a good number of more traditional judges. It helps them understand the arguments better and also shows that you are not a ridiculous policy debater who doesn't care about clarity or connection with the judge.

I I I

Basically all this means is that you should read a sentence summarizing the position in

the first negative before you read the shell. For example, say, "The thesis of this .

disadvantage is that the affirmative spends a tremendous amount of federal money, which results in increased inflation, which has negative effects on the economy as a whole," or, "The thesis of this disadvantage is that the affirmative plan supercedes a state right to make education policy, which violates the Tenth Amendment. Such violations of federalism put the entire system of separation of powers at risk."

© 2000, Victory Briefs

32

'-I

www.victorybriefs.c:om

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 2: Paradigms of Debate

, 1 J I

6. Don't forget to argue presumption on the negative.

While many national circuit judges would shudder at the thought of voting negative on presumption, many traditional judges still consider presumption vital. Basically it means that because there is always risk to changing policy, presumption is always with the status quo; the judge should always default to doing nothing because doing something might be worse.

In a round involving presumption, the stock issues become very important. If the plan is not proven to be completely efficacious then the negative wins because they have presumption. That's why you don't need a disadvantage that outweighs the case to win on the negative in the stock issues paradigm. Use this is to your advantage on the negative, and always describe your disadvantages in terms of the risk to policy change.

7.

Emphasize rhetoric in cards, not citations.

Two key things to remember about many of these judges. First, they won't be flowing vigorously. Second, they won't read evidence after the debate. These two components mean that extending evidence by citation only is a dead-end. Instead you should extend evidence by mostly referring to the most powerful rhetoric in the card. For instance, words like "devastating," "disastrous," "panacea," and "unacceptable" are ones which stick out. Most of the time when these judges are flowing, they are writing down words that stick out. If you do mention an author of evidence you'll want to emphasize why, by bringing up the qualifications or the date of the source.

I ]

8. Slow down.

Some of these judges regard fast debate as tantamount to the downfall of western civilization. If they think. you're going fast, they'll vote against you. Don't give them the chance. If this judge is one who doesn't like speed (and they're usually not shy about telling you) then slow down. That doesn't mean take it down a couple of notches from the TOC; that means talk normally. Treat each speech like an extemporaneous speech, giving it with some emphasis and at conversational speed. (Most of your "normal" speeches could use a dose of this!)

If you cannot get any information out ofthe judge, presume you should go at conversational speed, and adjust if you can. If you're going slow and realize you can go faster, there's nothing keeping you from doing so. However, if you start out fast and offend the judge, the damage is done and even if you slow down you've already made a bad impression.

Remember, though, slowing down does not mean patronizing the judge. They are intelligent people, just not in tune with your normal style of debate. Treat them that way.

Finally, a good trick is to begin slowly, then get a little faster toward the middle of your speech, then slow down again toward the end. When executed correctly. this "peaking" strategy can really improve your efficiency and your presentation. While you might never

@ 2000, Victory Briefs

33

www.victorybriefs.c:om

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEJIATE § 2: Paradigms of Debate

wind up going as fast as you would in a normal round, you can still get a few extra arguments in without making the judge mad.

9. .Eliminate debate lingo.

These judges sometimes want high school debate to be like the presidential debates. You'll want to get rid of most of your debate lingo except that which applies to the stock issues. You '/I want to use plenty of that. But for the most part stay away from theory debates and explain warrants for argument-s as though you were explaining them to your parents or your history teacher. These people are smart but don't understand the foreign language that is policy debate.

10. Remember the big picture.

The big picture is the key for these people. They will not be tied into the minutiae of the flow. Far more important are the stock issues and the likelihood of the various impacts. They won't care about the lAR #5 off the 2NC #3 on the 2AC #2 on Spending because they aren't flowing that way. Focusing on the big picture in the end is much more effective than focusing on the smaller arguments buried in the flow. Many times dropped arguments are forgiven or even ignored if you are more persuasive overall.

A Final Word

;

·1

I

There are three final principles to remember when you're in an adaptation situation.

1. These judges see debate their own way. They won't change their minds. Don't try to change them-play their game. The team that does this better will usually win.

2. These people are not dumb, nor are they out to get you. They are intelligent people who put long hours in coaching or chaperoning teams at debate tournaments. Treat them with respect as smart people with a different point of view, and you'll have won half the battle.

3. Finally, these people see debate as a formal activity. You should try to think of it that way too. Act for these people as you might act in church or at a family function, on your best behavior! Maybe you don't agree with all of this (the authors certainly don't!), but it's much easier to smile about when you've had a successful tournament adapting. Good luck!

© 2000, Victory Briefs

34

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 3: Research & Preparing to Debate

11

Section Three: Research and Preparing to Debate

Once you know the resolution and a basic idea of how to debate, you will probably start going to tournaments, where you will no doubt notice the enormous amount of evidence policy debaters tend to lug around with them in plastic tubs or cardboard boxes. Don't be intimidated. The key to a successful beginning in debate is not to have a lot of evidence (for instance, our coaches never let us carry more than about 100 pages during novice year) but to have good evidence and to be able to explain what it says. That is what this section is for-to explain why you need evidence in debate, how to find it, and how to make it usable in debate rounds.

I ]

3.1: The Role of Evidence in Debate

Why do we have evidence? Why do I need a card that says the plan will solve? Do I need a card that says the Cold War is over? Does an evidenced argument always defeat an analytical argument? Is a card from a web-site with no author or date acceptable?

These are all good questions, and the answers depend a great deal on what you consider the proper role of evidence in debate to be. Many complain about policy debate being too evidencebased, making the claim that debaters onlyread cards instead of making arguments. Others claim that research in debate should be rewarded as much as effective oratory, saying otherwise debate would degenerate into an activity where the facts are lost amidst a wave of eloquence, hardly a way to train future policy-makers.

I J

The answer lies in the middle of these two extremes. Debate is about both persuasive speaking and diligent research and preparation. In high quality debate these two facets supplement one another. We use evidence because we, alone, are not qualified to make credible judgments about international relations, political science, or post-modernism. Acknowledging this fact, and that debate is meant to educate, we research and use evidence from those who have spent years, perhaps their lives, studying these subjects. Certainly, this is not a comment on the intelligence of high school debaters, just an acceptance that we have not had the training or background of many experts in their respective fields.

I I

However, merely reading a card from someone like Henry Kissinger or Michael Sandel does not make an argument complete. Debaters must internalize the arguments made by their cards and be able to explain their warrants. The teams that do this better and use their arguments to defeat other arguments win more, hands-down. "Cross-apply the Greenspan evidence" is not a winning 2AR argument. But, "Remember the Greenspan evidence which says if we don't attack inflation now by raising interest rates it could explode out of control. We must accept a small slowdown in growth now to avoid a depression later" is.

j J

Championship-caliber debaters always compare their evidence and the qualifications of their authors to the other team's evidence, and impact these comparisons. Why does it matter that our author is a Harvard professor and their's is a New York Times Staff Writer? Does is matter that their evidence is from a partisan organization and ours isn't? Furthermore, intelligent debaters who have done extensive research have the knowledge necessary to make good logical, analytical arguments to attack the other team's cards.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

35

I -

I , 1

I I

1

1 1

\ J ]

www.victorybriefs.c:om

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 3: Research & Preparing to Debate

As such, evidence bridges the gap between speaking and researching. Having winning evidence requires diligent research, but for that evidence to work for you it must be delivered in a persuasive manner, and its argument must be explained adequately by the debaters. As a debater, you should strive for this goal.

3.2: Research Tips

Many debaters spend their summers at some type of debate institute, often at a college or· university. A huge part of their purpose in paying for and attending such institutes is to learn to research better so that they can find better evidence to support their arguments. This is something that you learn best from experience, but we hope that we can provide at least a few tips to help improve your research methods:

• Ask for help. When you go to the library, don't simply flail around and pretend you know how to use the library the second you walk in the door. No matter how experienced you are, each library has its own quirks and anomalies, and you have to be aware of these. Usually librarians are more than happy to see young people making an effort to learn and will be happy to answer any questions or even give you a tour. Their assistance will save you a lot of trial-and-error time.

• Learn to the use the library's catalogue. Most libraries now have electronic catalogues which will help you generate a list of cites about your particular topic. You can print these out and then go find them in the library.

• Remember that if you are looking for an article in a journal or magazine, the library's catalogue will not carry the specific article title. Instead, it will carry the title of the publication the article is in. So you will have to type in "Foreign Affairs" (a periodical title), not "Sanctions of Mass Destruction" {an article title}. Then once you go to the shelves, you will find bound copies of all the back issues of the particular magazine or journal you are looking for (because every so often the magazine or journal issues are put together in volumes so they don't get lost or damaged). Inside those volumes will be the particular issue and article you are looking for.

The one exception to this is very recent articles. These will usually be in the library'S reading room, which will usually have the most recent issues of magazines and journals which have not yet been bound and put on the shelves. So if an article you are seeking is really recent, look in the reading room first.

When looking for anything, especially books, browse. This is the most important thing you can do to find stuff on your topic. Because books are organized by subject (not author), once you find one good title you have usually found a gold mine of relevant sources. So if you get-a book title from the catalogue and it looks to be right up your alley, don't waste time trying to find a zillion more citations. Just go to the shelves, find the book, and then look around it. This is very efficient.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

36

I , 1

'I

, I

I

I I

l

I I

I

I , I

, I

www.victorybriefs.c:om

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 3: Research & Preparing to Debate

• On the flip side, if you get to the shelves looking for a certain book and see nothing else nearby related to your topic, that probably means that there is some other place in the library you should be looking. The gold mine is elsewhere.

Also browse in the reading room. See what's going on in the world by checking out the covers of periodicals or the headlines of major newspapers. Sometimes events may surprise you in their relevance to your arguments, and many times a case or disadvantage idea appears in an unlikely place. By browsing among periodicals, you are just keeping an open mind and gaining important knowledge about the world around you. That can't hurt!

Footnotes are a key resource as well. If you are reading an article or book which refers to another article or book, look at the end for the citation of that other article or book. Then you can go find it and use it. This is especially useful when one author is trying to refute another author's point. Let's say you are looking at another team's article and the author mentions people who disagree with him in a footnote. You can then track down the opposing author mentioned in the footnote and use that article as evidence against the team whose case you were researching. You are usually guaranteed direct clash!

Book indices are a great resource as well. 'Lots of times people open a book and feel unsure as to whether or not the book deals with the topic they are researching. Flip to the back and look for key words in the index. That will tell you whether you are on the right track.

Once you find an author who has written a good article, type that author's name into a database and find everything else he or she has written. Articles don't come from no where. Usually writers, especially academicians, have a long history of articles or books on the same topic, and their advocacy rarely changes.

Photocopying is a great tool. Many debaters are afraid photocopying is too expensive or too inconvenient. Get over it. If you are efficient at using the "shrink" feature on the copy machine and you actually make an honest effort to learn to work the machine, you will be fine, and it will be much easier for you to create blocks later.

Also, copy back to front. That way when you are done your copies will be in the order you want to read them in.

Beware of internet resources. Often Internet articles are written by anonymous or unqualified sources. Make sure if you do use internet articles you put the date on which you downloaded the article (because web pages can change), as well as the precise address at which you found the article. (Obviously the story is a little different for online journals which also appear in print form and have simply been added to the web. Those are certainly more credible than your run-of-the-mill, "Ed's Web Page" evidence resources.)

© 2000, Victory Briefs

37

J I

I

l I

I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 3: Research & Preparing to Debate

• Keep a record of your citations. Nothing is worse than a great card with no author. Keep a little notebook with the article titles, authors, and dates. Many debaters also like to . actually write this information on the front of the first page of each photocopied articleit helps keep everything organized.

3.3: Selecting an Affirmative Case

We talk about affirmative case selection here because often you will be researching your own case. Also, because you will likely be running your same affirmative for many rounds, you have to carefully consider the quality of its evidence.

But all debate teams are different. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, and they all have different goals. You should select your affirmative based on these two factors. Just as Mario Andretti wouldn't drive a school bus in the Indy 500, and your school district likely wouldn't use an Indy-car to transport kids to school, a team's goals and abilities should determine what affirmative they run.

Big Cases vs. Small Cases

Clint Eastwood once famously said, "A man's got to know his limitations." Nowhere is his sentiment truer than in selecting an appropriate affirmative case. Assessing your strengths and weaknesses should be your first step in picking a case. The first step is deciding whether to run a "big" case or a "small" case. Big cases are cases with large, middle-of-the-road plans with large advantages but which also might link to large disadvantages and have an extensive case debate. They are usually predictable and invite little debate over topicality. By contrast, small cases are those which link to very few disadvantages but also may have smaller advantages and may be marginally topical.

Wb~D to Run a Big Case

You should run a big case if your strength as a debater lies in your speed and technical skill. You are comfortable in debates with lots of evidence, lots of positions, and lots of big impacts. As such, you want to avoid topicality debates and debates which often resort to emotional appeals. You do your winning on the flow, not in the heart.

You might also want to run a big case ifit's an area in which you are expert. For example, if you are an economics enthusiast, you might want to run a "big stick" economy affirmative to get

yourself into debates in which you'll simply know more than your opponent. .

Another good reason to run a big case is if you are young and simply want experience debating in big debates. However, you must understand that in taking this road. you're likely to get outclassed by 'more experienced, technically proficient teams. That said, such experience could be invaluable as you get older. However, some debaters find this method of gaining experience to be somewhat demoralizing and have noted that running a somewhat smaller case can afford equally good practice.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

38

'I , }

t

size:
I •
Il

1
.\
J

I
] www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 3: Research & Preparing to Debate

When to Run a Small Case

Smaller cases are better options for debaters who would rather debate slower rounds based more in persuasive speaking ability. The advantages might be perceptually smaller than "nuke war" but depend a good bit on emotional appeal, such as discrimination against Native Americans or lead poisoning. You depend on the plan flat-out not linking to the disadvantages, and the "small" advantage outweighing whatever risk that's left for the negative positions.

However, these cases are often marginally topical, and you might find yourself in a good number ofT debates (topicality debates). If you are uncomfortable with this, then maybe a larger case is the way to go. On the other hand, if topicality is your strength then you are forcing the other team to play your game, and that's a good thing.

Obviously most cases fall somewhere in the middle of these two extremes, but which side you tilt to depends a great deal on your strengths and weaknesses as a debater.

Picking a Winner

Whether you choose to go big or small, there are some common factors among those groups that make affirmatives winners. These are all reasons to run a particular affirmative, regardless of its

The evidence is better on the affirmative than the negative. Certainly you want to have good cards for your case. Not just that, but you want to balance of evidence from the most unbiased sources to be on your side, as opposed to on the negative's. TJIis may seem like a no-brainer, but many a case has had one great article for it, and about a thousand against it. You want to make sure you are on "the right side" of the evidence debate.

You like the subject. Certainly there's no good reason to spend a ton of time debating and researching Native American policy on the affirmative if you hate it. You have to do enough research that's not of your own choosing on the negative. Also, if you don't like it, it might be apparent to judges and that will hurt your debating. Our coach always used to say, "Remember that the whole point is to have fun. If this wasn't fun then people wouldn't do it."

You believe in the case. Perhaps you truly believe in Native American equality and feel that as a debater you can inform others of the Native Americans' plight and perhaps make a difference through debate. This is a very noble goal and can be a good reason to run a case. However, this decision becomes tougher when something you believe in may not be a strategically good choice for you as a case. In this case, you may decide your beliefs outweigh winning, but we have found that you can often inform your debate friends, who are generally passionate advocates themselves, of your beliefs and still run a case which'

puts you in the elimination rounds. What about running a case you don't believe in? Well, those are personal choices you must deal with.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

39

www.viclorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 3: Research & Preparing to Debate

3.4: Writing the Affirmative Case

The I AC should be the best-sounding speech in the entire debate. After all, it is the one speech which can be completely planned, written and practiced from beginning to end at home. Different people have their favorite structures of the lAC, and there are no set rules for how it should be written. Try them and decide what you like best. We will present a model and some principles for how you should write it.

1. Make the lACa Narrative

What we mean is, the I AC should tell a linear story, from beginning to end, that everyone can follow. Basically the cookie cutter lAC story is this: "Status quo laws are inadequate. This particular inadequacy creates the following disastrous harms. Luckily, we have a plan. This plan is necessary and sufficient to solve these harms and, therefore, remedy the problems with the status quo." No matter how you structure your lAC, it should contain this story. If you remove all the cards from the lAC and write the tags as a paragraph, and the story makes sense, then you have done a good job.

