Whitman Debate Camp

Policy Lecture Notes

 

These notes are a starter for your own lectures.

Reminder—you are expected to email Jim your lecture notes!

 

WNDI Cases and Evidence Cutting (Dean Sweberg)................................................................. 1

WNDI EVIDENCE POLICIES................................................................................................... 2

Prepare an Affirmative Case..................................................................................................... 4

Flowing, Responding Drills........................................................................................................ 7

Prepare a Disadvantage............................................................................................................. 9

Counterplans........................................................................................................................... 11

Advanced Counterplans (Ben Meiches with Jim Hanson)........................................................ 13

Prepare a Kritik....................................................................................................................... 16

Topicality Argumentation........................................................................................................ 17

Advanced Topicality Lecture Outline (Jessica Gates).............................................................. 19

Cross-Examination Game........................................................................................................ 21

Adapting to Judges.................................................................................................................. 22

 

 


 

WNDI Cases and Evidence Cutting (Dean Sweberg)

 

Briefly explain the Institute Cases and arguments

**** have the brief “position explanations” from joe

answer any questions kids have about affs, das, cps, ks  (be ready to refer them to the staff member who cut the position for tough ?s) – also remind them that this is a brief overview and they will have a chance to explore the positions through and through during the entire camp

 

 

Explain how to bracket, tag, cite evidence for the camp

***put a sample up on the screen or board for them to see – both an example of “paper-cut” and “computer-cut” ev

show them the different parts of the page:

margin (at least 1/2”-1”)

page number

brief title

tag

cite (FULL CITE- explain the parts of this)

Tell students that they need to write directly above the evidence the author, author qualifications, full date, publication, page number.
Remind them that they cannot write “Same source as above”
Tell them to use dark pens for photocopying!

card text

 

 

Explain how to do brief titles and indexes

Brief titles are important- who knows why?

How to do this in lab—what I like to do is use scrap paper and fold it over (bring one as an example)

Then go back through and put the cards on paper in order of “debatability (usability)”—these become briefs

When done, you should be ready to write in page numbers and then make an index so you can quickly find the argument you need in a round

--recommend expandos for organization – bring examples of very used files in the nonexpando and expando variety so they can see

 

 

Benefits of electronic files:

Can quickly re-order/underline cards on screen, or make 2AC, etc. blocks from your files

If you lose/destroy cards, just re-print them!!

-- cheat: MS word will make an index (TOC) for you!  (“insert” menu, “index and tables”, “table of contents”)

-- this requires you make the brief titles “headers” in the style menu (usually just says “normal”)

(you will see many files at wndi formatted similarly b/c many lab leaders use MS word to make their files in this way)

 

Explain that files need to be split into aff and neg!

This is important so that you have much less stuff to deal with in a given round

my partner and I ended up separating aff and neg evidence by tub (we had an “aff” tub and several neg tubs)

you can do this with expandos or color schemes of hanging folders or whatever works for you

the files put out at wndi will be separated into aff and neg

 

WNDI EVIDENCE POLICIES

 

SOURCE CITATIONS

Full Name, Qualifications, Full Date—Bold or Underline Last Name and Year

Book/Document/Magazine Name, page number/web address (include when viewed)

 

July Jones, Professor of Political Science, June 24, 2004, Mother Jones, p. 12.

 

Heather Barnett, Staff Writer, July 15, 2004, New York Times, accessed 6/30/2004, www.nytimes.com/story/notreallyastory/1/bush.htm

 

EVIDENCE PAGE LAYOUT

Electronic Documents with text are best—easy to print and small file size!

REGULAR PAPER BRIEFS

·       Please leave at least ½ inch margins on all sides!

·       Please use DARK, THICK, BLACK OR DARK BLUE INK!  and Print Clearly.

 

NEW EVIDENCE/EVIDENCE STUDENT BROUGHT TO CAMP

May be used BUT . . .

·                  The student must provide real, substantive, evidenced answers to the position(s) advocated by the evidence. These answers must be approved by your lab leader

·                  The student must provide the originals for the evidence.

·                  The student must submit the evidence (the positions and the responses) to our camp assistants for printing.

·                  The evidence (position and responses) must be printed and distributed before it can be used in debates. This means the evidence usually must be submitted at least a full day before it can be used.

 

1. EVERYONE GETS THIS PRINTED EVIDENCE

·       All general aff evidence against neg positions will be distributed to everyone.

·       ·         Any neg evidence that is critical to answering a negative position. Lab leaders need to inform Jim/the Head Printer of this.

·       ·         Any neg evidence specifically against a camp affirmative.

NOTE—These different printings are why we need you to split your files into “Aff” and “Neg.”

 

2. ONLY THE AFFIRMATIVE GETS THIS PRINTED EVIDENCE

·       ·         Each aff lab gets printouts of all its aff materials (case, backup, answers to das, cps, ks, etc.).

·       ·         If a negative position is critical to answer a position against your affirmative, it will be printed for the members of that affirmative lab. Lab leaders need to inform Jim/camp assistants of this.

 

3. STUDENTS ALSO CHOOSE THIS EVIDENCE

·       ·         Students can choose up to 50% of the negative materials to be printed. They’ll do this on forms that we give them. Lab leaders can and should help students make these choices.

 

4. STUDENTS GET THE CD WITH ALL THE EVIDENCE

·       ·         Students get all the evidence produced at camp while they are here on a CD (policy) or via email (LD).

·       ·         Two week students can pay a small additional fee to receive the third week evidence on CD (policy) or via email (LD).

