Your behavior should be direct, 2. To expose errors yet friendly. To obtain admissions Here are some questions that each speaker 4. To set up arguments should try to get answered during their cross- 5. To save prep time examination. Get missing signposts and arguments. Center most of your questions on the plan.
If nothing else, debaters tend to under- Look for plan errors and possible links to estimate the importance that cross-examination disads.
Ask for a copy of the plan and read may have on the judge. In cross-examination, it. Make sure that you understand the thesis not spewed out. Cross-examination will indicate of the case and what advantages are being to the judge just how sharp and spontaneous claimed. If you are not sure ask-now is the the debaters are. Invisible bias will always oc- time do it not after the 2AC!
If the 1NC argued topicality, make sure that an important psychological role in winning the you know what the violations are and what ballot of the judge. Make the 1NC explain any arguments that Here is the question format you do not understand. Ask the 1NC to explain why the counterplan Territory identifies to the judge where on is better than the affirmative.
Ask them to the flow your question pertains. Ask for any responses that your partner missed. Cross-examination should be organized. A line of questioning should be pursued to its logical conclusion. As a general rule, the examiner should not stop the questioning before the conclusion has been made clear. A conclusion that is obscure to the opponent will most likely be even more obscure to the listener. A cogent set of suggestions follows which was constructed by Gif- ford Blyton of the University of Kentucky and Bert E.
Bradley, Jr. Cross-examination should be conducted in a the University of North Carolina. The suggestions are taken from friendly, albeit trenchant, spirit. McBath, His [Her] task is a test of tact and good judgment. He [She] must avoid offending his [her] opponent of Suggestions for the Questioner the audience, and yet he [she] must not be timid in his [her] questioning. So long as 1. The time allotted for questioning is a brief he [she] retains his [her] good nature, self- and valuable period in which significant control and a sense of fairness, he [she] may information may be obtained from the op- conduct a vigorous and aggressive examina- ponent.
The questioner should confine his tion without fear of giving offense. Follow-up questions may lying tactics; the domineering approach is be used to make the listeners immediately too frequently seen in cross-examination. The questioner should not approach cross- than by employing vigorous and belligerent examination with the aim of forcing the methods of cross-examination.
The questioner should always be in control and invalid evidence. No opponent in his of the cross-examination period. A talkative or her right mind is going to do this.
A opponent should not be allowed to monopo- significant objective will be attained if the lize the time. This does not mean that the points is based, if some of the reasoning is.
An evasive reactions. The questioner should make no personal attack on opponents. Unlike the lawyer 7. The questioner wastes valu- able time repeating the answers as many 8. The questioner should always avoid the beginning cross-examiners do.
The examiner should be cautious of asking with that information or to get the oppo- questions to which the answers are unknown. Such questions may find a place now Questions should be brief, simply stated, and and then in an extended cross-examination, phrased positively. Long, involved, complex but a cross-examination should never consist questions only create confusion for everyone of a series of such questions and nothing concerned.
Once the cross-examination has begun, 9. Though the purpose of questioning is to establish the validity or non-validity of an argument, keep in mind that the cross-ex- amination is being conducted for the benefit of the listeners. The questioner, therefore, should speak distinctly and loud enough for the listeners to hear. You also need a breath mint or something. The witness should realize that the responsi- If you feel that the questioner is rushing bility for the courtesy and fairness rests as you, you can slow down the answers.
The witness should not try to cross-examine the examiner during the question period. The witness must be on guard continually for the traps the examiner is constantly 3. The witness should not talk solely to the setting. However, this must not prevent the questioner. A witness who gives that are most important. All fair questions should be answered in a valid answers. Once the cross-examination has begun, the ing long-winded answers. It has been pointed. There If the affirmative reads evidence that says are three major strategies of which at least one the economy is on the brink of collapse, or must be used: Disadvantages, Topicality, and a war is about to start or some other timely Counterplan.
These three options will be dis- issue, when the evidence was written can be cussed in separate chapters. Generally speaking, the 1NC would run 6. Vague references. A political Your strategy will vary from debate to debate, disaster for a Democrat is entirely different but always try to have at least one disadvantage than an political disaster for a Republican.