2. Have A Structure

There are many different ways to structure the lAC and its advantages, but regardless of which one you choose, it must have a coherent structure. Many people choose to use "contentions" or "observations" to do this. Either way, the I AC has a structure that signals to the judges that it has the separate parts of the story outlined above. Each part of the story is like a large part of a book, with each card being a chapter. A safe and effective structure for the lAC is:

, j I

Here's where you put all the cards that say the plan solves the advantages. Usually, at least three minutes of the I AC should be devoted to this section.

Observation I: Inherency

Include a couple cards about the state of status quo law, usually including the fact that your plan doesn't exist.

Observation II: Harms

Here's where you put the problems for which you hope the plan solves. If you have separate and distinct "advantages" you should separate them by calling them "Subpoint A, "Subpoint B," and so on.

The Plan

Observation III: Solvency

I , 1

© 2000, Victory Briefs

40

'I r "I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 3: Research & Preparing to Debate

Some people think the cards in the lAC should be numbered. but we cannot think of a good reason why you should. We feel it intrudes into the story-telling purpose of the 1 AC and limits the oratorical effectiveness of the IA. As long as the cards follow logically. there is no reason to number them. Most INC's do not attack the lAC card by card and hence have no need for numbered evidence.

3. Write Persuasive Tags

Each card should have a sentence introducing it that summarizes the evidence and explains its impact. Each tag should answer the questions. "What does this card say, and why am I reading it?" Tags should be as short as possible to accomplish this task. Judges will be trying to flow the entire tag. so make sure they can. Use persuasive rhetoric from the cards in your tag. so it sticks in the judge's mind. For example. if a card says a particular problem is "devastating." use that word in the tag. That way. when the card is read the judge will take note.

4.. Write the lAC Together as a Team

As mentioned in the article about selecting an appropriate affirmative, your case should play your team's strengths. For example, if your strength is speed and technical skill a large affirmative with big advantages makes sense. As such, a very fast, intricate lAC with lots of cards would suit you. However, if your strength is persuasion and speaking skills but not speed, a small affirmative with a slow, persuasive lAC would be most appropriate.

With this in mind. both partners should write their lAC together. This way both debaters know every piece of evidence in the I AC and why it's there. Also, it allows each debater to contribute his or her knowledge both about the case and themselves to the process. It's imperative that the person who will actually be giving the IA be there. He or she needs to influence the process based on how much he or she can effectively and persuasively read.

5.

Only make tbe lAC as fast as it needs to be

The I AC should only go as fast as she can without losing her clarity and persuasiveness. The I AC should be written with this in mind. Don't add extra cards just to have them there. Also, don't throw out cards that have true strategic importance just to make the

1 AC slower. Like any good debater you must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of both options. Either way there comes a point where if the 1 AC is too fast, and adding cards has no positive impact because they are so fast no one can hear what they say anyway.

, !

I

That said, the speed of the lAC should also be determined by the character of the case. If the case has a small advantage or is built on emotional appeal, like cases with discrimination advantages, then the lAC should be slow enough to allow the lAC to persuade the judge. If the lAC has huge advantages and there is likely to be a major case debate, such as a case with a global warming advantage, then it's to the afftnnative's advantage to deploy as many cards as possible.

" 1 J

© 2000, Victory Briefs

41

, 1

, 1

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 3: Research & Preparing to Debate

6.

Have several versions of the lAC

As important as judge adaptation is for debaters, you should 'have different versions of the lAC that appeal to different types of judges. Usually, you should have a normal version for your typical, middle-of-the-road policymaker judges. You should also have a "slow version" ofthe lAC for lay judges and stock issues judges who may frown upon fast debate. This version of the lAC should be comfortably completed in eight minutes at conversational speed. While writing this version of the lAC you might cringe at having to many cards out. Don't forget, though. that the negative has to deal with the same constraints. Leave nothing but your best cards and understand that at that rate of speed debate cannot possibly get so intricate as to hurt you all that much.

3.5: Structuring Disadvantages

J I I

As explained earlier. a disadvantage typically consists of'uniqueness.Jink, internal link, and impact evidence. They are usually read in that order, but sometimes evidence forces you to put the uniqueness and link together, or the link and internal link together, etc. This is not a big deal. For example:

J I

c.

DISADVANTAGE: (short title)

A.

Uniqueness

tag [evidence}

B.

Link - The Affirmative's plan causes _

1. general1ink tag [evidence}

2. specific link tag [evidence}

3. intemallink tag [evidence}

Impact

tag [evidence}

© 2000, Victory Briefs

42

'I '}

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 3: Research & Preparing to Debate

The important thing is to understand how to convey your information properly to the judge. Here are some tips:

Title disadvantages, even if you use only one word. This helps the judge know what is going on. A common example is "spending."

Identify when and where you are reading your uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact evidence by actually saying those words. Again, this helps the judge know what is going on.

Use additional subpoints If you need to. For instance, within the B (link) subpoint of a disadvantage you may have several1ittle arguments: B 1 may be the specific link; B2 may be the generic link; and B3 may be the intemallink, link magnifier, or link helper. The important thing is to give some structure to your argument and clearly explain it to the judge.

3.6: Making Briefs

Evidence is obviously important for the affirmative case and negative disadvantage shells (or other off-case arguments). Evidence is also important, however, to support specific arguments that you might make during a particular round to refute a point, make a point, further develop a point, etc. - all of which make depend on the particular and unique circumstances of that debate.

1 1

Briefs convert the evidence you find in the library into something you can actually read and use in a debate round. After all. imagine if every time you wanted to support your argument with evidence you had to pull a book out of your backpack; flip to the page you wanted (if you could remember where it was, since you might not have read it in months); reread the paragraph you wanted in order to remember the argument; think of a way to explain the argument to the judge; then flip to the front to find the author's name, the title, and the copyright date; and then try to remember all that while speaking.

Clearly, if this were your strategy for reading evidence then it wouldn't matter how many cards you cut because you would have a very difficult time reading more than one piece of evidence in any debate round. not to mention the fact that you would have to haul around trucks of library books. So what debaters do to avoid this problem is make briefs.

After they read a photocopied article or book chapter, debaters use scissors to cut out the important parts. Many times debaters will find several cards from the same article or chapter, so they will get on a computer, type one cite (with the author's name, the title, the date, and the page number), copy and paste that cite as many times as they need to (with two lines between each cite), print out the page(s) with the cites, and then tape each piece of evidence down below a cite. Then they cut out each card, and the cite is already attached. (This may be a little hard to visualize from an oral description, but if you ask someone who has made briefs before they will probably be able to explain it to you pretty easily if you are confused.) This process of actually cutting out all the evidence from the articles, typing citations, and then taping them together is called processing.

I J

© 2000, Victory Briefs

43

j 1

J I

{ j

J

www.victorybrie(s.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 3: Research & Preparing to Debate

After you've processed, you need to sort the evidence by topic. You can put the cards in little piles or in the slots of an expanding file or create an alphabetical or numerical filing code or do whatever else works for you. The pointis to divide the evidence up according to when you think you'll be reading it in a debate round. You want all similar arguments together. This part of making briefs often takes a lot of time, because you may have to reread most of the cards (one way to help yourself on the front end is to write little notes to yourself in the margins as you read). However, it is critical to producing good briefs that aren't all mixed up.

When you're done with that, you actually make a brief by taping down the article and the cite to a sheet of paper. Then you need to write a short tag above the evidence. The tag should explain what the evidence says and the implication of the evidence, i.e. why it matters in the debate round. You should put the most important words of the tag first because that is what the judge is most likely to write down. Also, if other people are going to be reading your blocks, you may want to avoid the use of symbols or abbreviations. Finally, you want to prioritize your blocks, so that the best card is at the top and the worst card is at the end. That makes it most likely that you will actually read a good card when you pull the brief out during a round.

Below are two examples of briefs. The first is a generic example, and the second is specific toa privacy topic. Together they should give you an idea of how to put together your own briefs. Keep in mind that usually your pieces of evidence will be taped down on the sides, not pasted in by a computer like they are here.

The generic brief:

General Argument Title Specific Argument Title

School and Year Your Name or Team Page _ of_

SPECIFIC ARGUMENT TITLE

___ Tag: a sentence or phrase explaining the importance of the evidence

Citation: the author's name, qualification, date of writing, and other bibliographic information

"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.n

___ Tag: a sentence or phrase explaining the importance of the evidence

Citation: the author's name, qualification, date of writing, and other bibliographic information "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. "

... [and so on]

© 2000, Victory Briefs

44

f I

I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 3: Research & Preparing to Debate

The blank line next to each tagged piece of evidence allows you - during a debate round - to mark which arguments and cards you want to use in that particular round.

What would an actual brief look like? The specific brief:

Affirmative Case Harms

Harvard 2000 Bradt- Talmadge

WORKPLACE PRIV ACY DECREASING

___ Workplace privacy in danger due to electronic monitoring

New York Times 12/16/99 [Po GI "The Web: New Ticket to a Pink Slip;

On the Job, the Boss Can Watch Your Every Online Move, and You Have Few Defenses"]

Now questions of privacy have moved to the electronic realm - where laws related to workplace surveillance are nearly nonexistent. And so far, less than a dozen lawsuits that raise questions about an employer's right to read e-mail messages or track Web _ site use have made their way to courts. In several of these, judges have ruled that employers can do what they want with computers they own. Some judges have said that as long as employees are warned that they may be watched, they should not

expect any privacy in their online interactions. .

But some privacy advocates, labor organizations and lawyers consider those arguments still largely untested. A person's home life and work life are increasingly intermingled, they argue. At what point is it reasonable to expect at least some privacy when using a company's computers or network?

"You can't define privacy as whatever the employer wants it to be," said Craig Cornish, a lawyer who specializes in issues related to workplace privacy. "Then it's no right at aiL"

3.7: FiJin2

Filing is yet another important but neglected skill in debate-because no matter how much evidence you have, if you can't find it during the round, you might as well not have it at all. You need to be using your precious prep time reading opposing evidence and writing arguments, not looking for those updates you cut last week! Proper filing gives you a major strategic edge. keeps your more relaxed and organized during the debate, and helps you strategize outside of rounds by giving you a clear sense of what arguments you do or don't have in your arsenal.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

45

'I '}

www.vidorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 3: Research & Preparing to Debate

Three Basic Tips

'1

Let utility be your guide. File so that your briefs will be accessible to you during the debate.

Spread your files out, even if that means you have to cany an extra tub at tournaments. Don't cram everything together, because if you do you don't be able to find anything during an actual debate. This echoes the tip expressed above.

Keep current with your filing, even while you are at tournaments. Whenever you produce or receive new evidence, file is as soon as possible, and discard evidence that is no longer necessary. Otherwise, you might as well not have it at all.

'}

Filing Methods

! J 1

Usually it is best to combine two main filing devices: simple manila file-folders with tabs for labels, and expanding accordion files with many different slots. The manila folders are useful for smaller files, such as case negatives. Meanwhile, the accordions, or "expandos," work well for larger files such as the affirmative case or disadvantages. We recommend keeping your files in large, durable Rubbennaid "tubs," that should be available at stores like K-mart. Some people prefer big cardboard filing boxes, or banker's boxes. Find your own personal style. These rules are not set in stone. Sometimes a disadvantage is very short, and it makes sense to debate it out of a single file folder. Conversely, sometimes you know you will be debating a certain case many times and that the arguments against it are complicated; therefore, you may want to

"expandoize" the case negative.

I

1 I !

As for ordering the files as a whole, there are several different approaches. Many teams find it useful to organize all of their files alphabetically; that is, one tub of evidence is A-G, one tub is H-R, and one tub in R-Z. Other teams like to organize file folders alphabetically but then organize everything else by subject; that is, one oftheir tubs would have the file folders in order from A-Z, but a second tub might hold the affirmative files, and a third tub might hold disadvantages filed in expandos. Again, let utility be your guide. Do whatever works.

Filing on the Affirmative

You will probably figure out pretty quickly that it is a good idea to put the affirmative case in an expando, since you will be debating it in half of your rounds and facing many different arguments. As your debate skills become more advanced, however. you may want to consider using multiple expandos for the affirmative. For instance, if you know that you always debate variations of a certain disadvantage, you might want to devote an expando just to your answers: slot A can hold your uniqueness answers, slot B can hold your link answers, and so on.

I f

© 2000. Victory Briefs

46

www.victorybriefs.c:om

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 3: Research & Preparing to Debate

, r 'J

Filing on the Negative

We can't say it enough: let utility be your guide. Any disadvantage which is frequently run should probably have its own expando. That way you can quickly access additional evidence to support whatever part of your disadvantage is being challenged by the affirmative. Expandos also give you plenty of room to store special overviews you have written for the disadvantage.

J I

I l

© 2000, Victory Briefs

47

'-}

'1 - , {

'1

J J

I I !

J 1

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

Section Four: Arguments

We've explained that the affirmative presents a plan and that the negative attacks it, but you may be wondering how exactly this exchange occurs. You now know that the affirmative case comprises several components, such as inherency, advantages, and solvency, but you may not know the negative, too, has its own set of basic arguments. This section presents those. It breaks debate into its basic analytical components-disadvantages, impact analysis, topicality violations, counterplans, and kritiks-and reviews them each in turn so that you get a fuller picture of how a debate works. A caveat, though: this section mixes simplistic explanations with some more advanced topics, so don't worry if you don't understand all of it immediately. You may find it helpful to reread this section periodically as you gain more and more experience in debate and seek to refine your argumentation skills.

4.1: Extending Disadvantages

Effectively extending a disadvantage is much like writing a good essay. You start with your thesis (the overview), and you spend the remainder of the time proving your thesis using evidence (reading lots of cards) from a variety of qualified sources against a variety of critical arguments (the 2AC).

First a definition: "extending" a disadvantage means you're "going for it," blowing up the argument as though it is a viable option for you to win the debate. As such, you will be answering all the 2AC arguments and evidence introduced against your position. You'11 address each of these arguments by their 2AC number and label (like, "off2AC #2, 'No Internal Link'") and then introduce your answers and evidence in a numbered list. Doing this well in the negative block makes life very difficult for the tAR, who must cope with your varied and sometimes new or changing arguments. Here are some tips that will make your negative block disadvantage extensions better.

At Home

Like all debate skills, good disadvantage extension starts at home before the tournament. First of all, you'll want to know all the evidence you have in your file, so you are equipped to flexibly and creatively answer 2AC arguments you have never heard before; Secondly. you 'll want to write a high-quality disadvantage shell (the cards you read outlining the disadvantage in the

INC. The shell should contain your best cards on the uniqueness, link, intemallink(s), and impact, giving a complete story of the disadvantage. You should know these cards intimately. and their sources. In cases where you are strapped for time extending your disadvantages you'll need to rely on the quality of these cards.

Third, you should write 2NC blocks. (They're called 2NC blocks even if they're read in the 1NR) Just like 2AC blocks, these are briefs that contain all the arguments and cards you'll want to read against various 2AC arguments against your disadvantage. For instance, on an economic downturn disadvantage you'll want to have an extensive 2NC block like, "Answers To:

"Economic Downturn Does Not Lead to War," On these blocks, prioritize the arguments from best to worst, and PRACTICE reading them so you know how long it takes to get through each

© 2000, Victory Briefs

48

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

block. Write how long it takes on the top of the block. This will help you in debates when you are deciding how much time to spend extending the disadvantage. You should write a 2NC block to every 2AC argument you can think of. Then, after debates you should write new blocks against every new 2AC argument you heard.

These blocks will save you a tremendous amount of prep time because you won't have to pull cards from different places against arguments you have heard before. Furthermore, they will obviously make your argumentation better, because thinking through strategy at home is almost always better than thinking under the pressure of the running prep time clock. It goes without saying that you should file these blocks meticulously to save yourself time during the debate.

'f 1

In the Debate

There are two major components to an extension of a disadvantage: the overview and the lineby-line. The overview gives the "story" of the disadvantage and analysis as to why (perhaps in combination with other arguments like a counterplan or other disadvantages) the impact outweighs the case. The line-by-line "proves" the overview, by introducing evidence against the affirmative arguments. Depending on the argument and the affirmative coverage, it should take at least three minutes to do this effectively; sometimes it can take you the full right minutes or five minutes of your speech (which is perfectly fine depending on your strategy). Only experience will give you a feel for the difference between effectively covering an argument and over- or under-covering.

The Overview

The overview should be a brief, but comprehensive story of the disadvantage, as applied to this particular debate. You should go through the uniqueness, the link, the intemallinks and the impact, explaining why passing the affirmative plan uniquely changes the safe haven ofthe status quo to descend into the disastrous world of the disadvantage. Even if your evidence is not terribly specific you should be telling a story as specifically as possible. Don't just say, "Passing an unpopular plan will crush the president's political capital, making him unable to pass the budget, causing financial chaos." Talk about what makes this plan unpopular, and why the specific nature of that unpopularity hurts the president's ability to get the budget. Remember, debate is not just about evidence; it's about making that evidence fit a world you frame.