 

 

EVIDENCE BACKUP

 

Encourage your students to backup daily to the dcamp server!!! They can copy their files into their own folder.

 

Activity

 

WORKING EXAMPLE: Pass out a photocopy of THE SAME article to each student. The article should be on your affirmative case.

1.      Bracket the evidence IN THE ARTICLES
Tell students to bracket 3 to 7 sentences; the evidence should give a strong reason for its main claim.

ACTIVITY: Give them five minutes to find evidence in the article.  Call on students to state which sections of the article they used for evidence.  Critique the evidence.

2.      CUT OUT the evidence

3.      GLUE OR TAPE THE EVIDENCE TO A PIECE OF PAPER

4.      SOURCE CITE THE EVIDENCE
 
ACTIVITY:
Have students do this with the evidence from their article.
BE SURE TO WALK AROUND THE ROOM LOOKING AND COMMENTING ON STUDENT WORK.

5.     TAG the evidence to make arguments
Show students how--explain they need to write a complete, 4 to 9 word sentence that accurately and persuasively states the main point of the evidence.
Provide an example of tagging on the overhead or with one of the pieces of evidence in the article.
NOTE: Our tags should use NO symbols or abbreviations; they MUST have verbs too--we want complete sentences!

ACTIVITY: Have students tag their evidence.
Be sure to show them where to write the tag (many will try to write tags after the citation, to the side of the evidence, etc.)

 

IF STUDENTS FINISH, GIVE THEM ADDITIONAL ARTICLES—THEY CAN USE ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE TO CONSTRUCT THEIR AFFIRMATIVE CASE.

 


 Prepare an Affirmative Case

 

WHAT JIM WANTS: Each student will finish this lab time with a completed affirmative case that he/she wrote. You will need to bring cut evidence into the lab to help make this happen as cutting articles up will not give you enough time to finish.

 

NOTE: EACH STUDENT NEEDS TO PREPARE HIS/HER OWN CASE SO THAT EACH STUDENT CAN PRESENT HIS/HER OWN CASE DURING THE NEXT HOUR

So, you need enough copies of the evidence you handout for each student to make his/her own case.

 

Using the evidence that all the students have just cut, cited and tagged (not any articles that only individual students received) and more evidence that you hand out, teach them how to construct an affirmative case.  Have them write a case using their evidence (about a 9 to 12 card 1AC).  Yes there is enough time to write a case if you keep your lecture short and maximize the time that they work on their case.  Try to look at everyone’s work--walk around the room and offer encouraging and helpful comments and answer questions.

NOTE: Students work on their affirmative case individually. Make sure each student knows how to put together an affirmative case.

 

1.  STACK YOUR EVIDENCE

Make a significance, inherency and solvency stack.

--SIGNIFICANCE SHOWS THERE IS A PROBLEM AND THAT IT IS HARMFUL.

--INHERENCY SHOWS THAT THE PRESENT SYSTEM CAUSES OR WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

--SOLVENCY SHOWS A PROPOSAL WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM.

ACTIVITY: GIVE THEM EXAMPLE ARGUMENTS AND HAVE THEM CATEGORIZE THE ARGUMENT. E.G. "ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IS FAILING" (SIGNIFICANCE)

ACTIVITY: Pass out the affirmative case evidence. Give students time to read it. Then, have them cut up the evidence and "stack" it.

2. CONSTRUCT A PLAN.

Look at your solvency evidence to see what it says are the actions needed to solve problems.

WORKING EXAMPLE: Choose a plan to construct that includes all of the following elements:

PLANKS METHOD:

PLANK ONE: BOARD--include who will oversee the plan

PLANK TWO: MANDATES--include the specific actions you want taken

PLANK THREE: ENFORCEMENT--include how you will enforce the plan mandates

PLANK FOUR: FUNDING--include how you will pay for your plan

PLANK FIVE: INTENT--include intent statement

SECTION METHOD:

SECTION ONE: MANDATES--include the specific actions you want taken

SECTION TWO: LOGISTICS--include how the plan will be enacted, enforced, and funded

3. PREPARE THE ACTUAL CASE

Choose the best evidence that you have

WORKING EXAMPLE: Develop an outlined advantage on the overhead as you discuss the following; NOTE: If you want to use an inherency, plan, advantage; sig, inh, plan, solv. format: that is totally fine.

1. TITLE THE ADVANTAGE.  "Advantage One: The plan achieves an advantage."

2. FOR SUBPOINT A: INCLUDE SIGNIFICANCE ARGUMENTS.  An affirmative significance argument shows a problem and harms.

3. FOR SUBPOINT B: INCLUDE INHERENCY ARGUMENTS.  An affirmative inherency argument shows that the present system causes the problem or cannot solve the problem.

EXPLANATION: Point out that students need to show that the present system is different from the plan, this difference makes the present system fail, and to make sure that the plan will solve this failure.

4. FOR SUBPOINT C: INCLUDE SOLVENCY ARGUMENTS.  An affirmative solvency argument shows that the plan solves the problem.

ACTIVITY: Give students ten minutes to construct an affirmative case with these pieces of evidence.

You should look at everyone’s affirmative case--comment on them and tell them how to improve their case.

4. INCLUDE IMPACTS AND TRANSITIONS BETWEEN POINTS.

1. IMPACT THE ARGUMENTS.  How to impact arguments: "Because of (the label or the reason in the evidence), therefore the argument or resolution is true".