No causality. Sometimes evidence will re- argue about the affirmative case. We will call fer to correlations between events, but this these case attacks. The tragedy at Columbine High 1. Anecdotal evidence. If you hear the affir- School illustrates how some saw the cause mative talk about one isolated example, you as access to weapons, some as access to the should make the claim that this is anecdotal Internet, some as access to violent games evidence.
Further, you should claim that one and movies, and others as part of an alien- should not base policy on one example. The existence of all these variables in the same place does not 2. If the affirmative makes a claim guarantee that there IS causation between without giving any supporting evidence or any of these problems and the tragedy in reasoning, this is an assertion and not a Colorado.
You should point this out to the judge as an unsupported claim The affirmative would win if there were more will usually not stand. Conclusionary evidence. If the affirmative reads evidence which merely states the con- clusion of the author without the reasons and evidence used to support that conclu- sion, then the validity of the claim cannot be assessed.
This is a poor use of evidence and should be noted to the judge who will usually dismiss such evidence. Biased source. Be on the lookout for why an author might make certain claims. Sometimes bias can be revealed in their job, their affiliations, or the manner in which they state their case.
Identifying biased sources will hurt the credibility of some evidence. On rapidly changing issues, the. Thus, the disadvantages are compared to the advan- tages to decide whether the effects of the plan are more advantageous than disadvantageous. There are many different parts to a disad and most disads have some or all of these parts. These parts are:.
Brink The brink would mean that the person is standing The brink states that a certain situation exists where some- on the edge of the cliff: thing could go either way. This means there is a risk of a problem happening at some point in the future. Uniqueness The uniqueness would mean that the person will not jump off the cliff unless pushed: The uniqueness states that this problem will not happen in the future, or is happening now.
This is referred to as the status quo, or what is going on right now. Link The link would mean that plan comes up and The link states why the affirmative plan causes this prob- pushes the person off the cliff: lem to happen. The negative usually reads a piece of evidence saying why the affirmative plan causes the way Plan things are now to change.
Per son. Impact The impact would mean that the person hits the The impact describes the problem that will happen and bottom of the canyon really hard: why it is bad. This impact is usually something very large and harmful. The negative uses this impact to say that Ow!
If the plan is cliff. If the person was seven feet from the edge of the cliff, the plan would have to be huge to a very big one, it will probably cause the problem. If the push them off. Time Frame The time frame would measure how long before The time frame is how long before the problem the disad the person fell of the cliff.
If there was a long time frame, then the person would teeter on the edge presents happens. If there is an especially short time of the cliff for a while before falling. If there is a long time frame, then the good things the plan creates would happen before the problems it creates. If there were a short time frame, then the person would fall off the cliff right away. Well, that was quick. Internal Link The internal link would be that when the plan Sometimes when the plan changes something, it does not pushes the person off the cliff, the fall will be so big that the person will hurt.
Connecting the fall cause a problem right away. This is when an internal link and the hurt requires an internal link: falling hurts is needed. The internal link states that when the plan and the hurt is the impact. Here are a few of the more popular ones: tages Non-unique The non-unique argument would mean that the The non-unique argument states that the problem the person was jumping anyway. If it the plan pushes them or not. I believe I can fly. Link Turn The link turn would mean the plan pushed the The link turn states that when the affirmative plan hap- person away from the edge of the cliff.
This often means that when the affirmative plan happens the exact opposite of the problem happens. Impact Turn The impact turn would mean that the person The impact turn states that the problem the disad presents lands in lime jell-o. Impact Take-out The impact take-out would mean that the cliff was The impact take-out states that the problem the disad only two feet tall. The person stubs their toe. Some words what a word means, but it is possible to make are very difficult to define, and there are huge arguments about which definition is better.
If the in big trouble. The nega- until Topicality deals with argu- can prove that the affirmative plan ments about what words mean. For example, the affirmative might argue that every hungry child in America should be fed. This may seem like a good idea, but what if the resolution says we ought to make schools better? Arguing About Definitions Of course, most affirmative plans seem fairly topical at first. However, if you research different definitions for the words in the resolution, it is easy to find definitions that contradict what the affirmative plan does.