After you tell the story of the disadvantage, you'll need to convince your audience why they should be interested. You should include a briefirnpact analysis here. You'll find more in section 4.3 on impact analysis, but basically you'll want to explain why if you win this position, perhaps in conjunction with other positions in the debate like case presses or a counterplan, you will win the debate. Possible tools that will help with this are evaluating the differences in the size of your impact vs. theirs, the differences in risks of your impact vs. theirs, and why your impact perhaps occurs first, meaning the judge should vote negative.

1

The Line-By-Line

{ , J

If the overview was like the thesis statement of your essay, now you'll use evidence to prove your point. In fact, you'll want to use a mountain of evidence, as much as you can read without

© 2000, Victory Briefs

49

'I -

'I J

I I

I 1

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

sacrificing argument depth and clarity. The trick is deciding where to read your evidence and how to spend your limited time. Obviously, you'll want to spend time focusing on the affirmative's most potent arguments. If the affirmative made some simple analytical arguments that can be done away with by making a couple analytical responses and referring to the INC evidence, then do that. You'll want to spend the bulk of your time reading cards to respond to affirmative cards, especially where the affirmative reads turns.

Here we'll go through the four major components of the disadvantage debate giving some suggestions on how to properly extend against affirmative arguments. If the affirmative fails to answer any of these parts of the disadvantage, you should make sure to mention to the judge" that they have conceded that portion of your argument. If they don't answer the link, say, "The link is conceded! Don't let them make new answers in the lAR!"

The Uniqueness Debate

You'll want to focus on the uniqueness debate as much as time will allow, reading as many new cards as you can. For many judges, controlling uniqueness is paramount. A few thirigs to do: "

• Read your newest cards. "Post-dating" (reading cards more recent than theirs) has become very important, but you'll want to make sure that you explain why post-dating matters, not just that you do. For example, why is your card from yesterday saying the economy is fine better than their card from two days ago saying we are headed for a depression?

• Talk about the affirmative's uniqueness responses. Explain why your cards answer the subtleties of their evidence. For example, "Their card that's tagged as the economy is in decline really only says that the stock market dipped on Wednesday. That doesn't mean we are headed for a depression. In fact it just proves the market is currently volatile, making the link to our disadvantage more likely." Analyzing why your cards are better is always better than just reading more.

Control the uniqueness debate to neutralize link turns. A link turn claims that the affirmative actually causes the opposite of your link to occur. Let's stay with the economy disadvantage example to see what we mean. For example, the affirmative claims the plan actually boosts the economy. However, in order for the link tum to have any impact it must be unique. If the economy is in great shape now - as you, the

negative, claim-then there is no impact to making it a little bit better. This is a key idea in debating disadvantages. By contrast, if the affirmative wins that we are headed for a depression in the status quo - they prove your disadvantages is not unique - then the affirmative uniquely solves the impact of your disadvantages, which is really coming in the status quo. So you'll want to win the uniqueness debate to minimize the impact of any affirmative link

© 2000, Victory Briefs

50

wwW.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

The Link Debate

I I I I

You'll want to focus much of your attack on debating the link, explaining why the affirmative plan actually causes the disadvantage. You should read as many link cards specific to the plan as time will allow. This is especially true if the affirmative attempts to tum the link. You should put the bulk of your. link cards on the link tum. (For example, if the affirmative's link tum is the 2AC #5 read as many link cards as you can in answering this response.) Some tips:

• Talk about why your links trump the affirmative turns. Explain why the fact that your links are true means even if the link turns are true you'l1 still win the disadvantage. GO back to the economy example for a minute. Say their link tum cards say that they help the semi-conductor industry, but your link cards say the economy as a whole will dip as a result of the plan. You'll want to talk about why that means your link cards "subsume" the affirmative turns. Their link is small compared with the breadth of your link.

• Debate the quality of the evidence. We may sound like a broken record on this point, but we cannot emphasize it enough. Talk about why your cards are better, or written by more qualified authors, than the other team's cards. This is essential and will raise your debating to a higher level.

• You might want to read some new links. If the lAR drops them you're golden.

I I

• However, there is a major caveat to this. If the lAR proves one of your new links to be non-unique it could destroy your whole disadvantage because it means the disadvantage is going to occur regardless of whether or not the plan is passed. And unfortunately, you won't have much time to refute this type of tAR analysis in the 2NR. For example, say you read a new link card saying the plan destroys the auto industry in the 1 NR. Then you read an internal link card explaining why the auto industry is key to the overall health of the economy to prove the plan causes a massive recession. Then the 1 AR reads a card proving the auto industry is dead in the status quo. If you cannot effectively answer this then the whole disadvantage is empirically denied because the economy should be in the tank-in the status quo-irrelevant a/the affirmative plan. So be careful! Only read new link scenarios you are completely ready to defend them, or you may be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The Internal Link Debate

The internal link debate is probably the most ignored part of the disadvantage debate. Because they rarely completely decimate a disadvantage and have far less impact than turns, 2AR's often neglect internal link presses. This is a mistake. Often the internal links are the weakest part of disadvantages. This comes simply from the nature of disadvantages, which are stories pieced together from disparate sources of evidence. Negatives should not ignore good internallink responses, but they should not focus the bulk of their time there unless affirmatives read cards or really makes a big deal about the internal link.

© 2000. Victory Briefs

51

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

1

Ideally disadvantage shells will be constructed so thoroughly that there will already be a couple strong internal link cards in them. If there are then 2NC/I NR extensions may need only refer to the INC cards explaining why they answer the affirmative's argument. However, good 2AC's will offer several well-explained attacks on the internal links. If this happens the negative should be ready to read cards and offer examples as to where internal links like that of the disadvantage have occurred in the past. For example, if the affirmative gives some reasons why a stock market crash caused by the plan wouldn't cause an overall depression, you should read a card talking about why hurting the stock market now would uniquely harmful to the economy and offer a pithy explanation why in 1929 the stock market crash led to the Great Depression.

I

The Impact Debate

Do everything you can to preserve the size and menacing nature of your 1 NC impact. If the affirmative concedes the impact don't forget to remind the judge of what it is and why it outweighs the case. Often your impact cards will be the best ones you have.

J I

There are basically two scenarios for affirmative response to the disadvantage impact. The affirmative can turn the impact, andlor they can take out the impact. If they tum the impact, they attempt to show that causing the disadvantage impact would actually be a good thing. For example, the affirmative might concede they cause economic decline, but would argue that economic decline would be good because economic growth itself causes war and devastates the environment.

If the affirmative turns the impact, arguing the impact is good, not bad:

• Answer their impact turns. Read whatever cards you have and make whatever logical arguments you can to answer the specific claims and warrants of their impact tum. You are just trying to re-explain why the impact would be not good (not just why it would actively be bad). In this case you'd read cards about why economic growth doesn't cause war or hurt the environment.

Ideally you'll also be able to "tum back" their turns. reading cards that say economic growth stops war by making countries economically dependent on one another. or that economic growth helps the environment by encouraging development of cleaner more ecologically sound technology.

1 I

Don't forget your impact, why economic decline is bad. You still want to defend your original impact even if the affirmative reads turns. You should read every impact card you can.

• Subsume their impact turns. This is the same as subsuming a link tum. Talk about why even if their impact turns are true, your impacts will still outweigh. In this case. even if they win that economic growth is negative for the environment you still win the disadvantage because the nuclear war caused by a depression will kill more people than environmental destruction; will occur before an amorphous ecological impact; and would probably also have detrimental effects on the ecosystem.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

52

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

, 1

If the affirmative tries to take out the impact, by arguing the impact is not bad (though not good either-just neutral):

• If the negative reads only take-outs to the impact, then you should not spend too much time here. An example of a defensive impact argument might be, "Depression won't cause war." You should answer the argument effectively, but don't read a mountain of cards. You should refer back to the shell impact evidence as well, because that should be your best impact card.

• Don't be seduced by the quality of your impact evidence. Too often debaters are too excited by the mountain of flaming impact cards they have cut for a disadvantage and have the urge to read them all in their speech. This is usually a mistake. Unless the 2AC has turned the impact you're probably wasting your time reading many more impact cards unless they have something new and exciting to offer. The uniqueness and link debate aremuch more important. A big impact is irrelevant if you can't prove the affirmative uniquely causes it to occur.

These tips should send you well on your way to a successful negative block. Keep in mind, though, that experience is the best teacher ..

4.2: "Kicking Out" of a Disadvantage

You don't usually want to extend every disadvantage you posit in the INC. After the 2AC you'll want to narrow your strategy a bit, and then after the IAR you'll narrow your strategy again to the final2NR selections. As such you'll want to get rid of some of your disadvantages. However, you cannot just wish a disadvantage and the affirmative's turns to it away. You need to officially jettison it by "kicking out," that is by granting affirmative arguments that make the disadvantage (and whatever turns the affirmative read) a moot point. Otherwise, the affirmative will claim you granted their turns and will use your old disadvantage against you. This can be very difficult to understand unless you have some experience with it, but here are some helpful hints for kicking out.

.1 I

• Grant link and internal link take-outs. You'll want to select link and internallink takeouts that apply to the turns as well as the links. Concede them by saying something like, "Grant the 2AC #3, No Internal Link: the plan doesn't affect the economy. This takes out the whole disadvantage. We're not going for it." Be careful to grant arguments clearly and precisely, perhaps even explaining why the affirmative turns don't apply in a world where some of their other answers are true. An example would be, "Now go to the 2AC #5, the tum that claims the plan helps the economy. Remember we are conceding another affirmative answer that the plan does not affect the economy at all. Therefore, there is no link to the tum." If the affirmative #3 is true, that the plan has no effect on the economy, then there is no link to your disadvantage but there is also no possibility that they can turn the disadvantage, either.

j f j

© 2000, Victory Briefs

53

1

'j -

, I

'}

I ]

1

J

J

1

J , I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

Grant out no impact arguments. Conceding there's no impact to a disadvantage makes the whole link debate irrelevant. If you conceded, for instance, that there is no impact to economic decline, it doesn't mater who causes it or solves it. These are usually safe arguments to use to get out of a disadvantage.

Grant empirically denied arguments, but make sure. they empirically deny the link or impact turns as well as the original link!

• Never grant "non-unique" arguments to get out of a disadvantage unless they really empirically deny the scenario. Conceding your disadvantage is not unique might give the affirmative precious uniqueness to their turns. You always want to control the uniqueness.

A Straight-turned Disadvantage

Sometimes the affirmative will "straight-tum" the disadvantage, meaning they only read turns, and their take outs only affect your links and impacts but not their turns. In this case there is no way to kick out of the disadvantage; you must fight it. If the affirmative does this on a disadvantage where you are ready to win then devote as much time as you can beating back the affirmative turns and reasserting your links and impacts. Do not ignore the disadvantage; it will not go away.

4.3: Impact Analysis

Impact analysis is an essential component of any winning second rebuttal. Basically it explains why what you're winning outweighs what you might be losing, and, therefore, why you win the debate. Good impact analysis doesn't just explain what you're winning-it accepts that you probably aren't winning every argument but explains why you can still win the debate anyway. If you're executing high quality impact analysis it should always include "even if' statements like "Even if we lose this, we still will win the debate because ... "

There are three major components of impact analysis that can prove your impacts are the most important: size, risk, and timeframe. You must wrestle with all three of these components to effectively assess a debate. Yet every impact assessment asks a judge to affirm a particular value in a debate. By asking a judge to vote for one argument over another you are asking that person to affirm the importance of life, dignity, economic growth, or any other impact you are going for. When analyzing impacts don't forget this. In addition to providing technical analysis. you must persuade the judge to agree with your value framework.

Size of the Impact

The size of the impact is based entirely on the number of victims who will suffer harm or die if the impact happens. In many debates it is measured simply in dead bodies. uncouth as that may sound. The affirmative might be trying to solve a worldwide nuclear war, while the negative solves civil war in Africa. The affirmative might win despite the negative impact because the affirmative case saves more lives, or because voting negative insures death for everyone in the

© 2000, Victory Briefs

54

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

I , J

world. This analysis falls back on utilitarianism to win. That means you vote for the greatest good for the greatest number. Despite having to suffer the African civil wars disadvantage, the judge votes affirmative to avoid the larger impact.

I , J

Another way of evaluating impacts falls back on deontology, which basically states that the judge should vote for the plan simply because it is morally right, regardless of the consequences. For example, suppose slavery existed and the affirmative banned it. If the negative could win an economy disadvantage that led to a nuclear war the judge might vote to uphold slavery based on utilitarianism. Deontology asks judges to vote based on a moral obligation. Examples of this include rejecting racism or species extinction.or affirming individual rights. Hence deontological advantages often outweigh large war impacts.

Risk of the Impact

I I 1

Risks of the various impacts are always assessed along with their size. Talking about the links is as important ifnot more important than the actual impacts. For example, many people read evidence saying that any credible risk of a nuclear war should be avoided because of the devastating size of the impact. However, others argue that the risk of nuclear war is too farfetched and that the systemic and widespread nature of some other harm, such as racism, should be voted on first; even though racism is not as "big," it is much more likely, so it should be given more weight in the debate. Affirmatives often use this analysis, pleading with judges to vote on systemic impacts that may fall short of death because their overall impact outweighs the one-shot risk of a somewhat absurd disadvantage. Certainly the risk game is a double-edged sword and applies to affirmative solvency for their advantage just as much as to internal links to disadvantages.

I I

Also, counterplans change the world of impact analysis. To fully understand how this works, you need to read chapter 4 on arguments. As a general rule, however, impact analysis with a counterplan involves two types of impacts: a solvency deficit (how much of the affirmative advantage the counterplan does not solve) and the risk of a disadvantage and its resultant impact. The affirmative tries to make the solvency deficit outweigh the risk of the disadvantage and the negative does the opposite. Too often affirmatives talk about their case advantage as though there were no counterplan in the round solving parts of the case.

Timeframe

Another important consideration is the timeframe of the impacts. For example, if the negative can prove the affirmative causes a nuclear war to occur before any of the affirmative case impacts take effect, the negative will probably win the debate because we will all be dead before the advantage to voting affirmative kicks in. Whether you are affirmative or negative, winning that your impact comes first means that that impact will inhibit us somehow from solving the

other impacts in the debate. .

J 1

Also, remember that as an impact is pushed further and further into the future, it becomes inherently more uncertain. Intervening factors might solve long-term impacts before they occur, whereas a short-term impact is unlikely to be prevented.

© 2000. Victory Briefs

55

I )

J 1

I I j

I

j j

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

Also, the best debaters will always be able to prove why the impacts they avoid affect the other impacts in the debate. For example, if the affirmative claims an environmental protection advantage and the negative argues an economy disadvantage, the negative could subsume the affirmative's impacts by claiming that an economic downturn would have negative effects on the environment, turning the case. Timeframe is very important in these matters. You have to know what comes first in order to know what causes what.

It is not enough just to say, "Our impact comes first." The fact that it comes first must have some other important consequence. This usually comes through combining timeframe analysis with evaluations of risk and size of the impact. Keep in mind that these are not isolated factors but instead work together to create a coherent picture of why you should win the debate.

4.4: Debating Topicality

Topicality can win and lose debates, from that first novice round to the finals of the national championship. As a result, learning to debate it on the affirmative and negative is crucial to competitive success. Unfortunately, topicality debates are often plagued with lots of buzzwords and tag lines; opponents tend to try to confuse each other rather than make sensible arguments

. about the resolution. However, we promise that if you manage to learn the basic information presented here, you will be able to cut through the hype and win most, if not all, of your T debates. When you are arguing topicality, persuasion and logic matter more than speed and technical tricks.

This section provides a basic introduction to topicality itself, how to structure topicality violations, how to answer topicality violations. and how to extend topicality violations in the negative block.

Topicality: What is it, and why does it matter?

A topicality violation argues that the affirmative plan is not within the bounds of the resolution. Sure, in some instances, it's obvious that the affirmative is outside the resolution. For instance, on the privacy topic it would clearly be non-topical for the affirmative to send a mission to Mars or teach Spanish in public schools-these cases have absolutely nothing to do with increasing privacy protections!

But in many instances the line is not so clear. For instance, if the affirmative has to increase privacy protections, how much does it have to increase them? And how quickly? And how do you decide if the affirmative fits within one of the four areas outlined by the resolution? These questions reflect the fertile ground for topicality debates-because there are no definite answers.