WORKING EXAMPLE: Impact the arguments in your overhead case.

2. INCLUDE TRANSITIONS.

ILLUSTRATION: Get five students to volunteer and come to the front of the class.  Hand out five slips of paper with a word or phrase to the five students.  Tell them to make one sentence connections between their word and the word of the previous person.  For example, a student could link her word "dogs" to the previous student's word "cats" by offering the transition, "they fought like cats and dogs".  When each has offered their transition--note, without attacking any of the student's transitions specifically, how some of the transitions were better than others.

WORKING EXAMPLE: Tell students to make transitions between the arguments in their cases by using the same effective kinds of connections.  Do one or two transitions in the overhead case with student help.

5. MAKE AN INTRODUCTION. 

Have them include a one or two sentence opener before going into the first observation.

6. MAKE A CONCLUSION. 

Tell them to write a one sentence persuasive summary of the case followed by “Please vote affirmative.”

7. WHAT TO DO WITH REMAINING EVIDENCE?

Tell the students we will work together to use the evidence to make backup briefs for their cases.

 

IF YOU HAVE TIME LEFT: OFFER Advanced ideas for cases? Rhetoric of a case; preemption of negative arguments; etc.


 


Flowing, Responding Drills

 

WHAT JIM WANTS: I want every student to flow (not necessarily on a flowsheet with columns). When students flow, I want them to flow the evidence—THEY SHOULD WRITE DOWN THE SOURCE AND THE REASONS/FACTS THE EVIDENCE PROVIDES. I want you to check their flowing and give them concrete tips for improving. I want every student to engage in “4 step” refutation. Some people like to describe 4 step refutation differently than I do--that’s fine with me. Just get them to respond to arguments.

 

YOU NEED FOR THIS LECTURE: Evidence for an argument and against it.

 

Its as simple as it sounds. Give them the basics in the lecture below. Then, have them flow; followed by having them refute. Try to look at everyone’s work--walk around the room and offer encouraging and helpful comments and answer questions.

 

1. WHAT YOU FLOW

When you flow an argument, write down:

·        the tag

·        the source

·        the main reasons or facts that the evidence offers in support of the label. Make sure you tell them to flow the evidence--that is the most common flowing problem.

DO AN EXAMPLE ON THE BOARD

ACTIVITY: Present two arguments for them to flow.  Have students flow the arguments. Have two or three students reconstruct the arguments out loud by using their flows.  Comment on their flowing skills based on their reconstruction.

2. ABBREVIATION TIPS

SQ, Increase, Decrease, Causes, Sig., Inh., Solv., etc.

Topic specific abbreviations: ed; acad achiev; super ed flex; federalism; clinton; etc.

ACTIVITY: Have students flow two more arguments. REMEMBER--SPEAK SLOWLY!  SUGGESTION--PRESENT ONE ARGUMENT AND THEN ASK IF THEY WANT YOU TO GO SLOWER--ALSO LOOK AT WHAT THEY ARE WRITING AS YOU PRESENT THE CASE.

3. FLOWING RESPONSES

Draw an arrow across from the argument and then write the response.

DO AN EXAMPLE ON THE BOARD

ACTIVITY: Present responses to two of the arguments you presented. Have students flow the responses. AGAIN--SPEAK VERY SLOWLY.  Have two or three students read their flows out loud and comment on their flowing skills based on what they say they flowed.

4. ACTIVITY: PLAY THE I DISAGREE GAME

Have students split into two groups, go to sides of the room, line up single file and face each other.  Start by having the first student in one of the two lines (line A) make an argument.  On the other side (line B), the first student should say, "I disagree because . . .", and should complete the sentence.  The second person in line A should make an argument and the second person in the line B should respond with, "I disagree because . . ." and the process continues until everyone has made an argument.  Then, reverse roles and have line B make arguments and line B make responses.

5. RESPONDING TO ARGUMENTS WHEN YOU DEBATE

1. FLOW.  Flow your opponent's arguments carefully.

WORKING EXAMPLE/ACTIVITY: Present and flow an argument.

2. THINK UP REFUTATION RESPONSES.  As you flow, listen to your opponent's arguments.  What flaws do you see in their arguments?

Prepare to present these flaws you see in their arguments by drawing an arrow across from their argument and writing down the flaw.

3. PULL OUT BRIEFS.  Pull out briefs that attack the argument.  Draw an arrow across from their argument and writing down the response(s) from the briefs you choose.

WORKING EXAMPLE/ACTIVITY: Pass out a brief with responses on it.

4. NOTE: WRITE DOWN RESPONSES WHEN YOU CAN.  Flow your arguments as you flow your opponent's case or when your opponent is finished.

5. USE YOUR FLOWSHEET TO DO YOUR REFUTATION (4 step).

·        On the left, you’ll see your opponent’s argument. STATE THE NUMBER AND TAG.

·        You see the arrow on your flow. PAUSE, SAY “I DISAGREE,” ETC.

·        You see your responses. GIVE YOUR RESPONSES--NUMBER, TAG, REASON/EVIDENCE

·        When you are done with your responses: SUM UP IN ONE SHORT SENTENCE YOUR POINT, AND SAY “GO TO THEIR NEXT ARGUMENT, . . .”

ACTIVITY: Present another argument.  Tell students to prepare responses to the argument.  Give students ten minutes to prepare to respond to the argument using four step refutation.  Each student will go to the front of the class and do four step refutation.  Inevitably, they do not do it correctly.  Critique their refutation and make them do it again until they get it right.  Encourage students to use accurate, clear, and concise labels, clear four step refutation, and the use of both refutation and counterargumentation.  Be sure to point out what students do well in addition to what they need to improve upon.

