The Basic Structure of a 1AC and 1NC

Hi my name is Shree, and this lecture covers the basics of what

a 1AC and 1NC should look like. We will discuss organization,
must-include content, and the performative aspects of giving
your first constructive. This lecture is fairly elementary so
more advanced students can feel free to skim through it. If
you have any questions, feel free to email me.

What Makes a Good 1AC?

There are three main things to keep in mind when you write
your own 1AC:
(1) Content.
The MOST important part of a 1AC is the solvency advocate. The solvency advocate
is the card that establishes the specific method by which you purport to solve the
problems of the status quo, and usually is basis from which you write a plan text or
advocacy statement for your affirmative. For the China topic, you should find a card
that summarizes the plan and explains why China would say yes.
Next, most teams like to derive a plan text or an advocacy statement that
concisely explains the actions that you take. If you are reading a traditional policy
affirmative, a properly written plan text is a MUST because it is the foundation for
debate. Writing a half-baked plan text will get you in trouble with PICs, Extra- or
Effects-T arguments, or plan flaw arguments. You need to make sure that your
plan/advocacy text is grammatically correct, it carefully crafted to be topical and
meet all the needs of your solvency advocate, and does not include any extraneous
information. Even if you are reading a critical affirmative, carefully inspecting your
advocacy statement is important because it forms the basis for word PIKs, T abuse
stories, etc.
Now, you want to find evidence for your advantages. The advantages are stories
that suggest where we are heading if the plan or method of solvency is not
implemented. Every advantage has a uniqueness card that describes the status
quo, a slew of internal link and impact cards that describe the negative
consequences of continuing that status quo, and a solvency card explaining why the
plan can halt the negative effects of the status quo.
People have different preferences for how many advantages are included in their
1ACs, but my suggestion is to include between 1 and 3 advantages. It is more
important that you have a robust advantage backed up with several pieces of
quality evidence rather than twenty 3 card advantages. The main reason is that it
makes your 2AC hellif your 1AC advantage(s) are indefensible, it makes it
impossible to use the aff against common offcase positions and the 1NC is likely
to slay every advantage with a one or two cards and a well-placed analytic.
The last thing Ill mention here is pre-empts. Pre-empts are not necessary parts of
the 1AC, but are optional cards you might read to commonly read 1NC arguments. It
makes sense to have pre-empts if you have a good idea of what the 2N wants to go
for in their last rebuttal and you want to be a few cards ahead.

(2) Organization.
Organization is an important for any 1AC because you need it to be flowable for
judges. Remember, the judge is a human beingeven if you are reading a critical
affirmative that is meant to be deliberately confusing, there needs to be some sort
of coherent narrative so the judge can follow you and keep up with your
arguments, especially since SAT/GRE words are being yelled at them at high speeds.

The separation of different impact stories into scenarios (ie, a SCS scenario and a
US-China relations scenario within a big China war Advantage) makes it easy to
navigate when theyve moved on from one strand of thought to the next.
Additionally, their effort to signpost in the 1AC (eg, two internal links) is nice
because the judge know what to expect.
Organization is also vital for YOU to navigate your own aff.
(A) Your 1AC should be in the VERBATIM template. It is 2016, it is super easy, and
there is no excuse. Even the luddites in the debate community have transitioned to
the template because it makes the process of card cutting and flashing/emailing
speech docs infinitely faster.
(B) At a minimum, your cards need to have tags, the author and date, the
qualifications of the author and where you found the piece, and your initials so we
know can track who cut the card. Your cards need to be UNDERLINED to convey the
general concepts you want to capture from a passage. You then want to highlight
your additional evidencehighlighting makes your evidence round-ready,
highlighting the bare bones of the claims, warrants, and examples you want to
convey to a judge.
(C) Sometimes, debaters like to write the warrants/function of the cards in a nonbold or smaller font right after the card or in comments on the margin, to refresh
their memory of what cards say in later rebuttals or in CX. These are not meant to
be read aloud.

(3) How to perform the 1AC.

Some debaters have a very narrow sense of the term performance, and they take
it to mean singing, dancing, or other non-traditional modes of communicating in
debates. This is patently false. All debaters perform in the sense that there is a
speech being read aloud with an audience that is having conscious and
subconscious reactions to both the content and form of the speech. Considering
how to perform your 1AC is important for your speaker points and sometimes for
more impressionable judges who are strongly swayed by ethos/pathos. Ill quickly
mention two things:
First, Signposting. Its important to know when you are TRANSITIONING from one
card to the next. I would recommend having a loud AND to let the judge know
youve moved on.
Second, Emphasis. Some debaters have a tendency to speak in monotone during
the text of cards. This droning disincentivizes some judges from listening to the
content of your cards. To correct for this, you may notice some files have phrases in
cards that are boxedthis is a reminder to emphasize those words when you are
spreading that card because its a powerful turn of phrase or an important concept.

What Makes a Good 1NC?

Lets go over what makes a good 1NC strategy:
Organization and Signposting:
-Every offcase position has a NAME and is on a SEPARATE PAGE, making it easy for
judges to flow them.
-Ive used the opponents advantage names to label my case arguments (Warming
Advantage, Econ Advantage, and Solvency as opposed to throwing every case
takeout and turn on one flow)
-Every tag is concise and clearly states the argument being made.
-You need to make your transitions between cards and between sheets of paper very
clear. Between cards, I would use the word AND like I suggested above. When
you are moving from position to position, I would say something like Next off,
[insert name of offcase] or Now, [insert advantage name] flow. EGwhen
moving from a topicality argument to a Hillary Good Elections DA, I might say
something like Next off, Hillary Good.

Every Card and Position should Serve a Purpose:

You should be willing to go for ANY argument you read in the 1NC and extend it into
the 2NRif you are uncomfortable explaining a position or are reading an argument
that you are convinced the judge would never vote for, DONT INCLUDE IT IN THE
1NC. You are wasting valuable speech time. The best 1NCs are ones where EVERY
ARGUMENT MADE is threat.

You MUST DEBATE THE CASE:

The affirmatives best argument is that the plan stops a series of harms that have
larger consequences than the disadvantages or philosophical criticisms that a
negative team has indicated. Oftentimes, this manifests itself as a try-or-die
argument, that the plan is the ONLY WAY to avoid certain death. You must destroy
the credibility of their scenarios and solvency arguments so they do not get 100%
access to the impacts they have presentedotherwise, you are likely to lose.

You should include Analytic Arguments on every case page:

Sometimes, you dont need evidence to prove how asinine an advantage is. Really
now, you seriously expect that the make-or-break for US-China relations or violence
in the South China Seas in Uyghur policy? You should always make arguments
about the quality of evidence and make logic arguments that take out the credibility
of a scenario.

Diversity of Content:
It doesnt matter if you are reading a one off K strategy or a flexible 5 off strategy, it
is imperative that you make a diversity of arguments so that you have multiple
options for your 2NR. For example, a T argument, a politics DA, a china specific DA,
a CP that has politics as the net benefit, the K, and a series of case arguments

taking out the aff at various levels of the internal link chain will be a common and
effective strategy.
Additionally, you should NOT be repetitive in the 1NCevery card should make a
distinct argument, whether it makes an additional warrant for a particular claim
(also called vertical argument development) or whether it makes a series of
additional claims (also called horizontal argument development). It seems silly, for
example, to read 4 cards that biodiversity is resilient because ecosystems have
biological processes that allow them to adaptif they have the same claim and
warrant, a 2AC can quickly group them, make one answer, and move on. This is
particularly true for 1 off K strategiesyou dont need 7 biopower impacts that
end in genocide, you might instead make a diversity of link and impact claims to get
a leg up on your opponents.