So what happens when two teams disagree about the answers? Well. that's when they have a topicality debate. Usually the negative team will extend topicality through the last rebuttal if the affirmative case is so outside the bounds of the resolution that the negative has almost no other winnable arguments. Indeed, this is the crux of topicality-not just whether the affirmative technically fits within the bounds prescribed by the resolution but whether the affirmative is more generally predictable for the negative.

e 2000, Victory Briefs

56

:1 ']

1

I I

I I , I

I ,I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

And this, in tum, relates why topicality is considered a voting issue. After all, if the affirmative is outside the bounds of the resolution, the negative can't expect to be ready to debate it; and if the negative isn't ready to debate, then it's hard to have a fair and educational round. For this reason, topicality is called aprocedural or prima-facie issue: it must be evaluated before anything else in the round. No matter how many advantages the affirmative accrues, or how great its evidence sounds, if the negative proves the case is non-topical, the affirmative team will lose the round.

An Interpretation-Based Approach to Topicality

On some circuits; topicality is still debated strictly by definitions: each team reads a definition, tries to prove why the affirmative does or does not meet it, and the judge then decides which sounds more reasonable. The problem with this approach is that it leaves little room for innovation or real argument by the debaters-because the debate is decided almost entirely by the particular judge's opinion about what a certain word means.

As a result, many circuits now debate topicality in an interpretation-based approach. This means that in addition to simply defining a word in the resolution, each team develops an interpretation of the resolution as a whole based on the definition. Yes, this can involve some imagination on the part of the debaters. Yes, sometimes debaters stretch their definitions to support their interpretations. But for the most part, an interpretation-based approach gives a more complete picture of what it means to define a word a certain way. It forces both teams to give examples of what their interpretation would mean for debate as a whole-not just for that particular round and that particular case, but for the topic at large. If their interpretation became the standard for debate, what cases would or wouldn't be allowed? And why would that limit on the topic be a good one?

, So the teams compare and contrast their interpretations of the resolutions. And they also debate the standards by which the interpretations should be evaluated. For instance, is it better to have a bigger or smaller topic? Does it matter more whether cases meet a specific definition of some word in the resolution or whether cases are just something you are likely to read about if you research the topic? As the debaters hash out these questions, the judge has to make a decision about which version of the resolution is best for debate.

The 2NR and 2AR both focus on the same question: What is the difference between the negative'S interpretation and the affirmative's counter-interpretation, and is that difference important enough in terms of education to make me want to vote negative? In other words, do the cases the affirmative interpretation allows and that the negative's disallows make this a better or worse topic? If the answer is "They do," then the ballot is likely to go affirmative, if it's "They don't," then the ballot islikely to go negative.

Terms in Topicality

Violation

This is the way in which the affirmative does not meet a particular definition of a word in the resolution

© 2000, Victory Briefs

57

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

Interpretation

This refers to a general description of the resolution based on a definition of one or more words. Usually it includes a list of cases which would be topical under its framework.

Standards

The criteria on which each team believes the topicality debate should be judged and the interpretations compared. Five basic examples: limits, grammar, predictability, effects topicality, extra-topicality.

• Limits. How many cases does the interpretation legitimize? Does it allow so many cases thatthe negative cannot be prepared to debate them all?

Grammar. Is the interpretation based on a grammatically correct reading of the resolution? In other words, is the interpretation so convoluted that it could not be said to stem from a definition consistent with proper English?

1

• Predictability. Does the interpretation allow cases which are predictable for both sides to debate?

• Effects topicality. Is the affirmative plan topical on its face, or does it require several separate actions before a topical action occurs? Is this unfair to the negative, who cannot be prepared to debate these nontopical steps?

• Extra-topicality. Are parts of the affirmative plan non-topical? This is related to effect topicality as mentioned above.

Voting issues

The reasons the negative team thinks the judge should vote negative if the negative wins topicality. Examples: fairness, abuse, education, jurisdiction.

• Fairness. If the affirmative plan legitimizes many other non-topical cases, that would be unfair to the negative.

• Abuse. This is related to fairness, because allowing many non-topical cases is considered abusive to the negative team, who then would have to spend 24 hours a day at the library simply to he ready to debate.


J
J
J
J © 2000, Victory Briefs Education. Each interpretation must allow for an interpretation of the resolution which is broad enough to be interesting but narrow enough to provide depth of research and learning. Without that balance, debate can't be educational, which defeats the whole point of the activity. The affirmative should lose if they destroy that balance.

58

CI

, } I I

I

I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

Jurisdiction. If the affirmative case is outside of the bounds of the resolution, the judge has to vote against it simply because the judge is . theoretically not qualified to hear it.

Reverse voting The affirmative team can claim that the negative is just running topicality as a

issue "time suck" and that the judge should vote affirmative to punish the negative

. for wasting the affirmative's time. We are here to declare this argument officially bunk! First of all, teams run many arguments in debate without the intention of going for them by the end of the round; topicality should be no different. And two, it is the affirmative's burden to be topical. They don't win the debate because they prove themselves topical or because the negative doesn't go for topicality-once they do these things that just means the affirmative gets to be in the debate in the first place because they are within the bounds set up by the resolution. They still have to win the substance of their case.

Basic Structure of Topicality Violations

Topicality violations in the INC Should look like this (usually):

A. Interpretation

• Read your definition.

• Explain how your definition fits a more general conception of what the resolution means.

B. Violation

• Explain how the affirmative violates your definition.

C. Standards

• Explain why your interpretation of the resolution is better than the one the affirmative allows.

• Usually you will want to say that your interpretation is better because it provides for a more limited, predictable topic.

• You may also want to list some of the cases you would allow. and compare those to the cases the affirmative would allow.

D. Topicality is a voting issue

• Explain why topicality means you win the round. Use the issues defined above. such as education and fairness.

Answering Topicality

Here are some basic tips for answering topicality in the 2AC. They are phrased in terms of actual responses you could use during your speech. However, you will obviously need to adapt them to fit your own case and style of debate.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

59

']

1 I

I' 1

, I j

! I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

We meet: always try to explain some way that you do in fact meet the interpretation the negative presents, no matter how ridiculous it may sound.

Counter-interpretation: offer your own definition of the word the negative defines and/or other words in the resolution. Explain how your cased meets those words and the interpretation they create. And most important, explain why your interpretation is a good one. You may want to set up counter-standards that you think provide a better way of comparing interpretations. For instance, the negative may think limits are most important, while you believe predictability or grammar matters most.

• Other checks on fairness and education: other things that prevent debate from becoming too far or uneducational for the negative.

• Literature checks: there are lots of books and articles written about the affirmative. If the negative goes to the library and researches the topic, the affirmative case will show up, regardless of whether it meets the particular definition the negative reads. You may want to read a short piece of evidence showing your case's relation to words in the resolution.

Other words in the resolution check: even if the affirmative doesn't meet a particular word that the negative defines, it does meet other words in the resolution which ensure the case is predictable.

• Disclosure checks: the negative knew what the affirmative was running (usually over a long period of time, not just right before the debate), meaning that even if the affirmative is technically non-topical, it does not adversely affect the negative.

• Definition does not support the interpretation: there is a big gap between the definition the negative reads and the interpretation that definition supposedly justifies. As a result, the negative interpretation does not provide a predictable limit to the resolution. So even though the negative may allow numerically fewer cases, those cases are not really at the heart of the topic, so the negative would never know the research them.

No affirmative burden to meet a contrived interpretation: the affirmative doesn't have to meet some crazy interpretation the negative dreams up, especially if that interpretation is grammatically incorrect or unsupported by definitions. The affirmative just has to provide a reasonable counter-interpretation which sets a reasonable limit on the resolution.

We don't legitimize those crazy cases the negative says we do: the negative will often claim that allowing your case allows tons of other unreasonable cases. But usually that is not actually true, because your counter-interpretation usually "limits out" the really zany ones. That proves you don 't open the floodgates to millions of cases.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

60

'I

1 I J

, ~l

, 1

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

Extending Topicality

When extending topicality during the negative block, it is important to combine the right mix of persuasive rhetoric and technicalline-by-line debate. You should probably begin the topicality extension by re-explaining the violation and also reading a list of cases your interpretation does or does not allow. You should explain briefly what cases the affirmative interpretation legitimizes, and why allowing those cases would be bad for debate. If you don't make these comparisons clear to the judge, you will never win a T debate.

Once you are done with this overview, you want to make sure that you have answers toa11 of the affirmative 2AC responses. While to a certain extent you will need to improvise during the round, much of the 2NC or INR on topicality can be written out beforehand. You can make "2NC Blocks" to help you do this. Title them in terms of "Answers to" a particular affirmative argument, such as "AT: Literature checks abuse." Here is a sample 2NC block.

2NC AT: LITERATURE CHECKS ABUSE

Don't punish me for doing research-just because I have evidence on the affirmative case doesn't make it topical. They should still lose for making me do that research.

• Literature doesn't prove topicality-there is literature on national missile defense and MFN to China-those don't have anything to do with privacy.

• Literature is an arbitrary standard-what if! have evidence, but it's not very good? Or if I have disadvantage links but no case cards? It's entirely SUbjective.

• Depth is better than breadth-ifwe use literature as the standard for determining what's topical or not, we will end up with a huge, broad topic where we can never learn anything about specific cases. Only my interpretation is narrow enough to allow for focused, educational debate.

• Literature is a circular standard-we should define the resolution and then the literature, not the other way around. Only my interpretation provides that predictability.

4.5: Introduction to the Counterplan

A counterplan is a plan offered by the negative to counter the affirmative proposal. It is a different policy that the judge can vote for, just as the judge can vote for the affirmative case. Like the affirmative plan, a counterplan must have a text and (usually) solvency evidence.

Because we believe counterplans are the most important negative tool, we will be spending a fair amount of time going over counterplans. If you don't understand all this material immediately, don't worry-it is very complicated, and it takes effort and experience to comprehend it .

© 2000, Victory Briefs

61

1

'1

www.vidorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

completely. We strongly recommend reading all of the sections on counterplans together so that you get the most complete version of the information we're trying to get across.

Why Does the Negative Get to Run a Counterplan?

You may be asking yourself, Why doesn't the negative always have to defend the status quo? There are several reasons why the negative should be allowed to advocate its own policy, why the negative should be allowed to "fiat" certain actions.

• It's more real world-if we really are policymakers, then we have to consider how real policymakers make decisions. And in the real world, no one is forced to defend the status quo. Everyone is allowed to offer ideas for solving problems, and debate shouldn't be any different.

• It's more educational-debating counterplans helps us learn more about more policy options.

• It forces affirmative plans to be better-if affirmatives have to defend their plan against both the status quo and other proposals, they will work harder to craft the truly best policy option. This is related to the education argument above.

• Counterplans are key to faimess=- it's not fair to force the negative to defend the status quo. Sometimes there are things going on that everyone agrees must be changed, but that doesn't mean that we all agree on how to change them. Forcing the negative to defend terrible things that happen in the status quo puts them at a huge strategic disadvantage.

• There are limits on counterplans-a counterplan must meet certain burdens; the most important of which is competitiveness. We will discuss this in depth below, but keep in mind that the negative can't just run anything it chooses.

Why Should the Negative Run a Counterplan?

1 ]

As mentioned above, sometimes everyone agrees that a problem exists but doesn't agree about how to solve that problem. This is where counterplans come in. Most of the time, a counterplan is a way for the negative to agree with part of the affirmative case while disagreeing with another part of it-to agree with the harm the affirmative outlines but to disagree with the affirmative solvency mechanism.

Let's use a real-world example to see what we mean. Pretend you and your friend are hanging out on a Sunday afternoon, and the "harm," or problem, is that you are both really bored. You suggest going to a movie. Your friend suggests going to the mall. ill other words; you both agree that sitting at home is boring, but you disagree on what you should do to remedy your boredom. It is as though your friend has one plan for what to do, and you have a counterplan.

@ 2000, Victory Briefs

62

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

The question then becomes, why can't you go to the movies and go to the mall? Maybe you don't have enough time or money or energy to do both. So how do you choose between these two options? This question brings us to the issue of counterplan competition.

Counterplan Competition

In order for the negative to win with a counterplan, the counterplan must be what we call "competitive." This means that the counter plan alone must be a better option that any combination of the plan and the counter plan or the plan alone. Ifwe used the example above, this would mean that only going to the mall would have to be better than: 1) going to the mall and going to the movies; or 2) just going to the movies. As long as going to the movies is part of the deal, your friend's idea is still a good one. To translate that back into debate terms, as long as the affirmative plan is still the best option-whether by itself or in combination with the counterplan-then the affirmative will still win the debate; the counterplan will not be competitive. If you have an unlimited amount of time, energy, and money. your wanting to go the mall is not a reason not to go to the movies.

So how do we determine competitiveness? In other words, how do we decide which of these three options is best? How can we determine whether the counterplan alone is better than any combination of the plan and the counterplan or the plan alone?

OUR OPTIONS
Real-world example .... . .. Translated into debate terms
Going to the movies Plan
Going to the mall Counterplan
Going to the movies and the mall Plan + Counterplan There are two standards we can use to make this decision about competitiveness: mutual exclusivity and net benefits. Memorize those two standards! We will discuss them each in tum.

Mutual Exclusivity

If two things are mutually exclusive, they can't be done at the same time; doing one excludes the other. If the counterplan and the plan are mutually exclusive, they can't both be done at the same time-the option of "plan plus counterplan" is physically impossible.

For instance, if you and your friend have only two hours free during the afternoon, then going to the movies will prevent you from going to the mall. The two activities are mutually exclusive because you cannot physically do both in one afternoon. As a result. the option of going to the mall is competitive-you and your friend must choose between it and going to the movies. You must decide whether you want the entertainment of the movie or.the shopping offered by the mall. You cannot enjoy them both.

I J

Similarly, in a debate round, if the plan and counterplan are mutually exclusive, the judge must choose one of the options. He or she must decide whether the benefits to doing the counterplan outweigh the benefits to doing the plan, since doing the plan necessarily excludes doing the

@ 2000, Victory Briefs

63

'1

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

counterplan. In a way, the advantages to the counterplan are disadvantages to the affirmative case, because they are things that cannot be achieved if the affirmative plan is enacted. This is what we mean when we say, "The counterplan alone is better than any combination of the plan and counterplan or the plan alone. The counterplan is therefore competitive."

Net Benefits

Sometimes, however, two options are not mutually exclusive-you can do both, but the question is whether you would want to do both. Imagine that your time is unlimited. You and your friend can definitely go to both the movies and to the mall if you choose to. But let's say that going to the movies will wind up costing you twenty bucks (due to the expensive refreshments at the movie theater, plus the jacked-up ticket price). Meanwhile, going to the mall will not cost you anything-you'll window-shop and hang out with some friends, but there is no way it will take twenty dollars from your wallet. Whether you go to the movies or go to the mall, your problem-Sunday afternoon boredom-will be solved. (Assume for our purposes that you get the same level of personal enjoyment out of the movies and the mall.) So the question is whether you want to spend all that extra money. Since the answer is probably no, you would opt to just go to the mall and not the movies. You could do both, but you don't want to.

1

Similarly, in a debate round, the plan and the counterplan may not be mutually exclusive. But if the negative can prove why doing the counterplan will solve the harms of the affirmative case just as well as the plan without incurring some disadvantage caused by the plan, then the judge would obviously vote negative. It's like getting all the benefit without the cost, so we say that the counterplan has net benefits or is net beneficial. This is the second way the counterplan can be competitive.

I

Real-world example •.. . •• Translated into debate terms
Action Effects Action Effects
Going to the mall Free Counterplan No disadvantage
Going to the movies Costs money Plan Disadvantage
Doing both Costs money Doing both Disadvantage Recap

A counterplan is competitive if it alone is better than any combination of the plan and the counterplan, or the plan alone. It can be competitive by being mutually exclusive or by having net benefits.

Do Counterplans Have to be Non-Topical?

Many people believe that counterplans have to be non-topica1. Their typical reasoning goes like this: "If the counterplan is topical, the negative is agreeing with the resolution. Therefore, even if the counterplan is a good idea, the judge should vote affirmative.'

. The major problem with this explanation is that it assumes that debate should be focused on the resolution instead of on the specific plan offered by the affirmative. People who think

© 2000, Victory Briefs

64

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

f l

counterplans must be topical believe that the judge is voting for a resolution and not a specific proposal-because after all, if the judge were just focused on the plan, then anything that proved the plan was a bad idea (even a topical counterplan within the same resolutional bounds as the plan) would be a reason to vote against the affirmative. In our view, the resolution-centered approach to debate (which makes people think topical counterplans are bad) is inferior for several reasons:

• It's not the way we actually debate. Affirmative teams stand up and defend specific plans, not just the resolution. They don't read evidence simply saying, "We should change our policy" as per the resolution-they say how we should change the policy. They make the plan the focus of the debate, so that is what the judge should focus on.