 

ACTIVITY: Continue 4 step refutation practice.

 


 

Prepare a Disadvantage

 

WHAT JIM WANTS: Every student will write their own disad shell using evidence pre-cut by you.

 

NOTE: PHOTOCOPY TIPS

Make sure the evidence/tags are at least ½ inch away from the margin.

Make sure writing is in dark pen (at least medium point). Otherwise, it may not photocopy properly.

 

NOTE: BRING EVIDENCE PRE-CUT TO MAKE THE DISADVANTAGE SHELL. YOU SHOULD ENOUGH COPIES FOR ONE SET OF THE SAME EVIDENCE FOR EACH STUDENT.

 

Teach students how to construct a disadvantage.  Hand out evidence to students and have them construct a disadvantage (about a 2 to 3 card Disad).  There is time to do this if you keep your lecture short.  If there is time left--talk to them about backup briefs and/or affirmative answers to disadvantages.

 

PREPARE DISADVANTAGES

 

I. HOW TO CONSTRUCT A DISADVANTAGE

A. STACK YOUR EVIDENCE into the following piles

--BRINKS SHOW WE ARE ON THE VERGE OF A PROBLEM

--UNIQUENESS SHOWS THE STATUS QUO WILL NOT CAUSE THE PROBLEM/ONLY THE PLAN WILL

--LINKS SHOW THE PLAN WILL CAUSE A PROBLEM

--INTERNAL LINKS SHOW THE PROBLEM WILL LEAD TO ANOTHER PROBLEM

--IMPACTS SHOW THE PROBLEM WILL BE HARMFUL

1. TEST THE STUDENTS. GIVE THEM EXAMPLE ARGUMENTS IN A DISADVANTAGE AND SEE IF THEY CAN TELL IF THEY ARE LINKS, BRINKS, UNIQUENESS, OR IMPATCS

2. HANDOUT THE DISADVANTAGE EVIDENCE

B. PUT THE DISADVANTAGE TOGETHER

Get a story in mind of how the plan causes the problem and what the harms of this problem are. Then prepare away!

1. TITLE THE DISADVANTAGE.

Give the disadvantage a two to four word title like “Chinese Nationalism Disadvantage”

2. GIVE A THESIS FOR THE DISADVANTAGE

The plan will cause the problem

3. INCLUDE SUBPOINTS FOR EACH KEY PART OF THE DISADVANTAGE

--INCLUDE THE BRINK. 

Showsthat "We are on the verge of a crisis."

--INCLUDE UNIQUENESS. 

The status quo will not cause the disadvantage to occur.

----INCLUDE THE LINKS.

Show that "The Plan will cause or increase a problem."

----INCLUDE INTERNAL LINKS

Show the problem will lead to another problem.

--INCLUDE THE IMPACTS.

Subpoint B of the disadvantage shows that "Causing or Increasing the problem will be harmful."

ACTIVITY: Have students construct a disadvantage using the evidence.  GO OUT AND HELP STUDENTS PREPARE THEIR DISADVANTAGE. Note: Many students get confused and just can't tell the difference between a link and an impact. Keep trying to explain. Call on two or three students to present their disadvantages to the class.

 


 

Counterplans

 

WHAT JIM WANTS: Student will prepare an outline for a counterplan and respond to the counterplan without evidence.

 

LECTURE:

I. ARGUING COUNTERPLANS

WORKING EXAMPLE: Choose a counterplan and make example arguments for each of the items below to illustrate how to prepare a counterplan.

A. NEGATIVES ADVOCATE A COUNTERPLAN AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE AFFIRMATIVE PLAN

B. WHEN NEGATIVES PRESENT A COUNTERPLAN, THEY NEED TO DO THE FOLLOWING:

1. PRESENT A COUNTERPLAN

You use planks or sections just like you do for a plan.

---note that people now frequently skip 2 and 3

2. ARGUE THAT THE COUNTERPLAN IS NOT TOPICAL

This shows that the counterplan rejects the topic--supporting the negative side of the topic

3. ARGUE THAT THE COUNTERPLAN IS COMPETITIVE

To do this, you need to show that the counterplan should not be adopted with the plan.  To do this, you can argue:

a. THE COUNTERPLAN IS MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE

This means the counterplan and plan cannot exist at the same time

b. THE COUNTERPLAN IS NET BENEFITS COMPETITIVE

This means the counterplan alone is superior to the plan and counterplan

4. ARGUE THAT THE COUNTERPLAN IS ADVANTAGEOUS

Show that the counterplan has advantages that the affirmative plan cannot achieve

ACTIVITY: Have students work on the Prepbook counterplan.

 

LECTURE:

I. RESPONDING TO COUNTERPLANS

WORKING EXAMPLE: Choose a counterplan and make example arguments for each of the items below to illustrate how to attack a counterplan.