For example, what if the resolution says we should increase aid to African nations? The affirmative might offer a plan to in- crease aid to Egypt. Is Egypt an African nation?
Reasons to Prefer the Topicality is a very powerful argument Negative Definition s because the affirmative can lose the debate on There are basically two types of arguments topicality even if they are winning every other negatives use to prove their definitions are the argument in the debate! After all, if the plan best: Standards and Specific Arguments. The judge would Standards throw out all the affirmative arguments, just like Standards are ver y general arguments a judge in a courtroom can throw out a case if about definitions.
They describe what kinds of it is irrelevant. This argument is referred to as definitions—in general—are best. This means that the defi- her jurisdiction.
I would want a definition that arguments have the following format: distinguished apples from other kinds of fruit. A Definition There are hundreds of possible standards Evidence that defines one or more impor- for definitions.
Specific Arguments B Violation Specific arguments talk about the nega- An explanation of why the affirmative plan tive definition in the context of the resolution is not an example of the kind of action de- or the debate round. If the resolution is about scribed by the resolution.
Arguments about why the negative defi- Specific arguments might also include argu- nition is better for debate than other defi- ments about grammar. For example, some words nitions of the word s being contested. If can be nouns or verbs. A specific topicality ar- the affirmative offers a different definition, gument might discuss the fact that one of the why should the judge prefer the negative words in the resolution should be defined in definition? Like standards, there are hundreds Reasons why the affirmative should lose if of possible specific arguments.
The two main reasons are Jurisdiction and Debatability. Debat- 1 That the Negative Definition s are ability means that the negative would not have a fair chance to debate if the affirmative Superior AND did not have to operate within the limits of 2 That the Affirmative Plan Does Not Meet the resolution. Those Definitions. The largely irrelevant. Make sure your PLAN is truth is that it is very difficult to win topicality on topical.
Prepare your topicality answers ahead of on the affirmative. If time. Affirmative Topicality Tips 1. Write your plan with an eye to topicality. Common Answers to Topicality When you write your affirmative case, you 1. The negative will read make a series of strategic decisions. T sound non-topical. It is your job tifies. Similarly, you should definition of the same word that look for a policy that seems to makes your plan sound topical. Does the plan sound like tion, make sure to make additional it takes the kind of action required arguments about why your definition by the resolution?
Write the plan using is better than the negative definition. Contextual evidence. Reading evidence from the topic literature that links your 2. Research the words of the resolution. The plan with the words of the resolution can negative will research various definitions of help make your plan sound reasonable.
The affirmative should do the same thing. Look 3. Failing that, look sive as they say it is. Try to think of reasons for the broadest possible definitions. In other words, think of reasons why the 3. If you can find 4. Things that check abuse. Negatives will try evidence that talks about your policy and the to argue that the plan is abusive; they will words of the resolution in the same sentence say that, if the judge allows the plan to be or paragraph, you can read that evidence topical, hundreds of other plans will also against topicality violations to make your become topical.
The 4. The fact that your advantages talk. The aff irmative sue. Most debater are taught that topicality should argue that their plan is rea- is an absolute voting issue, which means that sonable because it is based on evidence the negative can win the entire round just found in the topic literature. In other by winning topicality.
Not everyone agrees words, the affirmative argues that the that this is true, however. Here are some judge should not worry too much about common reasons affirmatives give why the topicality because the affirmative case judge should not consider topicality: generally concerns itself with the same A Language is indeterminate. Is there issues as the resolution. Ul- B Other words check. The resolution is timately, the words we use to describe composed of many different words.
The things are not precise. There different words in the resolution, then is no precise answer to this question. The affirmative has to topicality arguments are based on the prove that its plan solves the problem assumption that a debate round is like a identified by the case. On topicality, the courtroom. In a courtroom, a judge can affirmative often argues that its defi- throw out a case if it does not meet cer- nitions could not really add hundreds tain strict definitions.
In such a case, we of new plans to the topic because most would say that the judge lacks jurisdiction of those new plans would not solve any over the case. Many people believe that significant problem. In a legislature such 5. The negative assumes as Congress , representatives are free to that the judge must use certain standards debate about anything, as long as it is to decide the issue of topicality.