• The only purpose of the resolution is to make the affirmative case predictable for the negative. As long as it does that (i.e. as long as the affirmative is proven topical), it doesn't matter whether the counterplan is topical or not.

~ . l 1

Topical counterplans can actually be considered more fair than non-topical counterplans=-topical counterplans are highly predictable. They fit within specific limits, and the affirmative is likely to have evidence against them. This cannot be said of unpredictable, non-topical counterplans.

Most important, resolution-focused debate digresses into hypothesis-testing and counterwarrants, which are bad for debate. If the judge is just voting for the resolution and not a specific plan, the negative can just attack any part of the resolution, regardless of whether that part has anything to do with the affirmative plan. Debate under this paradigm becomes generic and uneducational, not to mention frustrating and boring. Only a plan-centered approach to debate, which focuses on the specific proposal offered by the affirmative, can avoid this problem. And if a plan-centered approach is allowed, then there is no reason the negative can't offer a specific plan of its own. (For more on hypothesis-testing and problems with a resolutional approach to debate, see section 2.3.)

! I

1 I·

So again, the key thing to understand is that not allowing topical counterplans also means not allowing plan-focused debate. And that's bad! As long as the counterplan provides a reason to reject the affinnative-that is, as long as the counterplan is competitive-then it shouldn't matter whether it's topical or not.

,I

© 2000, Victory Briefs

65

'1

I

i I J

1 1

! !

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

Writing a Counterplan

Writing a counterplan text is an art and nota science; it requires experience, creativity, and brains. But here is how a typical counterplan text might look:

Coonterplan

l£!!:. [Write what the counterplan is going to do, just as you would write what an affirmative plan might do.]

Observation one: topicality [Either say that the counterplan is non-topical or briefly explain why topical counterplans are okay.]

Observation two: competition [Explain why the counterplan competes-either by net benefits or mutual exclusivity.]

Observation three: solvency [Read solvency evidence for the counterplan or explain why it solves all or part of the affirmative case.)

This counterplan format is more a matter of convention than practicality, but it should give you a

basic idea of what a counterplan does. . - '. ., ...

The key thing to ask yourself as you write the counterplan text is, why is this counterplan better than any combination of the plan and the counterplan, or the plan alone? In other words, why is it net beneficial or mutually exclusive? Think carefully not just about the general idea of the counterplan but about the specific words you use to describe it. Is your meaning clear? Ifit's not, the affirmative may get the better of you by twisting your words to their advantage.

Permutations

The most important argument you should anticipate when running a counterplan is called a permutation. In debate, a permutation means "doing both "-combining all of the affirmative plan with all or part of the counter plan. If the affirmative can show that the plan and counterplan are not mutually exclusive, then the affirmative is making a permutation,

However, just because an affirmative can make a permutation does not mean that the counterplan is a bad idea. Just because the affirmative shows you can do the plan and the counterplan simultaneously doesn't mean you would want to. Remember the mall-and-movies analogy in which doing both cost more than just doing the counterplan alone.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

66

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

Here are some common types of permutations:

• "Do both"-this is the most basic permutation. It does all of the plan and all of the counterplan.

J

• Sever permutation-it does part of the plan and part of the counterplan. It severs part of the original plan. Many people believe this is illegitimate because it creates a moving target for the negative and is a shift in advocacy from the lAC.

I

Intrinsic permutation-it does all of the plan and all or part of the counterplanplus something else. In other words, it adds something that is not intrinsic to the plan or the counterplan. Many people believe that this type of permutation is illegitimate because it may add something non-topical to the plan. And even if the added part is topical, it is not predictable for the negative, creating a moving target to debate.

• Timeframe permutation-it does all of the plan and all or part of the counterplan, but it doesn't do this at the same time. Many people believe this type of permutation is illegitimate, because negative disadvantages are often time-dependent, and if the affirmative can delay enactment of their plan, the negative could never get a disadvantage

to link to the plan. .

Other Answers to Counterplans

The most important argument to make against a counterplan is always the permutation. Never fail to at least say "Do both" during the 2AC. Here are some other basic tips for answering counterplans on the affirmative:

• Point out a solvency deficit between the plan and the counterplan-a reason the counterplan does not solve all of the affirmative case.

• Read disadvantages to the counterplan, or explain why the counterplan links to disadvantages run by the negative.

! I

• Explain why the permutation solves the net benefit to the counterplan. For instance, imagine that the affirmative plan spent some money on increasing privacy protections, and the negative counterplanned to ban all government spending and ran a spending disadvantage as the net benefit, arguing that the plan spent money and the counterplan didn't. If the affirmative permutated, and said to do both the plan and the counterplan, the permutation would solve the disadvantage. In the "world" of the permutation, there is a tiny bit of spending on the plan, but all other spending is banned. Therefore, there would be net less spending than there is in the status quo. Even if the permutation spends slightly more money than the counterplan, they both spend so much less than the status quo that the judge can easily vote affirmative to capture the advantages of the affirmative case.

I 1 .f

© 2000, Victory Briefs

67

'I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

Don't ignore the counterplan. Don't continue to say, "The case outweighs the disadvantages" if the counterplan solves the case. If the counterplan and the plan both solve the case equally, then the judge has to look to something else in the debate to break the tie. That is why you should be extending disadvantage turns or some other nonsolvency-basedargument, [b_Clti~wl1aldi_s!iIlgl.l_i~ht::~y()u_fro_!llth~l1e£B.!ive ... no_!the_[act that you solve the case advantages.

4.6: Examples of Connterplans

There are so many types of counterplans that we could write an entire book just about that subject. However, in this section we will try to give you three typical examples of counterplans so that you can get a better feel for how they work.

Example #1! Agent Counterplans

An agent counterplan does the plan but uses a different agent or actor to implement it. Then the negative usually runs a disadvantage to the affirmative's actor.

For instance, if the affirmative plan is done by the federal government, the counterplan might act through the fifty states. The counterplan would have all fifty states implement the affirmative mandates and then run a disadvantage against the affirmative linked to the one difference between the plan and the counterplan-the use of the federal government instead of the states. Disadvantages dealing with federalism or presidential power would be possible net benefits. Thus the debate is over the agent of the plan, not necessarily the substance of the plan itself.

Another common example of an agent counterplan is using the courts instead of Congress or Congress instead of the courts. The counterplan does the basic mandates of the affirmative but through an alternate actor; the negative then runs a disadvantage to the affirmative actor. So if the affirmative plan was done through the Supreme Court, the negative counterplan might have Congress pass laws to deal with the problem outlined in the affirmative case. Then any disadvantage to court action, such as a Judicial Activism argument, would be a net benefit to the counterplan.

In both instances, the affirmative can win the debate not by defending the basic actions of the plan or the solvency of the case (as in traditional debate) but by defending the specific actor the plan uses-the affirmative has to provide reasons that federal action is better than state action, or that court action is better than congressional action. If the affirmative can't do this, it will lose, no matter how great the case seems to be. As a result, the affirmative should think carefully about who does the plan.

Example #2: International Counterplans

j J J

An international counterplan has some other country do some part of the affirmative plan. The net benefit is usually a disadvantage based on US action.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

68

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

I

For instance, imagine that the plan promotes a particular type of technology which is environmentally friendly. The advantage to the plan is pollution reduction. The negative can counterplan by having Japan promote the new technology, arguing that Japan has the right information, the money. and the will to do so. Since pollution is pollution, it doesn't matter whether Japan or the US promotes the technology=either way, the affirmative advantage is solved. As a result, the only question is whether it is better to have the US or Japan specifically promote it. The negative might argue that US promotion of the technology is bad, because it will hurt US businesses-they will have to use the new technology, which will slow down American production and harm our economy. Obviously, this won't happen if Japan does the plan. Again, the counterplan seems to provide all the benefits of the plan without the costs (in this case.the costs to US businesses).

The affirmative can answer this counterplan by providing a specific US-based advantage to their plan. Perhaps US promotion of the technology is actually good for the US economy, because US businesses will sell the technology and make money. Or perhaps US promotion of it is good because it makes us look smart compared to other countries, thereby increasing out prestige internationally. The list of possible explanations is endless .... The point is to make sure you actually have one-because the advantage you read in the lAC isn't going to help you. The lAC advantage was no intrinsic or inherent to the action the plan took. III other words. the advantage could be achieved by some other means. in this case Japanese action.

Important Side-Note: Counterplans with Advantages

!

I

What would the affirmative do if the "net benefit" to the counterplan were that selling the technology would help Japan's economy? In this case, the affirmative needs to point out that the negative is running a counter plan with an advantage. not a disadvantage with a link to the affirmative plan. In other words, there is nothing in the plan which prevents Japan from selling the technology at the same time the US does-so the affirmative can just permute the counterplan and solve its supposed "net benefit," which is really just an advantage. Going back to the terminology used in the last section, the counterplan is therefore not competitive by net benefits or by mutual exclusivity.

Important Side-Note: Plan-Plus Counterplans

What would the affirmative do if the counterplan did all of the plan and then also had Japan promote the technology? The negative would then be running what's called a "plan plus" counterplan-it would be advocating doing all of the counterplan and then something else. Well, the first thing the affirmative should note is that the negative is agreeing that all of the affirmative plan is a good idea! Once that is established, the counterplan is clearly not competitive-how can it be better than any combination or the plan or counterplan when it is the plan plus something else? The affirmative should explain this and say, "Permute-do the counterplan."

J

! f

© 2000, Victory Briefs

69

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

Example #3: Exclusionary or Plan-Inclusive Counterplans

This type of counterplan has two names, but they mean the same thing: the negative is choosing to do one part of the affirmative plan but not the other. The negative then runs disadvantages or case turns against the part of the plan it does not do, and these become the net benefits. Also note that this counterplan is mutually exclusive with the plan, since the affirmative can't do and not do certain parts of the plan at the same time.

Assume that the affirmative plan does two things to increase renewable energy: it increases use of solar power and it promotes natural gas cars. The advantage to increasing solar power is that it will allow the US to become a leader in solar power technology, which, believe it or not, will greatly help the US economy because the US will become a leader in the field. The advantage to promoting natural gas cars is that it will reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which cause global warming and all its attendant ills.

Now, though this example is a bit complicated, the important thing to notice is that there are two parts of the plan and that each part has its own independent advantage. This means the negative can counterplan to do one part of the plan but not the other, and then run a disadvantage to the part that the negative doesn't do. In this instance, the negative might counterplan to do the part of the plan which promotes natural gas cars. This means that the counterplan solves all of the global warming advantage but does not solve the US economy advantage.

However, instead ofletting this be a problem for them, the negative can turn this into a strategic tool-the negative can turn the advantage that the counterplan does not solve. The negative can run a disadvantage to the US economy advantage-for instance, a disadvantage that would say that when the US takes over a market it harms other countries, making them resent the US and more likely to enter a military conflict with the US. Thus the debate comes to be about whether or not it is good for the US to dominate the market in solar technology; it now has nothing to do with whether or not the US should promote natural gas cars. The negative has used a certain type of counterplan to narrow the debate.

This is the best part about running exclusionary or plan-inclusive counterplans. If you show up for a debate and realize that you have little or no evidence about a certain affirmative advantage, see if you can run a counterplan which solves that advantage. Then you only have to debate the other advantages that you do have evidence on.

!

I

On the affirmative, you can answer this specific counterplan in several ways. First, you may be able to show parts of your affirmative are related-·ifthe negative doesn't solve one.then it can't solve the other, and therefore your case advantages are still both weighing on your side. Often your solvency evidence will explain how parts of the affirmative are interconnected. You may even be able to run turns to doing one of the parts alone. Second, you need to directly answer the net benefit to the counterplan just as you would answer any other disadvantage. Do not ignore it. . Third, you may want to read additional advantages to the parts of the plan the counterplan does not do. This makes it harder for the net benefit to outweigh the part of the case it does not solve. Finally, pick your solvency evidence carefully. Make sure it is actually talking about your plan

as a whole and not just certain parts of it which can be easily separated by a clever counterplan.

J j

© 2000, Victory Briefs

70

-J

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAL\1PIONSHIP DEBATE § 4; Arguments

, 1

4.7: Counterplan Theory

Counterplan theory is one of the most complicated issues in debate. There is no possible way this section could teach you everything there is to know about it. Nor could you learn all about it from any book since it is very difficult to understand without having done a lot of debating. It will rarely if ever come up in your novice year of debate, but this section attempts to provide you with a basic introduction.

I I

What is Counterplan Theory?

You now know what a counterplan is, but you may be wondering what "theory" is. Whether involved with counterplans or not, a theory argument is one which deals with the procedure of debate and not the substance. It argues about the rules of debate itself and the way a debate is conducted-not about some particular argument within the debate. For instance, topicality is a procedural argument, because it is considered to be more important than the affirmative case itself-it provides the framework in which the affirmative case has to fall. If the negative wins topicality, it wins the debate, no matter how great the affirmative case may have seemed. Similarly, if the affirmative wins a theory argument against the counterplan, it wins the debate, no matter how great the counterplan may have seemed. This is because a theory argument says that something is fundamentally unfair about the counterplan.

Examples of theory arguments

There are many different theory arguments, but here are some. Obviously they do not all apply to all counterplans. We are writing them down so you can get an idea of what they are like. Usually you should say that a theory argument is a voting. issue for reasons of fairness and education (just as you would for a topicality violation).

• Exclusionary counterplans are illegitimate-they steal the affirmative's ground. Even if topical counterplans are okay. the negative shouldn't be allowed to advocate part of the affirmative's plan.

• International counterplans are illegitimate-it's unfair to fiat another country. That fiat is not reciprocal with the affirmative, which only gets to fiat the US. Also, the negative fiat is unpredictable since there are 200 countries the negative could choose from. while the affirmative only gets to fiat one actor and the negative knows which one that will be.

• Agent counterplans are illegitimate-they steal most of the affirmative plan, which is unfair. They also shift the debate to the agent, which is not what we are supposed to be learning about.

Counterplans without solvency evidence are illegitimate-the negative either must have specific solvency evidence for the counterplan or show how the affirmative evidence supports the counterplan. Otherwise the counterplan is totally unpredictable and unfair to the affirmative.

, J

© 2000, Victory Briefs

71

'OJ

I

I I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAt'\1PIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

The counterplan is unfair if the negative does not have to extend it through the final rebuttals-in other words, if the negative is allowed to "kick out" of a counterplan, it skews the affirmative's time allocation because it had to answer something the negative did not go for. The affirmative has to stick with their plan throughout the round, so the negative should have to, also. As a result, argues the affirmative, the negative should automatically lose. Sometimes this type of counterplan is called a "dispositional" or "conditional" counterplan.

All the arguments against certain types of permutations are also "theory" arguments. See section 4.7 to review those.

Examples of answers to these theory arguments

The most common answers to theory arguments against counterplans are given below. Obviously, there are many others, but these should get you started.

Competition checks abuse-as long as the counterplan meets the burdens of competition, it should be allowed in the debate. That sets a very finn limit on what the negative can do, and anything more is unfair to the negative.

Literature checks abuse-as long as the counterplan has solvency evidence or is predictable from the literature about the case, it should be allowed. Both teams can prepare for it, so it isn't unfair to either side. Try to make specific arguments as to why the affirmative should be ready to debate YOUR counterplan, given their case or the resolution.

• Theory arguments are not voting issues--even if you agree the counterplan is illegitimate, you would just disregard the counterplan, not automatically vote against the negative team. Throwing the counterplan out of the debate is punishment enough.

4.8: Introduction to the Kritik

Writing a section called "Introduction to the Kritik" is extremely difficult because there is so much disagreement about what the term "kritik" (German for "critique," and pronounced the same way) even means. There are so many different arguments beneath the umbrella if the

o "kritik," they almost defy categorization. This article will attempt to classify some of the typical arguments referred to as "kritiks" and will give some insight as to how to answer them.

o j

1 I

However, this article is certainly not close to comprehensive, nor is it meant to be. Kritik debating is a special skill, and these arguments are now a fact of life in policy debate. The answer is no longer to whine about them, but to debate them like any other argument: by attacking the links and impacts. Focusing your debate on these two areas will make you an effective kritik debater. Too often debaters are simply scared offby the word kritik unnecessarily. The kritik is just an argument that puts its pants on one leg at a time like all the others.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

72

'{

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

, 1 'I

Types of Kritiks

'j J

There are million and one arguments that could be called kritiks (at least). Very basically, a kritik criticizes the underlying assumptions made by the other team's arguments, evidence, rhetoric, or basically anything else they do in the debate. Kritiks usually are implicated as voting issues, meaning if they are won they automatically warrant the judge's ballot. However, this is not universal. The kritik's impact might be to disprove solvency, or links, or impacts. Or the kritik might be characterized as "outweighing" the case. The most important thing you can do when faced with an argument called a "kritik" is to figure out explicitly what the LINK to the argument is and what the IMPACT of the argument is. Then attack the kritik with this knowledge in mind.