A. ARGUE THAT THE COUNTERPLAN IS TOPICAL

B. ARGUE THAT THE COUNTERPLAN IS NOT COMPETITIVE

1. SHOW THAT THE COUNTERPLAN AND PLAN CAN CO-EXIST

2. SHOW THAT THE COUNTERPLAN AND PLAN TOGETHER WOULD BE BETTER THAN THE COUNTERPLAN ALONE

3. REJECT BOGUS COUNTERPLAN COMPETITION STANDARDS INCLUDING:

a. REDUNDANCY

Redundancy shows the counterplan is similar to the plan.  Argue against this by showing the two are not redundant and by arguing that even if they are, the counterplan is not a reason against the affirmative plan.

b. PHILOSOPHICAL COMPETITION

Philosophical competition shows the counterplan has different objectives than the plan.  Argue against this by saying they share objectives and two policies can be supported even if they have different objectives.

c. ARTIFICIAL COMPETITION

Artificial competition shows the counterplan cannot exist or should not exist with a part of the plan that is not germane to discussing the resolution.  For example, the counterplan may use the affirmative funding mechanism and then the negative claims the two cannot both use the same funding.  Argue against this by saying it is illegitimate, irrelevant and would make any counterplan competitive.

C. ARGUE THAT THE COUNTERPLAN WILL NOT ACHIEVE ITS CLAIMED ADVANTAGES

D. ARGUE THAT THE COUNTERPLAN WILL BE DISADVANTAGEOUS

E. ARGUE THAT THE COUNTERPLAN WILL NOT ACHIEVE THE AFFIRMATIVE ADVANTAGES

 


 

Advanced Counterplans (Ben Meiches with Jim Hanson)

 

  1. Basic Structure of a Counterplan:
    1. A text
    2. Topicality/Non-Topicality
    3. Competition/Non-Competition
    4. Solvency
  2. What is a Counterplan?-question addressed to student body- How does a counterplan work?  What does it let you do?
    1. Discussion of Solvency for counterplan-solving the case, solving the case better, examples: US counterplan for Afghanistan affirmative-US peacekeepers effective at eradicating terrorists and solve advantage 1, but won’t improve relations so they don’t solve advantage 2, and solving additional components such as da’s
    2. Discussion of Mutual Exclusivity/Net Benefits- Questions: What does it mean to be Mutually Exclusive? Explain how Counterplans cannot exist simultaneously- What does it mean to Net Beneficial?  Example: Consult NATO counterplan-appeases NATO and solves cohesion-something that US support of the UN cannot do alone
    3. Net Benefits can be Disadvantages and critiques-the debate becomes focused on what the plan does versus the counterplan
  3. Competition/Text: 
    1. Must be careful about the text of counterplans: “The United States federal government should increase the number of peacekeepers in Afghanistan by 100%” vs. “The United States federal government should the number of peacekeepers in Afghanistan by 100%” – flaws inherent in misspelling/miswriting articles of the counterplan. 
    2. Competition: Functional-When it is literally impossible for the 2 counterplans to function in the same world…  can anyone think of an example?  Textual: when the two texts exist in competition with one another: can anyone think of an example?
  4. Topicality:
    1. Non-topical counterplan: example one that does not require UN support-reasons they are good 1) allows the negative to negate the resolution 2) clearly divides ground-Brite Line
    2. Topical Counterplans-ask students for example?-exist within the grounds of the resolution 1) increase neg ground 2) create plan focus
  5. Condition of your counterplan
    1. Unconditional-advocating until the end
    2. Conditionality-can be kicked at any time
    3. Dispositionality-1) traditional- neg can kick at any time, but the aff can straight turn  2)  reciprocal-aff gets a permutation also dispositional
  6. Permutations
    1. Can anyone tell me what a permutation is? Explanation: A combination of action
    2. Illegit permutations- timeframe e.g. have US peacekeepers now and then UN peacekeepers, severence-permutations that remove part of the plan, intrinsic-add external elements- ie US peacekeepers, UN peacekeepers supported by the US and diplomats

C.     XXXXXXXX THE BELOW ON FUNC/TEXTUAL NEEDS BETTER EXPLANATION; QUESTIONS TOO HARD TO DISCERN WHAT ANSWER IS XXXXXX

C.D.                   Permutations operate in terms of functional and textual competition (see above), does anyone have an idea how you might frame debates in terms of textual and functional competition?

D.E.                   Permutations can sometimes be advocated at the end of the round instead of the plan e.g. both us peacekeepers and un supported peacekeepers as opposed to the plan action, is this legitimate?  Can you think of some reasons?

  1. Answering Counterplans
    1. Focusing answers on the distinction between counterplan and plan/ break it down into components, what is the mechanism of counterplan vs. plan, what does it do?  What are the net benefits?
    2. Focusing answers on the plan vs. squo, what is the comparative advantage-how much better can the plan make it.  Pretend the counterplan is the status quo for answering it-what does the plan do better? What worse? 
    3. Solvency deficits-what is a solvency deficit?  E.G. Consult NATO v. put peacekeepers in Iraq, 1 is certain, 1 is uncertain, you can leverage this how?  Use case advantages to outweigh or answer the counterplan can anyone think of a situation with a solvency deficit?
    4. If a DA/Critique is a net benefit-turn the net benefit so that the counterplan has a da against it
    5. Read Add-Ons.  Extra advantages that the counterplan cannot answer-like net benefits to the plan- can anyone think of  a situation where they might read an add-on?
  2. If your running a counterplan and all goes wrong you can still win in any number of ways
    1. keep your options open-locking yourself into needing to go for the counterplan can be disastors
    2. Even if your critique/da links to the counterplan it may “link less” to the plan, can anyone think of a situation where this might be the case?  E.G. Congress vs. Supreme Court CP w/ politics net benefit
  3. Advanced Counterpaln Theory
    1. Neg Fiat-Yes/NO
    2. Plan Inclusive Counterplans-examples
    3. Consult Counterplans-examples
    4. Conditionality Debates-examples
    5. Delay CP’s
    6. Pros and Cons of running an illegitimate counterplan
  4. The Institute Counterplans