The affir- important. Many affirmatives argue that mative should think of its own standards. The affirmative heard by policymakers because they must provide reasons why its plan is rea- come from people who have unpopular sonable.
These reasons might include things opinions. Some affirma- case—then the plan is reasonably topical. Ev- competing definitions. Instead the judge is idence describing the importance of the urged to decide whether or not the plan plan is helpful in making this claim.
Reasons why topicality is NOT a voting is-. An assumption is a part mative of an argument which people think is true, but they never explicitly prove to be true.
Most of the arguments in a debate round are based on the kinds of arguments made by How are assumptions revealed? Sometimes as- traditional policymakers, such as legislators and sumptions are revealed by the language that political analysts.
Traditional policymakers are we use to make our claims and arguments. Increasingly, debaters we claim to know something. The first type of have begun to model some of their arguments criticism is a language critique and the second on the objections of philosophers, rhetorical type of criticism is a philosophical critique.
How does a negative attack the assumptions? First, The critique—a. Sometimes the affirmative makes these And, third, the negative must explain the im- assumptions by choice, and sometimes they plications of the critique.
Sounds like a. In either case, the negative focuses on What are the possible implications of what the other team says IN THE the critique? One do outside the round. Second, they might prove the language the affirmative uses is racist. For example, some scholars argue that certain Third, they might have consequences kinds of policy language contains hidden racism, similar to those of a disadvantage.
In other such as some of the arguments made against words, a critique might justify voting against welfare. If the affirmative were to make one of the affirmative altogether in order to reject the these arguments, the negative might use a cri- assumptions the affirmative makes. Another Example The critique can operate in the simplest Huh? Excuse Me?
Critiques are in your own classroom. Thinking about testing complicated arguments, and many people are and test-taking can illustrate how a critique not familiar with the kinds of ideas associated might function.
Many tions. A critique is a way to criticize much as they used to because test scores are the assumptions an affirmative makes or the lan- lower than they were in the past. However, guage debaters use to make their arguments. This challenges weigh against whatever advantage the affir- the way proponents of testing assume test mative can claim. If the 3 Critiques integrate many arguments into test scores are unreliable, then the affirma- one position. Because the case arguments tive cannot prove the harm by proving test frequently stem from the critique, the neg- scores are low.
Test scores, the negative ative has a position in the debate that is would argue, do not reveal accurate infor- coherent. An a priori argument is one that must be resolved first, usually before the sub- 2 Challenging solvency.
Many people argue stantive issues of the debate are resolved. In that testing should be used to guide cur- our example of testing, the negative could riculum changes in order to enhance student argue that policies that reinforce racism or learning.
However, if tests are critiqued sexism are so noxious that they need to be because they do not truly measure what a avoided absolutely. If testing is racist or student has learned, then using test results sexist, it should be rejected regardless of to revise the curriculum is a wasted exercise substantive benefits that might result from and will not achieve the goal of improving increased testing.
The nega- lems. Critiques are often found in the writ- tive might argue that there are disadvantage ings of those who criticize current policies.
Some might argue element of the current system to implement that testing does not measure knowledge their plans or to prove why new policies but instead indicates how good students would better achieve the goals of the present are at taking tests.
Consequently, increas- system. Critique writers frequently argue, in ing tests or making tests more rigorous will effect, that the goals of the present system only serve to perpetuate racism and sexism should be rejected at every opportunity. In in education. The negative might argue addition, many critique writers argue that that the judge should reject any policy that the most important place to reject accepted results in greater racism and sexism.
Critiques are valuable arguments for several 6 Critiques shift the debate to negative reasons. Affirmatives are used to debating 1 Critiques are highly generic—that is, they on THEIR ground: the case evidence and can be applied to a large variety of cases. Critiques offer The resolution always makes critical as- negatives the opportunity to shift the focus sumptions, such as who should act, how the of the debate to an issue they are more fa- policy should be implemented, why a par- miliar with: the intricacies of the critique.
The following arguments their harms and their solvency. Thus, general are suggestions that require more substantive indictments might not be as persuasive as the development from you as you research and de- specific proofs offered by the affirmative. There are many Negative critique debaters try to avoid the answers to critiques that merely require re- uniqueness debate and argue that it is ir- search like any other negative argument.
However, the implications of the Remember that philosophers and rhetorical critique frequently occur at the margins of critics get into arguments with each other incremental impact.
In other words, the just like legislators and policy analysts do. The affir- scholars who support the ideas behind the mative should stress that if the affirmative critique, there is a different group of schol- advantage is intact, the marginal increase ars who think the ideas in the critique are in disadvantage beyond the present system terrible. If you find out that a certain critique does not merit rejection. If the affir- any other argument in order to find those mative harm is substantial, the plan is largely scholars who disagree with it.
If there is no alternative, then stand. Often, evidence in critiques uses aca- it makes uniqueness arguments against the demic jargon and obscure words. If they CAN explain system, then the affirmative can argue that them, then you will be able to understand the alternative is a bad idea.
Ask how the plan links to the critique and what implications the critique 8 Make the negative defend the idea of cri- has in the round. Once assumptions as acceptable. However, many you understand what the critique says, you others do not believe that philosophical and can answer it with arguments that make rhetorical ideas have any place in policy sense to you.
Also, remember that the debate. Make the negative explain why we evidence in the 1AC is designed to answer should consider these kinds of arguments objections to the case.
Use that evidence if the goal of debate is to train students to creatively. Many of the implications of the critique. Sometimes the negative idea on what to do! Like the affirmative team, the negative team must prove the counterplan is fair and a good idea.
Counterplans have to meet two burdens. Counterplans should be nontopical. Affirmative plans have to be topical. Therefore negative plans counterplans should be nontopi- cal. This way, the negative cannot run plans that support the debate resolution.
Counterplans must be competitive. Anything you can do, Competition is a term used to describe the battle be- I can do better! For a counterplan to compete with the affirmative plan, and to win, it must be proven that the counterplan alone is better than the affirmative plan alone or bet- ter than adopting the counterplan and affirmative plan together. The competition of the counterplan is determined in two ways. A Mutual Exclusivity.
This means the counterplan and the affirmative plan cannot occur at the same time. They cannot exist together. B Net Benefits. This means that doing the counterplan alone provides more benefits than do- ing the plan alone and provides more benefits than doing the counterplan and plan together.
Counterplans, like affirmative plans, can have advantages. These advantages prove why the counterplan is better than the affirmative. Often, the advantages of the counterplan are nega- tive disadvantages to the affirmative plan. This old saying describes net benefits pretty well. If the problem is that you are hungry, the plan might be to have a cake. The counterplan would be to EAT the.
Eat cake. Counterplans must meet certain burdens in order to beat the Affirmative Wait a second! Affirmative answers should expose the look right. Affirmative answers can be found while looking at different parts of the The counterplan.
The counterplan is topical. The affirmatives should make sure the counterplan is non-topical. If the counterplan is topical, it should not be accepted, because only the negative gets to defend the resolution. The negative has everything else to choose from. The counterplan is not competitive. Affirmatives should argue that the counterplan is not competitive with the affirmative plan. In order to do this, affirmative teams have three choices.
Prove it is not mutually exclusive. Better than B. Prove it is not net beneficial. Able to beat counterplans every- where! Permuta- tions are arguments that prove the entire plan can be combined with parts of the counterplan in order to gain the advantages of the counterplan without rejecting the plan.
Permutation: Eating half the cake will satisfy our hunger with- out rotting our teeth or causing weight gain. And, 3. Solvency we still get to see our beautiful cake. Affirmatives can argue that the counterplan does not solve. The affirmative should look to see if the counter- plan solves the affirmative advantage, the advantages of the counterplan, and avoids the disadvantages.
Disadvantages Counterplans, like affirmative plans can have disadvantages. You, sir, are very dangerous. Not responses to each argument in a few min- only is there less time within each speech, but utes. Be organized. Be specific and logical ones! What a debater does or does not do in about winning issues. Very few debaters especially beginners can hope to 7. Speak extend everything that happened in the con- quickly but not beyond your ability. If you structive speeches.
What matters is the what the other team might have done that type of argument that is extended or dropped you think is unethical. Make responses and in rebuttals—this will determine the winner of beat them. Use signposting. This is not more likely given lots of internal links?
Use issue packages. Organize your argu- first? Extend those arguments that you need to win. Here are some other helpful hints: Cross-apply arguments. If you dropped an 1. Avoid repetition. Avoid passing ships.
You must clash directly with their responses. Avoid reading evidence only. You must be explaining and telling the judge why these issues win the debate.
Avoid rereading evidence that has already been read in constructives. You can make reference A rebuttal is not the time to go slow. Give a ten second intro and a one-line con- muddled and confused. When ballooning, it is crucial that you care- If you remember fully answer 2AC responses point-by-point.
Extending an argument is from this section not repeating the argument. Use no prep time. The biggest favor you can do for the 1AR is take lots of prep time before your speech. The 1NR speech should be prepared during the 2NC. What you need to do is to balloon something. You have Which argument you balloon will vary from all the prep time used by the 2NC, all the round to round.
Typically, the 1NR must realize speech time used by the 2NC, and all the that will less speech time, they can only balloon time spent cross-examining the 2NC to get one major issue and consequently they must se- your speech ready. Remember, the purpose of anyone else in the round! Use it to prepare the 1NR is to establish winning arguments and excellent, written-out explanations of key put the pressure on the 1AR.
It follows that points in your speech. Anticipate 1AR responses and pre-empt to win the round and be developed enough to them. As the season progresses, you will require time and attention in the 1AR. This strategy necessitates the dropping of Resist the temptation to close up shop after arguments. The negative has the luxury of your 1NR. Order of issues. Cover every important argument.
You Go to case last. Ending on familiar ground cannot answer each subpoint on an argument, helps you allocate the time. Time allocation. The last thing you do be- could potentially win the debate for the nega- fore your delivery of the 1AR is to count the tive.
There are three areas in which you may number of issues you will be covering. Pick a set of 2AC arguments to ex- can spend on each argument. Or, if the disad was introduced in 2NC, 6. Exploit negative contradictions. Look for go for links or impacts, but not both. Go for either topicality, competi- the disads happened?
The affirmatives B. You may be able to have the luxury of picking and choosing grant a negative solvency argument in which counterplan take-outs to extend. Negatives often run disads card on case. You need to win enough to out- with contradictory theses. You can grant weigh disad risks. You need to win enough one disad to prevent another. Caution: of the prima facie burdens of the 1AC. If do not grant negative arguments that you have more than one advantage you may could beat you.
For example, if you are choose to jettison the weakest one. Word economy. Be concise. Everything should be on blocks. Use abbreviations. Highlight your evidence. Eliminate pet phrases.
Preflow your speech. Place important words first on the label. Remember, the 1AR has to 2. Refer to previous evidence. It is not possible to read much evidence in the speak quickly and use good 1AR. It is important to be swer the entire negative block. Have all of your briefs. Win a disad with an eggs in one basket! The negative search for truth ends in the Topicality. Argue that topicality is an ab- 2NR. Winning requires the 2NR to choose the solute voting issue. In other words, the judge issues and approach to create a persuasive bot- should decide topicality before evaluating the tom line negative position.
The 2NR cannot pursue everything in the debate because the judge must be told which arguments to con- sider. A winning 2NR writes the ballot for the judge.
Many debates are de- cided because the 1AR could not cover the negative block or because debaters could not flow very well and missed responses. This entails weighing the dropped It can be very difficult argument against the affirmative case. The 2NR must pull rest of the debate. The 2NR may combine the all negative issues together in a way topicality framework with some other frame- that jettisons all irrelevant material and work or the 2NR may wish to pursue topicality focuses the debate on the single nega- exclusively.
Listed below are several typical negative frameworks that can Prima Facie Issue. The 2NR may succeed be used alone or in combination with in totally beating the affirmative on their own other frameworks. Remember the im- ground with one of the case requirements. The portance of narrowing the debate to a only problem with this is that, without a good simple bottom line position and do not disad, the affirmative can always argue that the employ too many frameworks at once.
This cific kinds of arguments in order to win the is why it is important to make arguments that round. Here are some examples of the kinds of turn the case—arguments that the plan actually arguments you need to win in order to win the makes the problems identified by the case worse debate: than they are in the status quo. Preempt the 2AR. Cliches include: will solve the turn. Take all of your prep time. Do not go for everything.