I J

One particular kind ofkritik is called a rhetoric kritik. Rhetoric kritiks criticize language a team uses as offensive or harmful to discourse. Usually these kinds of arguments merit voting against the team that used the offending rhetoric. Sexist, racist, or discriminatory language of any kind is fodder for these kritiks. There are essentially two times when this happens: when you say something offensive intentionally, or when you make a mistake you were unaware of . In the first instance you will (and probably should) lose. In the second instance you can either defend your rhetoric or apologize for it. Unless you're prepared to defend it, or the kritik is somewhat absurd, you probably should apologize for your rhetoric, explain that it doesn't warrant losing the whole debate, and quit using the objectionable language.

.I

Most negative kritiks, however, criticize the assumptions made by the affirmative case. They ask the question, "Why does this evidence say what it does?" rather than, "What does this evidence say?" Negatives can criticize the use of the state, how the affirmative conceives power to work in society, the use of technology by the affirmative, or any number of things. Basically, criticisms of these assutnptions disprove authors' claims as based on a flawed system of thinking they may buy into, or may have not even considered. Sometimes these systems of thought are attacked as hierarchical, oppressive, racist, or evil, while sometimes their underlying existence merely debunks an author's claim. Virtually any social theorist or philosopher's thought might be applied as a kritik of affirmative evidence, from Marx to Foucault, and all points in between.

J

Once again, though, the kritik is simply an argument with a link and an impact. On the negative you must emphasize as specifically as possible what the link to the affirmative case, evidence, or argument is, and describe what resultant impact warrants a negative ballot on the kritik. On the affirmative, you must isolate the link and the impact and do the best you can to take it out, tum it, or outweigh it. Don't fear the kritik and debate it at ann's length. Engage it like any other argument and defend yourself!

,I I

J

© 2000, Victory Briefs

73

www.vidorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

Tips for Running Kritiks on the Negative

Before you even begin running the kritik you should understand the argument well. That means actually reading the books or articles from which the cards come. Often this material is extremely dense and complicated and will demand a higher level of explanation in a debate, especially since it purports to debunk a commonly held assumption. You should understand not just the material itself, but the criticisms of that material within the academic community. This will prepare you to debate the argument and answer affirmative blocks which have not been written by the affirmative team, Also, you should be able to explain these arguments easily because the cards are usually very dense. Judges will be unwilling to take a card, pore over it for a half-hour and then give you credit for the argument it makes. Like any other debate argument you must be able to adequate explain and apply your evidence, and that is often simply harder here because the judge may be less familiar with the idea you are trying to get across and because the idea itself may be unusually complicated.

Understand also that kritiks, like topicality, are subject to a good amount of judge preference, There are many judges out there who do not like kritiks and are very hesitant to vote for them, An even greater number of judges demand a higher threshold of explanation in order to vote for the kritik. You should always keep this in mind when devising your strategies. If you don't know about a judge ask them. They will usually tell you whatever you want to know. (Ifit's a stock issues judge don't even ask. It might annoy them and wi 11 brand you as a left-wing radical. Often you can use your kritik argument, sans lingo, as a case takeout or plan-meet-need.)

I J I

With those two issues in mind, here are some suggestions for running kritiks. Everyone in the debate community seems to have different ideas on this. However. these suggestions usually apply to judges who consider themselves policymakers. ..

1. Structure

I !

You can certainly be creative in structuring your kritik shell, but this is a commonly accepted structure that will usually be effective. Start with "A) The Link." Explain the link to the affirmative and read a link card. Slow down here and be explicit. Then move on to "B) Implications," Here, slow down and explain exactly what the impact to the case is. Does the kritik tum or take out solvency? Does the kritik outweigh the case? Is the kritik an a priori voting issue? Why? The clearer you are, the more persuasive your kritik will be.

2. Clarity

I

When hearing the word "kritik" judges often recoil, fearing an argument so complex that no one in the room should expected to grasp it given the time limits and speed of the debate. Kritiks are one of the few arguments left where judges are not afraid to vote against it, claiming, "I just didn't understand this argument." If this occurs it is usually not the judge's fault. The burden of explanation is on you, the debater. Like any other argument, the more you work on it, the more parts of the argument seem "basic" to you. However, you need to recognize that your judge may not have experience with philosophy (or economics or international relations for that matter) and do your best to explain your positions to the judge.

J J

© 2000, Victory Briefs

74

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAt\1PIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

3. Talk about the link.

J 1

When extending a kritik start by explaining exactly what the links are to the affirmative, Note specific lines in cards or the plan and say why they link to your argument, and exactly what the corresponding impacts are to these links. Links like, "they use the state," or "they don't assume that power is fluid," or, "they are rational" are not persuasive. You have to be more explicit and specific.

4. Talk about the impact.

Don't just say, "The kritik takes out solvency." Talk about why the action of the plan falls prey to your criticism and explain why that gets into your impact. The more you can tie the kritik into the affirmative plan the better off you will be.

I

5. Analyze the impact.

Explain why the impact of the kritik outweighs the case. With policy-making judges the toughest impact calculus you'll have to face is the following. "Well, the kritik doesn't solve anything, and the impact is not unique. If! vote negative I avoid entrenching a flawed philosophy. But ifl vote affirmative, and the philosophy might not be flawed, I could solve some suffering or save some lives. I vote aff." You must be as persuasive as possible to avoid this fate. The negative's kritik must answer the question, "Why should I opt to reject the plan in favor of the kritik in the face of the affirmative's case harms?"

J

There are several ways you might do this. You might win that the kritik turns the case, making the harms worse. You might win that the affirmative can never solve due to its flawed assumptions, so any impact to the kritik outweighs. Or you could use the often successful approach which claims that kritiking itself is in fact action. The rejection of the affirmative plan is an endorsement of the kritik as an example of the way the world should be. The negative often argues this by assuming that fiat is illusory, meaning the plan does not actually go into effect following the debate (Congress doesn't do your plan if you win an affirmative round). The only real impact is the discourse in the round (the ideas that are exchanged among the debaters and communicated to the judge), so the judge should vote for the thought system which is better. This argument is especially potent and affirmatives should be prepared for it, perhaps by explaining the educational benefits of assuming that the plan does go into effect.

Answering the Kritik

J

Affirmatives should never show fear or weakness in the face of a kritik, even if it's one with which they are unfamiliar. It's just like any other argument. Figure out exactly what the argument is and then debate it. It has a link and an impact. Argue there. Also, argue the theory of the kritik. The bad news, though, is that arguments attacking the kritik's legitimacy as an argument are not nearly as effective as they used to be. Most people now accept the kritik as part of policy debate. The goods news is that the theory as to why kritiks should actually be voted on is still fertile ground for argument. Answering the kritik in these .three areas will be a good place to start in the 2AC.

1 I j

.J

© 2000, Victory Briefs

75

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 4: Arguments

Answering the Linle

1 j

1. Claim you are not an example of what the negative is criticizing. This is a standard "No link" argument. Remember you don't have to defend the whole of western thought. You don't have to defend everything the state does. You don't have to defend all of international relations theory. You need only to defend your evidence, plan and rhetoric. Force the negative to say specifically what it is about the plan or your cards that links to their evidence. Often negative teams will be much more used to debating the kritik on a generic level. Use this against them by fighting the link, and the relative size of that link, every step of the way.

I ]

J

2. Turn the link. You can do this by claiming your plan and evidence are actually consistent with the negative's kritik. If the negative kritiks using the state and the affirmative reduces use of the state tum the link. Often affirmative teams characterize this as a "step in the right direction."

3. Use a theoretical permutation. All a theoretical permutation is, is a "No link" argument. It 'permutes' the world of the kritik with the world of the affirmative plan. It is not a policy option. It is not an advocacy. It merely tests the competitiveness of the affirmative plan and the kritik. You should characterize it this way. Ask the negative exactly what they advocate after the 1 NC. If all they will say is reject the plan ask them what they hope to gain by doing that. That's what you permute. All the permutation does is ask, "Can the world of the kritik exist concurrently with the world of the affirmative plan?" If the kritik can occur at the same time as the plan with neither being inhibited then there is no link to the case and the affirmative wins. For instance, if the negative is criticizing state action and says that all state action should be banned, the affirmative could say, "Theoretical permutation-ban all state action except that necessary to do the affirmative plan." This forces the negative to explain the specific link to your plan which would exist in a world with no other state action. It doesn't let them get away with reading big impacts to "state action" when your plan doesn't really involve much "state action" at all.

Answering the Impact

1. Defend your assumptions. Basically you can do this on two levels: defensively and offensively. Defensively, you are claiming that the assumptions the negativekritiks can solve the case and are not harmful in the ways they say they are. Offensively, you are actually claiming those assumptions are positive. If the negative kritiks capitalism, for instance, the affirmative could tum the impact to the kritik by arguing that capitalism is good, or that it maximizes freedom. This is a particularly effective way to attack a kritik.

.I 1 I

2. Attack the uniqueness of the impact. Debate whether or not the impact to the critique is . empirically denied. While manyare not persuaded by uniqueness arguments to kritiks, many judges are persuaded by analysis of the extent of the plan'S complicity in the impact compared with the solvency of the kritik. Frame these arguments by comparing what voting negative gets the judge vs. voting affirmative. This can be highlighted through the use of a theoretical permutation, as explained above.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

76

I I I

I , I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEB..\. TE § 4: Arguments

Answering the Theory

1.

Attack negation theory, the idea that the only burden is to disprove the efficacy of the affirmative plan; the judge just votes against the affirmative, not/or any policy advocated by the negative. The affirmative should debunk this theory, claiming the negative must defend the status quo, or that the negative must offer an alternative to be compared with the plan. Otherwise there is no point in debating-everything just devolves into nihilism.

2.

Attack the negative's conception of fiat. Often the negative will claim that discourse is the only thing which should be debated since the plan would not really go into effect if the judge votes aff. The affirmative should defend the use of fiat on its educational merit, claiming that assuming a "fiat world" (a world where the plan actually happens if the judge votes affirmative) trains debaters better for policy making. or that the affirmative must have fiat in order to have adequate ground in the debate.

3.

Attack the legitimacy of the kritik itself. While many of these arguments are not as effective as they were five years ago, they still hold weight with some judges. Arguing that the debate is not an effective arena for the kritik because of time limits might be a winner. Also, some judges are persuaded by the argument that kritiks are infinitely regressive and unpredictable and should be rejected. If the kritik attempts to «deconstruct" the affirmative's value system, you might be able to win that such a practice results in policy paralysis because all we ever do is deconstruct and don't act to solve social ills.

4. Attack debate's effects on the kritik. Often the very framework of a debate contradicts arguments advocated by a kritik. For example. kritiks which seek to eliminate unnecessary hierarchy are doing so at a tournament in which being at the top of the competitive hierarohy is the goal. The debate round itself requires a hierarchy created by the judge who is empowered to decide a winner and a loser.

5. The perfonnative contradiction. This is another overused piece of debate lingo, like the aforementioned theoretical permutation. All a performative contradiction is is an argument claiming thenegative has violated its own kritik by running another argument or using rhetoric that links to it. Affirmatives can argue that this is abusive on the same grounds that conditional arguments are abusive, that it makes the negative a moving target and is unfair because the affirmative could always answer an argument one way and then link an argument the other way. The affirmative could also make theoretical arguments about why the negative should be intellectually consistent.

Overall, the affirmative's job is to convince the judge why she should vote for the plan instead of the kritik. Focusing on these areas should give you the components of a coherent 2AR strategy to accomplish this objective.

, J

© 2000, Victory Briefs

77

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 5: Speaking

Section Five: Speaking

, I

I

The best way to understand each of the speaker positions in the debate is to simply go step-bystep through the debate from each debater's perspective. In this section, that is exactly what we do. We also discuss some other skills and techniques you will have to master if you want to speak well, such as flowing (writing down all the arguments in the debate) and crossexamination (asking questions of the other team and answering the other team's questions). But first, a word about "speed."

5.1: Speed in Debate

"Policy debate's just a bunch of kids talking fast. They don't actually think. ..

This is a common, unfair charge often levied at policy debate by people who are not very knowledgeable about the activity. This claim is only true of poor debaters. Great debaters are not like this at all. We, as members of the policy debate community, fear these statements, not because they are true, but because if enough people believe they are true fewer and fewer young students will choose to go down the tremendously rewarding path that is policy debate. That would be bad news for us all.

Part of our purpose in writing this book is to demystify policy debate for many that have not been a part of it before, or whose only experience is to hear the strange sounds coming from policy debates in the hallways of speech tournaments. A key step in doing that is to demystify those sounds.

!

Debate is not just about talking fast. It is, however, part of the game. Debaters speak quickly, just like runners run as fast as they can, and pitchers throw as hard as they can. The misperception is, however, that the fastest team always wins. Nothing could be further from the truth. That would be like saying a certain football team is destined to win every game because its players run a bit faster, or that a baseball team is destined to win every game because a star pitcher throws at lightning speed. Certainly, speed makes a difference in all of these activities and factors into a team's success, but it alone cannot guarantee a win. Many other skills and techniques are involved, such as throwing and catching in sports, and strategic choices and reading comprehension in debate.

So the real truth about policy debate is that you need to be able to go a certain minimal speed to keep up, but after that, speed does not make a whole lot of difference. The necessary rate is eminently achievable. Slow teams can and do beat fast teams. Fast teams can and do debate more slowly in front of judges who prefer less speed. Debate is based on argument and persuasion; what makes debate so challenging is that such an incredible depth of discourse occurs at such a high rate of speed.

J J

© 2000, Victory Briefs

78

'1

1 t

. !

I

I

} }

I

1 I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAt\1PIQNSHIP DEBATE § 5: Speaking

5.2: Flowing

Why It Matters

You may be wondering why we put advice about flowing before advice about particular speeches. We do this because it is impossible to be a good speaker without being a good flower. You have to have a good record of what your partner and opponents are saying if you want to argue effectively. Hard as it may be to believe, you even need a good record of what you yourself have said-that's more difficult to remember than you might realize.

Flowing is one of the most neglected yet most important skills in debate. It is crucial to your ability to effectively answer your opponents' arguments and to organize your own. If saved, flows can also provide an important record of your opponents' strategies and your own progress. So you are almost guaranteed to win more debates if you flow better than you do now. There is no one right way to flow, but the method we describe here has worked well for many debaters in the past.

Basic Rules

Spread out your arguments. They getmore complicated as they debate goes on, and you will need room to record developments. Flow each off-case argument (typically disadvantages, counterplan, and kritiks) and each contention ofthe affirmative case on their own pages. To repeat: every negative disadvantage, counterplan, or kritik should have its own sheet or paper; every affirmative advantage or solvency contention should have its own sheet of paper. You are going to be debating all these things separately so keep them separate on paper. [Note, the plan is usually not flowed at all.]

Place responses next to the arguments they refer to. Use columns to refer to each particular speech. For example, most lAC's will include a contention about the "harms" that the affirmative plan addresses. This contention would be flowed on its own page in a column on the left side of the paper. The negative (INC) may have several arguments against the affirmative harms contention. These negative arguments to the affirmative harms contention would be flowed (placed) in a column next to where you flowed the original harms of the case. This way you see the arguments clashing against one another. [See the next page for an example.]

• Alternate colors between teams. This will help ensure that you can keep straight who said what.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

79

www.victorybriefs.com

• Use abbreviations to help you capture more information. Some of the common ones are listed to the right. Obviously you can develop your own over time and depending on the topic.

~ I

Interpreting the Sample Flow

Take a look at the sample flow on the next page. In the model we just show the debate from the 1 NC to the lAR, because these represent the speeches which are most difficult to flow-they are usually the fastest and involve the" most arguments. It is easy to get lost in them. If you can learn to flow them, the last rebuttals should be a piece of cake.

This sample flow illustrates the basic method of flowing we recommend. Start with a numbered set of arguments, and then record responses to arguments. Give yourself plenty of room, and make sure that you separate arguments (either with numbers or bullets) so that you can tell what's what. You should have a column for each speech.