BE READY WITH A LIST OF THESE

 

 

 

WHAT KIND OF PERMUTATIONS ARE LEGITIMATE

1. PERMUTATIONS ARE A COMBINATION OF THE PLAN AND COUNTERPLAN TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE TWO CAN CO-EXIST

2. DEPENDS ON THE JUDGE AND HOW YOU ARGUE IT.

3. PURE MIX—ALL OF PLAN AND COUNTERPLAN

4. PLAN AMENDMENT PERM—PART OF PLAN IS ALTERED PLUS THE COUNTERPLAN

5. COUNTERPLAN AMENDMENT PERM—PART OF THE COUNTERPLAN IS ALTERED PLUS THE PLAN

6. TIME PERMUTATIONS

This is where the affirmative does the counterplan earlier or later  than the plan.

Questionable strategy because any two actions can be done at separate times and because doing one later or earlier may not gain the same advantages.

7. CAPTURE PERMUTATIONS

This is where the affirmative adds the counterplan to its plan and begins to advocate it.

Questionable strategy because it shifts advocacy but if the added part of the counterplan is topical there is some legitimacy to it.

 

CONDITIONALITY

DISPOSITIONALITY, TRADITIONAL

DISPOSITIONALITY, RECIPROCAL

STICK WITH COUNTERPLAN NO MATTER WHAT

HOW TO KICK A COUNTERPLAN AND REVERT TO THE STATUS QUO

 


 

Prepare a Kritik

 

WHAT JIM WANTS: Students should construct a critique.

 

NOTE: You need to bring evidence for a critique. Each student receives the same evidence and constructs a critique shell.

NOTE: This critique may/may not be the same critique that students work on in their critique labs.

 

I. Critiques

A. What are they? Critiques are arguments that show an opponent position, argument, the resolution, etc., violate an important principle. They aren’t focused on consequences.

B. How to construct a critique (have students construct their own critiques)

1. Stack the evidence into links and impacts

2. Construct the shell with title, thesis, A. links (how the aff necessitates the critique), B. impacts (how the critique should be a voting issue/is more important than other issues)

3. Construct backup briefs

            HAVE THEM MAKE A CRITIQUE SHELL

 

Affirmative responses to critiques

1. outweigh the critique

2. show there is no link to the critique

3. turn the critique

4. use the critique against your opponent’s arguments

5. the critique is wrong

6. reject the critique because there is no alternative

7. perm the critique

8. the alternative is worse


Topicality Argumentation

 

WHAT JIM WANTS: I want each student to write their own topicality argument using the same definition as everyone else in the lab. Then, I want the students to get some additional definitions and contextual arguments to support or respond to the argument.

 

NOTE: I know most topicality arguments are weak. I know that many students have a ridiculously tough time to doing topicality arguments (their minds literally are not used to this kind of thought so they draw blanks on why their interpretation is superior). The point of this lecture is to get the students to learn something that they need to learn, tough as it is.

 

MATERIALS:

1.      Prepare to present the general idea of a plan that is not topical.

2.      Have enough copies of definitions of terms that the above plan violates for each student.

3.      Overhead projector.

LECTURE:

I. HOW TO MAKE TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS

A. WHAT IS A TOPICALITY ARGUMENT?  A TOPICALITY ARGUMENT SHOWS THAT THE PLAN DOES NOT SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION.

B. HOW TO CONSTRUCT A TOPICALITY ARGUMENT (USING VIOLATION SPECIFIC ORGANIZATION)

WORKING EXAMPLE: Describe a plan to students that is not topical.  On the overhead, show students a definition of a term in the topic that the plan violates.  As you go through each of the following points, develop a topicality argument.

1. IDENTIFY WHICH TERM IN THE TOPIC THAT THE PLAN VIOLATES.

WORKING EXAMPLE: Point out that the plan violates the term you have chosen.

2. WRITE "I. TOPICALITY" OR "THE PLAN IS NOT TOPICAL."

3. WRITE THE VIOLATION.  Here is how:

THE PLAN* violates THE TERM IN THE RESOLUTION*

This is because the definition of THE TERM is:

PLACE THE DEFINITION HERE*.

So, because the affirmative plan IS NOT WHAT THE DEFINITION SAYS IT IS*, it is not topical.

(Note that the * parts change for each different topicality argument.)

WORKING EXAMPLE: Using the above format, construct the violation for your overhead topicality argument.

4. STANDARDS: GIVE REASONS WHY YOUR DEFINITION/INTERPRETATION IS SUPERIOR TO POTENTIAL AFFIRMATIVE INTERPRETATIONS.

WORKING EXAMPLE: This aspect of topicality arguments is the most difficult thing to teach a beginning debater.  Offer an example of a standard for the overhead topicality argument.  Tell them that they can use many standards that are described in their textbook.  Tell them to read pages 99-101 of their textbook.  Call on students to identify any standards that support their definition/interpretation.  Help them as much as you can, including giving further examples.

5. WRITE AN IMPACT FOR THE TOPICALITY ARGUMENT.  PICK ONE OF THESE REASONS:

REASON 1. THE AFFIRMATIVE FAILS TO AFFIRM THE TOPIC.  Affirmatives, by definition, must support the topic and with a nontopical plan do not support the topic and therefore should lose.

REASON 2. IT IS UNFAIR TO THE NEGATIVE.  They could never prepare if affirmatives did not need to be topical.