You must win a response. Check with your partner to see position or a dropped argument. Now is the what issues he or she might think are im- time to consider putting all of your eggs in portant. Extend your negative block arguments. There are two parts to extending an argument. Go to your best arguments first. Compare arguments. Do not be so trusting. Cliches make the judge hate you. In order affirmative since it is comparatively better to minimize the impact of the negative argu- then the status quo.
This trick tends to de-emphasize the arguments that the 2NR claimed were critical in the debate. In order to re-establish your case advantage, begin your speech with your own agenda or overview that puts forth the most compelling reason to vote affirmative.
For ex- ample, your case strategy may have been to run a low impact, high probability advantage that evades all disad links. In that case, you would first go back to your advantage and claim it to The routine.
Select the strongest 1AR responses 4. Set your agenda. Cover the 2NR. End with a short explanation of why you 5. Re-tell the story. Every affirmative has a 6. Emphasize how your 1NR. Allocate time like the 2NR. Spend time on the issues that the 2NR spent time on. It will 8. Wrap up the debate. Explain why you should still win the round even if you have. Try to group and consolidate arguments, as well as cutting back the number of cards 1.
Select issues not covered by your partner read to maximize your efficiency. It is far better to 2. Make sure that the major impacts claimed by the other team are minimized. Assess impacts to try and get into the men- tality of the judge and determine what they 4. Take NO preparation time for your speech, will find the most compelling. Read extension evidence to make sure that most clearly as well as closing the door on your positions are well explained and evi- new arguments.
Do not go for all your arguments. Pick the it in a minute or you intend to go for it ex- strongest and most winnable and blow them clusively.
When kicking out a disadvantage, make sure 1AR First Affirmative Rebuttal that you leave no room for a turn-around.
Extend several winning arguments against 7. When extending disads, make sure to extend each negative position extended in the block the arguments dropped by the 1AR and assess to give your partner flexibility in the 2AR.
Be selective in the answers you go for and 3. Assess impacts well and compare the case of the 2NC. Have your partner look for evidence for 3. Emory National Debate Institute. Remember, a. Attack the links. Disprove or turn the impacts. If the negative c. Arg ue threshhold or brink is not can win just one of many issues, that may be unique. Topicality: The affirmative does not ini- e. Anticipate what the disads will be and tiate the topicality argument.
If it is not have briefs ready to respond to these presented by the negative, then it will not be arguments.
If it is presented by the negative team, then you must remember 3. Affirmative Case Issues: Probably the most to do several things: important case issue will be solvency. How- ever, there are some other issues you need a. Answer the standards. Make sure you to be able to defend.
The negative will argue that the plan is already being done or will b. Argue each violation. Make sure that be done in the status quo. Sometimes you have extension briefs on the defi- the negative will press that the affirma- nitions that you think will be debated. The nitions are better than yours. Ask for their Topicality briefs in CX ency has become a somewhat mediocre and make sure that you have covered argument.
As long as the affirmative all of the violations. If time permits, keeps extending the evidence that the examine the definitions that they read SQ cannot solve the problem without the and look for inconsistencies within the affirmative plan, and that the affirmative evidence. Argue that Topicality is not a voting is- there is some unique advantage to be sue. Make sure you have briefs on this gained by voting for the affirmative. Even if the status quo is likely to solve e.
Never drop topicality in rebuttals-for large portions of the affirmative harm, most judges that becomes an absolute without a disadvantage, the affirmative voting issue and an easy way to decide plan is still desirable.
If any affirmative loses on the question of significance, then the 2. Disadvantages: Next to topicality, the disad- affirmative was never really prepared to vantages are the most important issues in the debate anyway!
Negative teams rarely round. Judges are looking for comparisons get by arguing that the quantifiable after the round-affirmative advantages in harm selected by the affirmative is not competition with negative disadvantages. If an affirmative argues that 4. Sometimes the best way to 50, homeless people died of AIDS beat a counterplan is to throw it back to the how can the negative determine that negative. In order for the counterplan to number has to be , in order to win it must meet three criteria: It should be significant?