As a general rule, disadvantages should be "flowed off' of the 2AC; that is, you should use the 2AC numbering to guide your flow, as in the example. Note that the flow is not guided by the I NC lettered subpoints.

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 5: Speaking

SOME COMMON DEBATE ABBREVIATIONS

S with circle around it: solvency DI A: disadvantage

U with circle around it: uniqueness L with circle around it: link

IlL: intemallink

1: impact

TH: threshold

EID: empirically denied

X with circle around it: hurts, destroys, ends

X by itself: evidence CP: counterplan

K with circle around it: kritik, critique T with circle around it: topicality

SQ: status quo

CIA or XlA: cross-apply .J..: decrease

t: increase

: cbange

=: causes, equals

: does not cause, does not equal

0: doesn't, can't, couldn't, shouldn't, not *: important

/; or

~: leads to, causes :.: therefore

Flowing a case debate can be a bit more tricky. If the lAC is numbered and the negative wants to attack each individual card in the lAC, then use the lAC numbering to "flow off' of. If the INC instead groups large parts of the affirmative case and presents a series of his or her own numbered arguments, flow from those. The important thing to remember is to be able to locate on your flow the argument the speaker is referring to. Without this information, the debate will quickly devolve into an incoherent mess.

Saving Flows

Saving your flows can be a major strategic tool. You can organize them in a binder or an expanding file, by team or by tournament, but no matter what, you will be creating a valuable record of your opponents' arguments. The policy season is long. and it is hard to remember in the spring what teams ran in the fall, or how they ran it, or what evidence they used. You can figure all this information out easily if you just keep your flows. You can also write judges' comments on your flows so you will know what to expect the next time you see their name on the pairing. You should also use your old flows to re-give speeches from your tournament rounds as practice. And of course, you can use the flows to see if your own skills as a debater are progressing.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

80

6. • extend D. subpoint • we won't go to war just
no impact: hurting evidence because out economy has
the economy will not • economic decline been hurt a little
cause a war leads to. war X • today is different from
• empirically economic World War II era: no war
decline leads to will start
conflict-World War
II
7. • now is different: 1. government has spent every
empirically denied: economy is on brink decade since World War II,
past spending hasn't of recession X without a recession that led
hurt the economy • past recessions have to war: plan won't cause
been caused by the impact
government debt e 2000, Victory Briefs

81

, 1

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERlNG CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 5: Speaking

5.3: The First Affirmative (lA)

The first affirmative (IA) is the most difficult position for scoring big speaker points. You don't get to give a final rebuttal. You don't get to give a plum negative block rebuttal after eight minutes of prep time. One of your two speeches is previously written, and the other is not meant to be beautiful. The I A is all too often given the fourth rank in debates, and is blamed for not doing enough in the l ar to allow the 2AR's "extrapolated" winning arguments.

That said, judges are equally willingto give high points and ranks to lA's who wow them. Judges adore beautifully delivered first affirmative constructives and clear, effective first affirmative rebuttals. But you have to fight for every point you can get. That means doing everything you can to get the judge to notice you in a positive light, from before the lAC onward, and to not perceive you as dominated by the 2A. Following these tips will help you grab that crucial extra half-point, and extend that one additional lAR argument that can mean the difference between clearing and not clearing. Furthermore, these simple suggestions will give the tools you need to do everything you can to help your partner, whose last rebuttal will ultimately be the difference between victory and defeat.

At Home

Practice makes perfect. Since the lAC is written at home, and requires no one else to debate it, you should practice it as much as possible to achieve the kind of clarity and persuasion outlined above.

Time the lAC while at home. You should know exactly how long it takes to read the entire I AC and how long it takes you to read each card in the 1 AC. This makes it most easy to modify when necessary. Many times at tournaments you need to change the lAC for the judge. Also. at times, you need to add or remove cards dependent on knowledge you have about the other team's argument preferences

• Tape-record yourself: There is no more effective exercise than this. Many times how you "think." you sound is very different from how you actually sound. Tape yourself and listen closely to make sure you're clear. Flow yourself also. This puts you in the judge's shoes.

Know what the lAC and the case actually say. You will have to defend these in the 1 AC cross-ex, so be ready.

• Effective lAR's begin at home. Coordinate with your partner to figure what arguments are likely to be most important in the 2AR.Make sure you both agree on that and in debates be sure to extend those arguments in the lAR. Practice your lAR's over and over again from flows you have saved from tournaments. Do the best you can to eliminate . repetition and unnecessary verbiage. Tape-recording helps here as well.

, j

© 2000, Victory Briefs

82

I I·

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAt'\1PIONSHIP DEBATE § 5: Speaking

Delivering the lAC

Your best case cardsshould be in the lAC. The 2A will not have enough time to read much substantive evidence on the case in the 2AC, and the judge should have the clearest picture possible of what the case does from the very beginning of the debate. Also, this is the only speech in the debate when you will have the opportunity to read long, in-depth cards with lots of analysis.

Speak as slowly as time and strategy will allow. This principle makes sense in any speech. You should never go faster than you are physically able to without losing clarity. Clarity is far more important than speed in debate, as a judge will not evaluate what he/she cannot understand. The lAC should be quick, but it should not include any frivolous evidence or verbiage. Instead, it should flow as a debate narrative, telling the story of the affirmative case. The more effectively you can tell this story, the larger will be the perceived burden of the negative strategy. Think about it: The better you make the case sound from the very start, the more presumption you will have with the judge.

• The 1 AC is the least "technical" speech in the debate. It relies the least on debate lingo and constructed improbable arguments and the most on well-reasoned evidence and speaking skills. You should take advantage of this. The lAR will likely not be the prettiest speech in the debate. Nothing is more impressive to a judge than a person who can be oratorical and persuasive in the lAC and then technically brilliant in the lAR.

• Make the speech as oratorical as possible. Make eye contact with the judges, both to make sure they can understand you and to increase your ethos. Speak with emphasis and feeling. You are an advocate. Sound like you believe in your case.

• Emphasize the best rhetoric in the cards. Increase your volume on powerful words. Slow down during particularly persuasive sentences. Throughout the remainder of the debate you and your partner will be constantly referring back to the lAC evidence, so it is the lA's responsibility to make those cards stick out in the judge's mind.

Emphasize the qualifications of your authors. Reading quals is always something that will set your evidence apart and give it greater credibility, but many people don't do it, either due to ignorance or lack of time. The lAC is a perfect place to establish the qualifications of your authors for three reasons. Firstly, you will likely be reading more cards by these authors later in the debate to defend your case. Reading them in the 1 AC, when you have the time, means you don't have to waste valuable time reading them later. Second of all, these are the cards which explain the intricacies of your case. Presumably, studying and creating policy solutions to social problems is your authors' full-time job. Exploit this, and plant in the judge's mind what experts your authors are from the very beginning. It gives the case instant credibility. Thirdly, many negatives (those who haven't read this bookl) will neglect to read qualifications. This makes it extremely easy to initiate an argument about how your authors are more qualified and therefore deserve greater credibility. In cases where the negatives do read qualifications, reading yours allows for a good debate over evidence quality.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

83

, 1

, J I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAl"lPIONSHIP DEBATE § 5: Speaking

Be clear on tags and cards. You should think of each card as a chapter in your grand story of the lAC. Each one should be clearly separated from the other in a way that makes it easy for the judge to flow. When you move to a new card you need to send a signal to the judge that this is happening so they flow it. Every card should be delivered in the following manner: Tag (summarizing what the card says in a short declarative sentence); Citation (including the author's name, the qualifications, the source, and the date); Card (the actual part of the article you read as evidence). Remember that judges are trying to flow all three of these parts. They try to write as much of the tag as they can, at least the authors last name and the source, and key phrases that are emphasized within the card. Deliver your speech with this in mind. Pause briefly in between all three segments. Do not let cards and tags run together.

Be very clear when you get to the plan. Deliver the plan slowly and loudly. Sometimes it is good to make eye contact with the judge while you are saying it to make sure they are with you.

• Make sure everyone knows what's going on. After the lAC everyone in the room should know exactly what the plan does and what the advantages are. Period. All too often after the lAC either no one knows quite what the plan does, or everyone has an entirely different conception of what the case even is. This is the l A's fault. The most important question you should ask yourself is, "After I have finished delivering this speech does everyone have the same idea about exactly what the plan does, what the advantages to the plan are, and how those advantages are achieved by the plan?" If the answer to this question is yes, then the lAC has done an adequate job.

Being Cross-examined After the lAC

• The most crucial thing here is to know your 1 AC evidence and plan. When the 2N asks you questions about your case you should always know the answers. Use those questions as an opportunity to pontificate about your case. Know exactly what the plan does, and everything your cards say-really. When 2N's ask questions about what piece of evidence makes a particular claim, you should be able to point to the precise place where it does. If they ask you about an argument, you should be able to explain it without looking at your cards to remind yourself of the argument.

• Commit to nothing you haven't committed to in the lAC already. It's not your responsibility to provide links to their disadvantages, and you are not required to provide any information not in the lAC. For example, if, in order to obtain a link to a disadvantage to the plan being unpopular with Republicans, the 2N asks, "Would Republicans like your plan?" the correct answer is "We do not take a position on that in the lAC." Force the negative to take a position on that and then answer it.

Be coordinated with your partner. On the affirmative you should do your best to predict what negative positions you will have to argue. Plan for these eventualities and talk with your partner about what answers you will give to pertinent CX questions. Do this with greater strategic considerations in mind. If you have terrific 2AC answers to a

© 2000, Victory Briefs

84

, J

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 5: Speaking

disadvantage the negative might run to spending federal money on the plan, you might want to give CX answers that goad the negative into running that position.

• Finally, don't let the 2A take your cross-ex from you. Know the answers to questions, and don't give the 2A any reason to step in and answer for you ..

During and After the INC

• During the INC the most important thing the lA has to do is flow. The 2A is going to be working feverishly on writing 2ac answers. Sometimes the 2A's flow is rather sparse because of this. It is absolutely vital that the I A flow as well as possible so that there is a complete record of the 1 NC.

• Also, during the 1 NC the 1 A should listen carefully to the negative evidence and write out analytical arguments against it. The I A should also be thinking about the overall picture of the negative strategy, watching for contradictory arguments and possible hidden negative arguments.

• Keep a list of your ideas during the INC, but do not disturb the 2A by talking about them during this time. The 2A is often working hard prepping. Don't break her concentration. After the speech is over give her the paper with your ideas and arguments, or wait itil prep time to discuss them.

! ! f

Cross-examining the INC

• Deal with housekeeping issues. Before you ask your questions ask your partner if she has any questions for the 1 N, or if she needs to read any of the evidence read in the speech. If so, ask them for her and obtain that evidence and give it to her first. Also, if either you or your partner have missed any of the IN, ask about those arguments and clarify them immediately,

Then ask any questions about the status of arguments in the debate. Pin the negative down theoretically as much as possible. If there is a counterplan in the debate ask the negative if it is dispositional or conditional. Ifthere is a critique or theoretical objection to the lAC ask if it is a "Voting Issue."

J I

Ask smart, logical questions about the various positions. Ask questions about lackluster disadvantages and evidence. Ask questions about how various positions interact (such as "Why doesn't the counterplan link to this position just as much as the plan?").

Before, During and After the 2AC

Before the 2A gets up to speak the l A's job is to make the job as easy for her as possible. If she needs cards, get them for her. If she need clarifications on arguments, get them for her. If she needs you to write presses against negative evidence, write them. Remember, you're a team and you have to work together.

I

f

© 2000, Victory Briefs

85

I

I r

, I .

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 5: Speaking

• During the 2AC, once again, the most important thing the lA must do is flow. You will have the only complete record of the 2AC on your team. The 2A won't have it as they are reading many arguments and cards from blocks.

It is imperative that the lA listen closely to the 2A for another reason: to ensure that the 2A is reading the correct answers to the negative positions. If the 2A has made an extreme mistake you must correct her. Otherwise, you should never prompt or speak during the 2AC. Focus on your flow.

Immediately following the 2AC, get your partner's flows so you can "back-flow." Backflowing means you write down the 2ac arguments on your partners flows as if they were your flows. Obviously, the 2A cannot flow while she is speaking. Take her flows during the cross-ex and copy your flows onto hers. Speed is vital here as the 2A must have a complete flow once the negative block begins. Be neat, and follow your partner's flowing preferences. This is a crucial job; don't slack on it.

During the Negative Block and tAR Prep

• There are several schools of thought as to whether or not the 1 AR should flow the negative block. We think that instead of flowing the negative block, you should generally just leave a column empty on your flow for the negative block. Write your answers that you are going to make in the lAR to the negative's arguments next to that empty column during the block. For example, when the 2NC is on the 2AC #1 on a disadvantage, leave a column empty next to the 2AC answer. To the right of that column write out your tAR answers to what the 2NC is saying while he is saying it.

• Sometimes, however, you should flow what the block is saying in the otherwise empty column. This is true when the negative starts making new arguments that are distinct from the ones given in the INC. Flow these arguments, so you can consider them and answer them later. By following this strategy, most of your lAR is written at the end of the negati.ve block, and you can use prep time to read evidence and peruse the negative's new or more difficult arguments.

• This is obvious, but we'll remind you: use the cross-ex of the 2NC to prep. Don't sit around staring at the ceiling. Deal with whatever you couldn't deal with during the 2NC

Before the 1 AR it is essential that you PLAN your time effectively. You must decide how to split your five minute speech strategically. Decide which negative arguments you think are the most threatening, and spend the most time there. You should let your partner in on this plan before you speak. That way you both know the plan and can discuss it.

Circle arguments you must make no matter what. Use a different color-this will force your eyes to go directly there when you move to that sheet of paper. Cross out every argument you have made twice. Once is enough; you do not have time repeat. If you find there is an argument you are making multiple times on a position, write it at the top of the page and say it there during your speech. For example, ifthere are two arguments you

© 2000, Victory Briefs

86

··1

! J

! f

j I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 5: Speaking

find yourself writing over and over again start offby saying "Two key arguments here:

One ... "

• Write down hard numbers. Write down actual hard numbers next to your arguments like "1," and "2." You must use numbers on your arguments. This is by far the most efficient way to make arguments and it signals to the judge that you are making a distinct argument.

Delivering the tAR

The 1AR needs to put forth as many quality arguments as possible in as little time as possible. The best way to do this is by advancing arguments that answer the negative block's arguments as a group in numbered lists. Reference the 2AC argument you are working from, and then make YOUR arguments to the negative's arguments there. For example, "On spending, the 2AC #1, No link. Group it. 1. .. " There is a lot of technical skill involved here and it takes practice. Your job in the I AR is to be as efficient as possible, giving the 2A as many options as possible for the 2AR. These tips will help you do just that.

Use structure in your speech. Numbers are the best way to do this. Tell the judge where you are, and then deliver your arguments in a numbered list. Do not waste your time reexplaining their arguments. Reference the negative's arguments just enough to make sure the judge knows where you are, then make YOUR arguments.

Stick to your structure. Eliminate unnecessary connecting words like, "Additionally," or "My next argument is." You don't have time to say this, and using numbers will serve the same purpose in far less time.

Prioritize arguments. Put the most threatening negative positions first (usually topicality comes first because if you lose it the debate is over), and then put the less important ones later. Basically you should put the positions at the bottom where if you don't have as much time as you thought you would have to answer them, you won't be devastated.

Efficiency is absolutely key in the 1 AR, so you should strive for the most "word economy" possible-that is, get your arguments across using as few words as possible. This does not mean your lAR arguments should lack substance,just that they should be delivered with efficiency in mind. Don't forget that you have to answer thirteen minutes worth of negative arguments in only five minutes. You don't have time to be verbose.

• The 1 AR should always strive to read cards if there is time. Usually plan to read three

short cards during the speech where they would be most crucial. Places where cards should be read include link turns, uniqueness arguments, and anywhere the negative has read several cards during the block .

. © 2000, Victory Briefs

87

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAAIPIONSHIP DEBATE § 5: Speaking

• Reference key pieces of evidence your partner will want to reference in her 2AR. But don't let evidence do the debating for you; know the warrants and arguments contained in the evidence and be able to explain them without looking at the card.

, f J

The IAR takes a great deal of practice. It is a fast speech, in which you must try to make as many arguments as you can as efficiently as possible. However, you need not be a speed demon to give great tAR's. Practicing the structure we have outlined here will make your speeches much more streamlined and productive.

After the lAR

• Once again; your primary job is to flow the rest of the debate as diligently as possible, giving input on strategy when necessary.

You need to do what the 2AR needs to do to help her prepare for her speech. Get evidence she needs, ask the other team questions, time her prep time, etc. In the first few moments of the prep time, she should ask for your input on the 2AR, but remember, the ultimate decision on strategy is hers.