REASON 3. THE AFFIRMATIVE USURPS NEGATIVE GROUND.  If the affirmative did not need to be topical, they could claim that the negative arguments are affirmative arguments because there is no topic boundaries to divide ground between the two teams.

REASON 4. TOPICALITY ENSURES EDUCATIONAL DEBATE.  It prevents debates with superficial argumentation because the negative cannot research or prepare adequately.

PLEASE NO JURISDICTIONAL VOTER!

 

ACTIVITY: HAND OUT THE SAME DEFINITION TO ALL STUDENTS AND HAVE THEM WRITE A TOPICALITY ARGUMENT.

 

NOTE: STUDENTS WILL HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME COMING UP WITH REASONS TO PREFER THEIR DEFINITION. HELP THEM BUT EXPECT IT TO BE TOUGH TO GET THEM TO THINK UP THE REASONS.


Advanced Topicality Lecture Outline (Jessica Gates)

 

T is very important strategic position—at the very least it’s an effective time-trade off for the negative. But more importantly, topicality can often be won not because the violation is particularly persuasive, but because the affirmative has been outdebated on the mechanics of the argument. Which means that as long as you understand the best way to debate topicality, you can often have a viable 2NR position to go for. On most topics, we ran T every round, and a lot of very successful teams run a couple procedurals as a rule.

 

What is topicality?

Topicality is about interpretations of the resolution…which definitions are best for debate, how should the resolution be debated, and why?

 

Basics of a topicality violation—definition, violation, standards, voting issue

 

First two are simple, but the standards are really where the meat of the topicality argument lies….what are some of the standards by which we evaluate competing interpretations of the resolution?

 

Biggest and most important one is ground—why is ground important?

Simply stated, ground is the very core of debate. If there was unfair ground, people wouldn’t want to debate. In other words, good division of ground is critical for competitive equity, which is key to debate.

More nuanced ways to talk about ground---biggest is predictable ground. Why is predictable ground good? Increases the ability to research, which is good for education, and it increases the depth of argumentation, also good for education, and predictable ground is the only ground the negative wants, because the only ground it can prepare for.

 

Ground is key to education and fairness…ground, limits, and predictability boil down to the same thing.

 

Limits are ways we delineate ground, so the ultimate reason why limits are good is because of the ways they affect ground. Limits can either be good or bad—good because they keep ground predictable, which arguably increases depth and quality of argumentation—all the reasons why ground are good can be construed as reasons why limits are good.

On the aff, limits are bad because they decrease education by narrowing the focus of discussion, arguably breadth is better than depth.

 

So, when discussing ground and limits, want to give warranted explanations of why the judge should care about those things…don’t just say topicality is key to ground, but explain why…because otherwise we can’t predict, and thus can’t research, which is bad for both education and fairness

 

Other standards that aren’t so central to debate---debate about which sorts of definitions are best (legal, contextual)…framer’s intent gets brought up a lot, but sort of dumb…any others?

 

Voting issues—ground, fairness, education—voting issues because if they didn’t exist, debate could cease to be a viable, enjoyable activity.

 

Affirmative—

Need we meets—many of them. The more we meets the better.

Need counter-definition, why you meet it, and the reasons why it is better. These will be similar to negative arguments…our counter-definition allows this sort of aff, which is central to the topic and thus good for education, our CD is more limiting, less limiting, better defines ground, eliminates bi-directionality, and the negative needs to provide reasons why the CD is bad…if they don’t, they should lose their violation.

 

Topicality isn’t a voting issue unless there is ground loss---they have to prove why your interpretation of topicality is abuse.

Don’t vote on potential abuse, because its unfair punishment---for the negative, why should you have to run something you know they’ll ‘no link’ out of…vote on the possibility that this could happen, even if you didn’t jack what ground you do have

 

Affirmative standards—reasonability, 100% sure…others??

 

Those are the mechanics of what you need…the KEY to winning topicality is giving compelling warrants that both relate to the resolution and the affirmative at hand and ground and fairness.

 

Topicality as strategy…

 

First and foremost, as a 2AC timesuck

 

Run topicality to get links to disads---make them say they are a foreign policy so they link to your imperialism kritik, significantly so they link to spending, establish has to be a new policy to throw all their non-uniques into question

 

If at all possible, keep it alive in the block, because the 1AR will usually overcover. Make it seem like you might go for it in the 2NR…dropping arguments in the block because you couldn’t care less will end up being a worse timetradeoff for the negative because the 1AR can extend a few easy arguments and win.

 

Question of whether you can go for T and other stuff in the 2NR. Depends on many factors…huge one in HS is the judge and what their opinion on it is. Also depends on how handily you are winning it, if you have a lot of 1AR responses to cover or not

 

 

 

 

Major T arguments—establish means to create, increase means to make larger, have various definitions of support and UNPKO to be able to say most anything is untopical for some reason or another, establish doesn’t mean ban (PDD 25), foreign policy if the case just changed US laws

 

Dealing with topicality is oppressive—look, without topicality we wouldn’t be here. Ground issues are a prerequisite for debate. Its completely unfair to expect the negative to be prepared for every liberal, kritikish argument that isn’t a part of the topic. Not to mention we shouldn’t have to be negative against a case like this (because its probably an undebate-able issue)

 

What to do on the aff—strike the appropriate balance between timeliness and being thorough. Say everything you need to without repeating yourself…make sure the judge can flow what you are saying—its hard to flow t responses, so slow down and articulate without being sloth like.

