Upload
kathleen-johnson
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DEBATIN
G THE C
ASE
SECTION 1
– SET
UP
ON THE AFFIRMATIVE
Goal of the affirmative is to prove:
- Plan is better than the status quo
- Plan is better than a competing policy option
1AC is your Life
Losing case means you have lost the debate
1AC
Structure
a) Inherency
b) Harms/Advantages
c) Solvency
A) INHERENCY
Definition – an affirmative is inherent if they prove the plan has not been done yet
Inherency is important because:
1) Debating non-inherent policies doesn’t make sense
2) It becomes impossible to be negative
B) HARMS/ADVANTAGES
Definition – why the affirmative is desirable
1) There is a problem in the status quo that has not been addressed
2) Failure to address this problem will cause something terrible
C) SOLVENCY
Definition – what does the affirmative plan do to prevent the harms from occurring
Advantages don’t matter if the plan doesn’t solve them
ON THE NEGATIVE
Goal of the negative is to prove:
- The status quo is preferable to doing the plan
- A competing policy option is preferable to doing the plan
Difficult to win debates if you have not talked about the 1AC
Advantages of specific debates and arguments
1NC
- Every 1NC on case should be different because every 1AC is different
- Focus on attacking harms/advantages and solvency
- Mix between offense and defense
- Mix between analytical arguments and evidence
SECTION 2
– ANSW
ERING
THE C
ASE
1) CASE UNIQUENESS
Advantages have to be unique just like disadvantages have to be unique
• Is there a problem now the affirmative is needed to address?
• Is economic collapse inevitable now? If not, do we need mass transit?
• Is global warming inevitable now? If not, do we have to reduce carbon emissions?
• Most important part of case debate, negative cannot win without case
uniqueness
• Just like disadvantages, dates matter
• Helpful when going for a disadvantage because it puts the credibility of
the 2AR impact calculus in doubt
2) IMPACT DEFENSE
Are the affirmative impacts as bad as they claim them to be?
• Are there other things that will prevent this conflict?
• Why will the conflict not escalate?
• What has happened in the past in similar situations?
Easy research to do, punish teams for reading bad/unqualified
impact evidence
3) ALTERNATE CAUSALITIES
Is the affirmative the only policy needed to prevent a certain
impact?
Most useful against affs that claim to solve huge impacts
Use their evidence to find these
Example: US economy is affected by stock markets, consumer
spending, investor confidence, employment rate, wages, housing
market, innovation, import/export ratio, immigration, agriculture,
etc.
4) SOLVENCY TAKE-OUTS
Does the affirmative plan actually solve the harms?
How is the plan implemented? Do people listen to the plan? Is there
enforcement? Is there verification?
How bad the affirmative’s impacts are don’t matter if voting for the
plan doesn’t address those impacts effectively
5) CASE TURNS
Offensive argument that the affirmative plan actually causes the impacts
they are trying to stop
Example:
• 1AC says that building high-speed rail is good because stimulus investment is key to prevent economic collapse by making up for low demand
• 1NC says that stimulus spending COLLAPSES the economy by decreasing market efficiency
Compare – important to make a comparison between the reasons spending
is good for the economy and the reasons it is bad for the economy
• Which is bigger? Which is more important? Which is faster?
6) CASE TURNS (EXTERNAL)
Mini disadvantages on the case about why the affirmative causes other bad
things
What makes it different than a disadvantage?
1) Uniqueness – often not read in 1NC, less of an issue/important
question
2) Smaller impact
3) Won’t change/develop much because of few link/impact stories
Utility
1) Often undercovered by the 2AC
2) Can be hidden in a larger case debate
3) Interacts with other case arguments better
NEGATIVE BLOCK
• Read more evidence
• Keep the debate clean, labeled, and compartmentalized
• Every impact must be answered
• Don’t lose sight of offense
• Pick your best turn and blow it up
• Control terminal uniqueness
2NR
• Start with uniqueness
• Don’t overextend yourself on offense
• Cover your bases
• Pre-empt the 2AR
SECTION 3
– DEFE
NDING
THE C
ASE
AFFIRMATIVE PREPARATION
• Go through 1AC and write out a list of every possible negative
response
• Negative case answers are very predictable and should mostly be
answered by 1AC cards
• 1AC notes list
• Write out the warrants to every single card in the 1AC and keep
that on a separate piece of paper in the first pocket of your
accordion
HOW TO EXTEND ARGUMENTS
Argument, warrant, implication statement, citation
• Argument – claim established in the 1AC
• Warrant – why is this particular argument true
• Implication statement – comparatively, why is your argument superior to the
alternative
• Citation – author name
Example: US-China war will escalate to nuclear use – concerns over national identity
ensure irrational escalation where prestige becomes more important than
economic concerns – this outweighs any new round of small talks that don’t
fundamentally change relations – extend Glaser, he’s a PolSci Prof at George
Washington
HOW TO EXTEND ARGUMENTS
Develop a code system
• 1-3 word reference to critical arguments in the 1AC that will be
used consistently
• Start every extension to an argument with the code system
• Allows you to make new arguments in rebuttals
HOW TO EXTEND ARGUMENTS
When should you read new 2AC cards on case:
• Rarely
• Nexus questions
• If you blow it off, they’ll blow it up
• Evidence-intensive questions
• Arguments you may not be on the side of truth of
1AR
• Don’t give a 2AR
• Code system
• Reference key authors, phrases, and ideas
• Keep the debate in order but start with your best offense
• Nexus question
• Know your evidence cards
2AR
Start with uniqueness – control the inevitability of what is going to occur
now
Paint the picture of the status quo/world in which the judge doesn’t vote aff
You don’t need a lot of advantages/arguments
Choose one impact:
1) Go deep on the explanation
2) Compare it to the rest of the debate/their offense
3) Win it cleanly
Recognize the arguments that don’t really matter
SECTION 4
– TH
E FIV
E
PART
METH
OD
INTRO
THE METHOD
1.REFER
2.EXPLAIN
3.EVALUATE
4.ANSWER
5.IMPACT