1 I

You need to be writing down citations of the negative evidence so you can go home and read the pertinent articles written against your case.

) J

• Work on refiling evidence as necessary.

5.4: The First Negative (IN)

J r

The IN is the most underestimated and underused speech in debate. A capable IN is essential to being successful on the negative. The biggest temptation on the negative is to just relax and go onto autopilot while letting the 2N do the worrying. You will beat a lot of bad teams with this mindset but no good teams. In real debates, winning requires both partners to be fully engaged, and this is especially true on the negative. Here we walk you through the job of being a IN.

At Home

• Create a shells file, an expando in which you put the disadvantage shells, topicality violations, and case arguments you most often read. (For instance, a "crime decreasing now" frontline on a crime topic or a "privacy increasing now" frontline on a privacy topic"-you are likely to read these round after round.) This allows you to easily organize and strategize, because all your arguments are in one place.

! I J

• Do speed drills. Particularly in the I NC, you must be nimble. Also, since in the 1 NC you will tend to read the same cards over and over again, practice them so that you become . clearer and quicker while reading them.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

88

J r

! 1 I

f I

I I .1

. . 1

J ,J

www.victorybriefs.com .

MASTERING CHAt\1PIONSHIPDEBATE § 5: Speaking

• However, don't focus so much on speed that you forget to lay strong foundations for a coherent negative strategy. Being super-fast without making substantively good arguments will help you beat a lot of bad teams-but no good teams.

• Highlight all your case files. You are likely the person who will be reading them later, so have them ready!

• Do not assume that the 2N is supposed to know the strategies and that you are just a mouthpiece. You're not. Take responsibility for knowing negative arguments and be ready to extend all of your positions. Your speech in the block can be a killer, and if you can't answer questions after your INC you will make you and your partner look like idiots.

At the Tournament

• Work to make sure the uniqueness is updated for all disadvantages. You are the person who will probably be reading the initial uniqueness, so make sure it is recent enough to apply. At the very least, buy a newspaper on your way to the tournament and flip through it to find whatever updates you can.

File the updates once you have completed them. You and your partner may want to divide this stuff up, but just remember-you are the person who is going to look dumb when you have extra time left during your speech because you couldn't find your evidence.

During the lAC

Make sure you flow the INC so that you understand the structure of the case. This will help you put your case arguments in the right place. It will also avoid screwing up the judge's flow-a sure way to lower your points.

As you are listening to the lAC, write out any specific arguments that come to mind. Particularly on the case, you can use time during long cards to write out arguments you will soon make during your speech.

Make yourself a list ofthings to do during cross-examination of the lAC: reminders of cards to get out, etc.

If you have time, also write out specific link. explanations for the disadvantages and specific violation explanations for topicality. They can be short, but they massively increase your credibility in the INC. It makes your arguments sound tailor-made to the affirmative .

Have your shells file nearby and take out the disadvantages or topicality violations you know you are going to read.

© 2000. Victory Briefs

89

! ! !

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 5: Speaking

• Communicate with your partner. This is not the time to have a gabfest, but it's also not the time to forget that debate is a team activity. If you have ideas, mention them to your partner. And reciprocate! Listen to what your partner has to say.

During the cross-ex of the lAC

• This is when you should be taking care of the things you wrote on your list during the lAC. Now that you do not have to flow anything, you can dig around in your evidence for anything you didn't already have.

• Also use this time to finish writing out specific link explanations for the disadvantages and specific violation explanations for topicality.

• Make sure you have your papers in order and that you are answering all the parts of the affirmative case.

Take a step back and think about the debate as a whole. Just like the people in The Truman Show, you should be asking yourself. "How's it going to end?" Does the affirmative have any obvious tricks up its sleeve? Are there any major contradictions or holes in the negative strategy? Think carefully about how your arguments interact.

• Take prep time if you need to. Although usually it is good idea not to waste prep during the INC, if you need to talk to your partner or if you are debating a new case, INC prep· is occasionally necessary. Use it sparingly.

Delivering the INC

• Never go at a faster pace than you can sustain.

Nevertheless, speed does matter in the INC. Think carefully about why you need to read each card that you read. Although you don't want to hurt your credibility by blatantly skimping on evidence. don't read cards you don't have to read.

Allocate evidence well. Don't read five cards on the same argument. Read five different cards for five different arguments. This confuses the other team about what argument is mot important to you and prevents them from grouping everything you say and answering it at once. You get what is called a good "time tradeoff."

Also, don't read cards that are longer than they need to be. Again, you don't want to read cards that are so short they don't even make a point, because that will just hurt your credibility. And of course, you never want to cross-read or skip through evidence, because that is cheating. But you should try to read the shortest possible card that will still convey your basic argument. You and your partner can always expand on it later during the debate with longer evidence.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

90

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 5: Speaking

• Alternate analytical and evidenced arguments. Let's say you are debating the case. You want to read one argument with evidence, then one "analytical" argument lacking evidence, then another with evidence, then another without, and so on. This gives the judge time to flow better and to catch up while you are reading a card. Never read a solid string of analyticals unless you have no alternative, because the judge will have a difficult time flowing.

• Slow down on topicality violations and counterplan texts, as well as on tags. These need to be especially clear so that the judge can understand and write down what you are saying,

During the cross-ex of the INC

• Be polite and explain your arguments clearly. If the affirmative team asks to see your evidence, hand it to them promptly.

Don't allow long silences to persist. Sometimes the affirmative will not really know what to ask you, so use that time to your advantage-further explain your arguments.

• Don't commit to anything that was riot in your speech. Never reveal what arguments you are or aren't going for. You don't want to be rude, but you have no obligation to explain how arguments might change, what other links you might read, etc.

• Never act like certain arguments don't matter. This goes with the tip above. Even if you and your partner are not planning to go for a certain argument, don't let the other team know that! Treat every argument seriously even if you doubt you will go for it. This increases your credibility with the judge and makes the other team confused and afraid because they don't know what they should answer first.

• Immediately after the INC, during the 2AC's preparation time, help your partner get the flows in order. Make sure you have a written record of everything you said!

During the 2AC

Keep a perfect flow. Your partner will be busy writing out answers for his or her imminent speech and may miss an occasional argument. Your job is to have a very precise record of what is being said.

• Keep a list of things to talk to your partner about during prep time, but do not bother your partner much during this speech. Your partner needs to prepare and strategize, and you both need to be listening,

• Keep a list of questions to ask during cross-ex.

, I

© 2000, Victory Briefs

91

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 5: Speaking

During the Cross-ex of the 2AC

First make sure that you get whatever evidence the 2NC needs as soon as possible. Also help the 2NC clarify any arguments he or she missed during the 2AC. Once the 2N has received that evidence or had his/her questions answered, then proceed with your own line of questioning. This enables the 2N to use his/her prep time much more efficiently.

Always get the 2AC to write out the text of any permutation to a counterplan or kritik. That text is very important to ensure that you answer their arguments correctly. See the sections 4.5,4.6, and 4.7 on counterplans for more.

• Ask any questions about arguments the affirmative dropped in the 2AC. Don't harp on it, but make it clear that the affirmative screwed something up. This will put the affirmative on the defense.

• Also, often times the affirmative undercovers certain arguments or reads super-short cards due to lack of time. You may want to ask the affirmative if their evidence really makes the claims they say it does.

• If the affirmative is constantly cross-applying evidence from the lAC, get that evidence and make sure it really does connect with their new claims.

During the 2NC prep time

• During the 2NC prep time, do not prep for the INR if the 2N needs your help. Even if you are just grabbing cards or highlighting evidence, your job is very important because it saves the 2NC valuable prep time, which in tum leaves more prep time for the 2NR, which in tum makes it more likely that you will win.

• Be going back over the list you made during the 2AC of things to mention to your partner. Ifthere is anything you think your partner may have missed, fill him or her in.

During the 2NC, 2NC cross-ex, and INR prep time

Do not flow the 2NC. That is a huge waste of time. Your job is to be preparing for your speech so that it will be awesome-which it will be since you have eleven minutes to prepare.

Dig into your speech preparation. You should not waste a second. Write out whatever you need to write out, and get all the appropriate evidence. Your speech should be a clean kill.

I

I . !

• Be realistic about how much time you have. It is easy when you are prepping for the 2NR to bite off more than you can chew-to get carried away during your prep time and grab too much evidence or try to go for too many arguments. Then you just wind up running out of time or misallocating your time. Be clear about how much you can actually cover.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

92

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAl\1PIONSHIP DEBATE § 5: Speaking

• When you are done preparing for your speech, start preparing the last argument that the 2NC is planning to go to. That way, if your partner runs out of time, you will be ready to pick the argument up and finish it during your speech.

11 J

Delivering the INR

• Be flexible. Sometimes the 2NC may not get finished with an argument, so be ready to pick it up and integrate it into your speech. This is an important part of working together as a team.

• Pick and choose, especially when debating the case. You may not want to go for every case argument you made in the INC. For instance, maybe the affirmative answered your first few arguments well but then ran out of time to answer the other arguments. Then just go for the stuff they didn't answer. There is nothing wrong with saying, "On the case, drop down to number five, which the 2AC does not adequately address ..... then you just proceed from there.

• Group arguments. Many times the 2AC will just repeat him- or herself. Answer their arguments one time and then just cross-apply your answer to all the other places they made the same response. Ifthey did this several times in a row, you can just say, "Group the aff answers to numbers 1-5 ..." and then explain.

• Explain why the affirmative did not properly answer your 1 NC argument. Many times 2AC's will make the same answer to everything you said even though you were really making many different arguments. Don't let the affirmative get away with that. Explain why they dropped your argument.

• Pre-empt new arguments. Especially if you know the affirmative really screwed up answering something, say explicitly to the judge, "Please do not allow new answers to this argument in the tAR. This would be unfair for my time allocation. The affirmative did not answer our argument in their constructive. and it's not right for them to do so in the rebuttals."

After the INR

Flow the tAR. It is tempting to just sit back and chill. but what if your partner misses anything the lAR says? Your partner needs you to catch anything he or she misses. Also. your partner will need you be listening to the other team so that you can help decide on 2NR strategy.

t .1

Speaking of which, help your partner make 2NR decisions. You may know certain pieces of evidence better than your partner. For instance. if you went for case arguments and used your prep time to read parts of the affirmative evidence, you can help your partner get a sense of what you are up against. That will affect what arguments your partner goes for.

1

I J

© 2000, Victory Briefs

93

I I J

J J

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAMPIONSHIP DEBATE § 5: Speaking

However, be realistic about the input you can give your partner. Your view of the debate is limited since you did not hear the 2NC. Only your partner has actually heard all of the speeches, and that may make him or her better prepared to make a good strategy decision.

Once you are done with the above duties, ask for a copy of the affirmative case, and write down any important citations to help you prepare for future rounds. Don't be lazy!

Start re-filing the evidence you know the judge will probably not want to see and that your partner will not be needing.

5.5: The Second Affirmative (2A)

Being a good 2A involves much more than reading 2AC blocks, though that is ari important start. Here are some tips for mastering the 2A:

At Home

Know the affirmative case backwards and forwards. Make sure you have read and understand all the articles in your lAC-not just the parts you cut out of those articles to make evidence. Sooner or later, truly knowing your evidence will really help you out. It will prevent you from being surprised by what your authors really advocated and help you to understand where certain negative authors are coming from.

Anticipate negative arguments and write out 2AC blocks if you can. This will enable you to thoroughly think through your arguments and save you valuable prep time during the round. The more you debate your affirmative, the more specific you can make your blocks and your affirmative filing system. (See section 1.7 for more on strategic filing.)

• Practice reading your 2AC blocks and commonly-used pieces of evidence. Since you will be debating many arguments round after round, get good at sounding good while you respond to them. Also, speed matters in the 2AC, and since you will be reading much of the material over and over again, practice will help.

• Keep up to date on your affirmative. Is your inherency still true? Is something else being done to solve your case harm? The worst way to find out about these things is via the negative team!

At the Tournament

• Update your blocks. Grab a newspaper to find any important action which has recently been taken which might be construed as similar to your affirmative. You can then read this piece of evidence to non-unique almost any disadvantage against your affirmative.

• Make sure your are properly filed. Clean up any messes left over from prior tournaments, and make sure you have integrated all your new evidence. If you can'tfind it during the 2AC, what good is it?

© 2000, Victory Briefs

94

J

J I

I J

I I

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAtVIPIONSHIP DEBATE § 5: Speaking

During the lAC

Admittedly, this is mostly a bit of down- time for the 2A. It's nothing you haven't heard before. However, be studying the judge and the other team carefully instead of drifting offinto some daydream. Look for the judge's reaction to the case. What aspects of the case are being accepted or rejected? Is anything confusing the judge? And what evil is the pesky negative team up to? What have they run in the past?

• Make sure you are filed and ready to rumble for the INC and 2AC. Get your flow pad and pen ready and your expando files nearby.

During the cross-ex of the lAC

• Unless you are debating with a wooden post, your partner should be able to handle this without your intervention. Resist the temptation to jump in when your partner could probably answer a question about the case perfectly well.

• However, have your ears perked for what the lA is saying. Even ifhe or she is not as dumb as a post, he or she may not be able to see where the negative is going with a particular line of questioning. If you realize your partner is walking into the negative's

. trap, and you know the judge does not mind a bit of tag-team cross-ex, then go ahead and involve yourself in answering the question.

• Also be listening in case the other team or your partner has a particular question for you.

Sometimes the negative may ask something highly specific about the case that your partner may not know simply because you were the person who actually wrote the case. In that case, assuming you know the judge is cool with a bit of tag-team cross-ex, it's perfectly acceptable to ask a question your partner throws your way.

During the INC

Now the blood should be pumping. However, don't let the adrenaline overcome you. The most Important thing in the 2AC is to get your wits about you despite the temptation to freak out when you feel overwhelmed by negative arguments. All of the tips below reflect this general idea, and if you keep it in mind, you'll do fine.

Look out for hidden case arguments. Often teams will read disadvantages on the case and hope that you don't notice them. Don't fall for it! Just because they read it on the case doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

Know when to pull out your blocks. Don't try to reinvent the wheel with every argument. When you realize you are listening to an argument you have a block to, pull it on out!

However, don't become too wedded to your blocks! Don't assume that when you hear the words "Clinton" or "counterplan" you automatically know what the negative is running.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

95

r 1 , ]

~ I

1 I

I J

J

1 J

www.victorybriefs.com

MASTERING CHAlWPIONSHIP DEBATE § 5: Speaking

Make sure your answers actually apply, and take prep time if you need to in order to write appropriate answers.

When you hear a new argument, don't freak out or ignore it. You will just be playing into the evil negative's hands. Instead, actually listen to the argument as it is being read. Write down any answers that occur to you. If you are really confused, then wait to deal with the argument during prep time. Do not stop listening to the rest of the speech because you are distracted or worried about the confusing argument. You will not only not be able to concentrate on the confusing argument due to the other team's continuing speech, but you will miss other arguments the negative is making. In fact, many negative teams intentionally run a confusing argument first to distract the affirmative team and then run mediocre arguments thereafter. However, because the affirmative team drops the mediocre arguments while focusing on the confusing argument, the negative can actually win on the mediocre argument!

• Write down analytical arguments against every disadvantage if possible. For instance, even if you have a block ready for a particular disadvantage, you can always make a specific response to their link explaining why their evidence doesn't apply to your case.

You should write these analytical arguments on your flow, then place your flow on top of any blocks you are going to read. This will make it easy during your speech to tell which evidence belongs with which argument. It will also make it easy to intersperse evidenced and analytical arguments because you can keep referring back to your flow on top of the, blocks.

Finally, cross-hatch your various arguments. For instance, have your flow for disadvantage #1 on top of your blocks for disadvantage #1. Then cross-hatch those with the flow and blocks for disadvantage #2. This will help keep you oriented during your speech. It will also force you to pause for a second between arguments because you will . have to tum your papers right-side up.

During the Cross-Ex of the INC

• You should be preparing for your speech. Don't get sucked into asking too many questions of the INC; let your partner take care of that. Just make sure you get the negative evidence you need to see, and then get busy prepping for your speech.

During tbe 2AC Prep Time

• Preparation time for the 2AC is usually necessary unless a) the negative team is a total pushover or b) you have actually written out blocks to all the arguments. So don't be afraid to take a few minutes. You are the last affirmative voice the judge is going to hear until the lAR.

This is the time to figure out any confusing arguments from the INC. Ask the negative to give you a copy of the evidence so that you can look back over it more closely.

© 2000, Victory Briefs

96

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful