Replies & POIs | Papat

in this deck

I. case strategy
II. replies
III. points of information
case strategy
 case strategy
■ effectiveness of a POI and a Reply rely
on the strategy you prep
■ time is limited, don’t waste your time
saying things that doesn’t tie back to
the core strategy
 case strategy
main types
■ battle cry
- stand alone ideas that you want to “champion”
- burdens you will explicitly and strategically take
- what you will prove against all odds and will prove
to be the most important

■ defense
- responsive ideas that rely on what opponent says
- pre-emption against opponent’s battle cry
- goal is to, at worst, mitigate/downplay value
 case strategy
assume gov side
■ THW prevent the media from speculating and
reporting on criminals’ mental illnesses
- battle cry: contributes to misunderstanding of
mental illnesses

- opp: media will focus on other characteristics

- defense: media still does that in SQ, at
worst, new harm is minimal
 case strategy
POIs and Replies must go back to the
overall case strategy, dealing with both
side’s battle cries and defenses
replies
 1.
■ you’re not a parrot, you’re a weighing scale
replies ■ be comparative and use standards
 2.
■ you’re not another whip
replies ■ be technical but demonstrative
■ no new responses
 replies
■ Q: what if there is new material from OW or OR?

point it out as something new - be technical

note: new response ≠ new material
 3.
■ you’re not useless
replies ■ utilize your 4 minutes to highlight your battle cry
and to be explicit with your defense - META
 4.
■ you’re not a liar
replies ■ while you do want to win, do so honorably :)
 reply
structure 1
■ standard 1 - our thing - their thing

■ standard 2 - our stuff - their stuff

ex.

■ contributions - we said these major ideas - they only said this much

■ responses - this is how we effectively took down their main ideas - this
is how they respond and why it’s insufficient

■ value/importance - our thing is important because this is the impacts -

they only proved this much about how their things mattered
 reply
structure 2
■ major clash 1
- their contribution, our responses, how we weighed
- our contribution, their responses, how it was weighed

■ major clash 2
- their contribution, our responses, how we weighed
- our contribution, their responses, how it was weighed

ex.

■ principles
- They said the right to life is important but we proved how they don’t fulfill the
principle in their paradigm, the principle isn’t even important because...

■ pragmatics
- they promised this outcomes, but they don’t get the outcome, outcome
doesn’t matter anyway
 reply
structure 3 (defensive)
■ opponent’s major point 1
- how they proved it - why it’s incomplete - our points
don’t fall into the same error
- how we responded to the idea - how they tried to
rebuild and why it is ineffective (missed nuances, etc.)
- how the point compares to our point in terms of
relevance/meta

■ opponent’s major point 2

- how they proved it - why it’s incomplete - our points
don’t fall into the same error
- how we responded to the idea - how they tried to
rebuild and why it is ineffective (missed nuances, etc.)
- how the point compares to our point in terms of
relevance/meta
 reply
structure 4 (battle cry based)
■ our major point 1
- how they responded to the idea - why it is
ineffective (missed nuances, etc.)
- how we proved that this idea was more
important compared to their similar idea
- how we disproved their similar idea assuming it
is important

■ our major point 2

- how they responded to the idea - why it is
ineffective (missed nuances, etc.)
- how we proved that this idea was more
important compared to their similar idea
- how we disproved their similar idea assuming it
is important
 replies
■ overall, while you can’t give new matter or new
responses, you can always stir the judge to
see debate in a new lens:

The new lens that makes you win.

points of information
poi etiquette
 ;)
giving
■ 15-second rule
■ between raising POIs
■ length of a POI

■ if the speaker can’t understand your POI,

the judge probably won’t either
■ don’t talk fast
■ don’t give 2 or more points

■ don’t raise POIs just to confuse the

speaker, let’s keep the debate
beautiful.

poi etiquette
 ;)
receiving
■ take at least 1

■ 15-second rule
■ don’t interrupt speaker until 15s is
up, no you don’t “already get” the
POI

■ “I will answer that later”

■ don’t make promises you can’t
keep </3

poi etiquette
raising pois ■
■
raise POIs, look alive people
usually the team members not
speaking next raises
■ person speaking next must bring
up the relevance of the POI
$trat3-g raising to first speakers

■ prep your poi during prep time

■ 2 broad types
■ clarifications - goal is to set traps
■ policy exclusions and inclusions
■ extents

■ defenses
■ start mitigating their important
points - forced comparatives

■ usually in question form - utilize in latter

speeches
$trat3-g raising to deputies

■ poi should depend on how deputies adjust the case to the speaker
before them

■ if dep strat is to push the battle cry:

■ ex. new outcome to co-opt your goal
■ focus your POI on questioning extents or the cost

■ if dep strat is defensive:

■ ex. claims your outcome is unlikely
■ point out a missing nuance
■ poi the existence of the risk and value of the impact

■ ex. claims your principles don’t matter

■ focus your POI on questioning extents or the cost of
violating the principle
$trat3-g raising to whips

■ raise with your main strategy in mind - what

should we prioritize from our case?
■ highlight and bring back in the POI

■ battle cry
■ don’t do: what’s your response to blah?
■ in highlighting, show comparative impact of
case left standing

■ defenses
■ trade off opponent’s main point against a
battle cry from your team
 ■ THBT unconditional direct cash transfers to poor
sample 1
sample cases only, not saying these are
people are preferable to the public distribution of food,
fuel, fertiliser, and other welfare-in-kind goods.
the best cases to run :)
What does the debate call for?
■ An assessment of which economic policy benefits the poor the
most: cash or welfare-in-kind

GOV OPP
1. Flexibility - only people know what they 1. People are not fit to make decisions on
truly need their own
POI: Do people need drugs and POI: Governments are also made of
alcohol? (Defense) people who don’t know what other
2. Reduce unnecessary cost for sales and people need (Battle cry)
distribution 2. Increased risk of corruption
3. Vulnerable to inflation
 ◼ THBT the imposition of broad economic sanctions as
sample 2
sample cases only, not saying these are
a response to increasingly authoritarian regimes has
done more harm than good.
the best cases to run :)

GOV
1. Further incapacitating citizens
against authoritarian regimes
2. Breeding ground for more support
for authoritarian regimes - regime
control’s media narrative
POI: Sanctions reduce the amount
of resources regime can use to
maintain control (Unlikely).
3. Rapid increase in suffering
POI: Worth it in the long run as we
stop the regime’s future abuses
(Defense).
OPP
1. Mobilise people against
authoritarian regime
POI: Speculative against the
certain suffering of people on the
ground (Trade-off).
2. People lose faith in the capacity
of the regime to provide needs
POI: People will just blame the
international community for their
suffering (Battle cry).
3. Reduce resources regime can
use to exploit people
answering pois - TPA
■ answer at least one, around 4min
■ maintain grace under pressure

1. think: understand the intent

■ are they making a trade-off?
highlighting their case? dealing with
the likelihood? distracting?

2. process: where does it belong in my

speech?
■ this is where the case strategy from
prep matters, given the intent of the
poi
■ the poi could also not matter at all
answering pois - TPA
3. answer: deal with the poi
■ always base it off on your case
strategy: battle cry or defense
■ if the poi is an unexplained metaphor/
parallel - you don’t have to deal with it

■ tips:
■ don’t spend too much time with a POI,
the goal is to get over it

■ if you don’t understand the POI

a. grab any word you understood
and talk about it
b. just say it doesn’t make sense
q a
 tnx ph0wz

art used are not mine, no intention to make

money out of the designs