All an affirmative has be nontopical, it must be competitive, and to do is argue that the case is compara- it must have an advantage which is greater tively advantageous compared to the than the affirmative plan. The affirmative status quo. If there is more advantage can respond several ways. First, you can with the affirmative position than the prepare solvency arguments against that negative position, then the affirmative particular counterplan.
Second, you can should win significance. Really this issue is the starting same time. Third, you can argue that your point for comparing advantages to dis- advantages are superior to the counterplan advantages. The negative might attack advantages.
For more discussion on the is- solvency three ways. Put good solvency cards in the 1AC. Prepare to extend with Most beginning debaters will lose the debate additional evidence. Be able to extend by dropping or not responding to arguments. That will cost you the others believe the plan will solve. Just think clearly and you will come up Second, they might argue plan-meet- with answers. PMNs indicate that structural inadequacies prevent solving even if the plan is a good idea.
Perhaps the personnel, equipment, expertise, and other resources vital to solving the prob- lem are not available. Thus, the affirm- ative must not only show the plan is a good idea, but that the plan is sufficiently effective to attain some advantage. Third, they might argue circumvention. Actors outside the bounds of control of the affirmative might act to block the plan. Frequently identifying who op- poses the plan and why, will provide the negative with arguments for individuals who will obstruct the outcome of the plan.
These are usually individuals who have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. The affirmative can answer this argument by proving that these individuals or groups do not have an interest in blocking the plan, or that they are unable to do so.
This is an outline of the arguments you are the reason why someone is not doing some- going to make in a debate. This means It always if the affirmative plan is adopted. AP--Associated Press Some of my thoughts on how to help them accomplish this are here.
You can also look at an activity for helping them highlight evidence here. Miscellaneous but useful tips for writing your own affirmative case are featured in How to Research and Write an Affirmative Case.
For the 2AC to be prepared against unexpected new positions, it is helpful for them to have frontline templates to help prompt a diverse set of answers. Some debaters need help moving beyond the core files, particularly into the 1AR. If this describes your debaters, you may want to try the Lump Fu Lesson plan, with the accompanying 1AR flows. For those debaters overwhelmed by new affirmative cases, they may need help strategizing about how to apply their own generic negative off case arguments.
The missing link activity may be your answer. The Disad Exercise both defines the core terms used in debating disadvantages and offers a very meeting-ready exercise in teaching disadvantages to beginning and intermediate-level debaters. Advanced Topicality Debating is a presentation outlining how effective topicality debating is done.
Thoroughbred Theory Blocks has a set of blocks on both sides of many of the key debate theory issues, and can be used as a round-ready resource, or a kind of text book on key theory issues. A powerpoint on Alternative Debate Styles explains how performative debate arguments are run and answered. Learning to Debate is a very concise manual for use in learning about policy debate. Each of its chapters, below, are very useful guides to learning and beginning to master competitive academic debate coaching and teaching.
Guide for Starting the Team. Guide for Running the Team. Guide to Professional Development. Coaching Guide for Beginning Debaters. Coaching Guide for Speaking Style. Coaching the Affirmative. Coaching the Negative. These are a collection of debate resources by the National Debate Coaches Association to utilize in the classroom. It provides innovative ways to convey debate concepts and styles of speaking to students. Finding Your Voice , produced by the acclaimed Pittsburgh University Debate Union, is an excellent policy debate textbook, one that combines the fundamentals with currency and a high degree of practical usability.
Debate is a instructional guide to everything you need to know about Policy Debate. Paperless Debate Templates are an intuitive way for debaters to digitise the debating process. Templates also allow for an efficient way to cut cards and organise files on a computer for in-round access. One such template is the Verbatim paperless template, found here.
Get Professional Development hours watching this video on the Online Training tab. More Information about paperless debate can be found on the paperless debate website. General Twenty Steps to Prep for Tournament One : Get your debaters ready for a tournament in four weeks with this detailed, step-by-step handout. Topicality and Theory Advanced Topicality Debating is a presentation outlining how effective topicality debating is done. Alternative Debate Styles A powerpoint on Alternative Debate Styles explains how performative debate arguments are run and answered.
Guide for Starting the Team 2.
0コメント