In the 1AR go for your winning arguments—try and gauge how you sit on t, and allocate time accordingly. Did the 1NR or 2NC take it? Does it seem like the 1NR is a tool and the 2N has her favorite kritik going on, and thus will never take T in the 2NR? If there are a lot of good block responses, extend almost everything, even if you don’t answer all the negative arguments—better to make the 2NR a pain and lose a few speaker points.


Cross-Examination Game

 

WHAT JIM WANTS: Each student to participate in the C-X game.

 

Have them play the cross-examination game--its a real favorite.  Here’s how it works--One student is the questioner and one student is the answerer.  The rest of the students line up ready to answer a question.  The goal is to become the questioner.  Students become a questioner if they answer the questioner’s question effectively.  You, the lecturer, are the judge for what is a good answer.  Students go to the end of the line if they:

1.      Take too long to answer a question (any pause--they go to the end of the line)

2.      Present a weak answer to a question (any answer that does not answer the question directly, or that appears to have no support, or that does not really support the student’s case.)

3.      Do not stand poised and face the judge (this includes when they are standing in line--students misbehaving obviously go to the end of the line)

4.      Ask a bad or weak question or take too long to come up with a question (this is the only way the questioner goes to the end of the line unless the answerer gives a good answer).

Reward answers that give strong support, that answer the question immediately, that refer to pretend pieces of evidence, that are humorous, that divert attention away from potential weak spots, etc.

Note--When you send a student to the end of the line--give an explanation for why so that everyone can learn.

Note--If you have a student that isn’t real strong--be kind/give him or her a break.


 Adapting to Judges

 

Talk about the judging paradigms and different techniques for adapting to the judges.  If you know some of the judges in the area--you can give some tips--but do NOT make any even slightly derogatory comments concerning these judges.  ALL JUDGES ARE GOOD JUDGES.

There are two lectures below; combine them or do just one of them.

I. ADAPTING TO JUDGES

A. CONSIDER TYPES OF ARGUMENTS

1. Theory arguments

2. Inherency arguments

3. Needs a disadvantage?

B. CONSIDER DELIVERY

1. Fast or slow?

2. Focus on judge or “information processing”?

3. Speak from podium or from seat?

C. CONSIDER HOW TO WEIGH ARGUMENTS

1. Stock Issues (Sig., Inh., Solv., Disad., Topicality)

2. Policy Maker (Adv. versus Disads of Topical Plan)

3. Narrative (Whose story is more consistent, uses better reasons and values?)

4. Gamesplayer (Who makes the better case for winning?)

5. Hypothesis Tester (Does the affirmative prove the resolution true?)

D. CONSIDER OPEN-MINDEDNESS OF JUDGE

1. Tabula Rasa (Open minded to all arguments)

2. Critic of Argument (Skeptical of counter-intuitive and weakly supported arguments)

3. Assessor (Will ignore some arguments)

4. Punishment (Punishes teams for presenting certain arguments)

E. HOW TO FIND OUT ABOUT YOUR JUDGE

1. Talk to coach

2. Talk to other debaters

3. Think back to previous rounds

4. Carry a stack of ballots in alphabetical order

5. Watch the judge like a hawk during the round

6. Talk to judges about what they like

 

II. ADAPTING ARGUMENTS TO DIFFERING JUDGES

For this discussion, we will focus on two main types of judges:

TRADITIONALISTS:  These judges are normally stock-issues or communication-oriented.  They may prefer a slower rate of delivery.  They emphasize the style and rhetorical persuasion of an argument as much as its evidentiary substance. 

NATIONAL CIRCUIT STYLE: These judges are usually former high school debaters, or current or former college debaters.  Their paradigm is usually something like "policymaker."  They prefer a faster rate of delivery.  They tend to "weigh impacts."  They tend to place high importance on how the arguments are explained in the last two rebuttals.

A. ADAPTING CRITIQUES TO TRADITIONAL JUDGES

A critique (also called "Kritik") is an argument which makes a philosophical objection to the assumptions made by the affirmative case.  When arguing a critique in front of traditional judges, debaters should:

1.  Carefully and patiently explain the philosophical questions at hand. 

2.  Verbally diagram the foundation analogy.  The foundation analogy says that the affirmative case rests on a particular philosophical foundation, just as a house rests on a material foundation.  If the foundation is "cracked" or flawed, the house will fall down.  If the philosophical foundation of the affirmative is flawed, then the entire case should be rejected because none of its conclusions can be assumed to be sound.

3.  Regularly refer to the philosophers who inspired the critique.  Traditional judges love to see debaters with a working philosophical vocabulary.

4.  Carefully explain why the critique is a voting issue.  Explain that critiques are more powerful than disadvantages because philosophical argumentation is more important than speculation about unlikely impacts.

B. ADAPTING CRITIQUES TO NATIONAL CIRCUIT JUDGES

Critiques in front of a national circuit judge:  Many national circuit critics are still reluctant to vote for critiques because they feel they are not sound voting issues.  For example, many judges assume the critique is "just a non-unique disadvantage."  At the same time, teams who have worked hard to understand their critique argument will be happy debating in front of judges who also make an attempt to understand it.

When arguing a critique in front of national circuit judges, debaters should:

1.  Include a short overview at the beginning of the critique shell, explaining the thesis of the critique, why the affirmative links, and why it is a voting issue.

2.  Continue, when going for the critique in the negative block, to refer to the key pieces of evidence in the critique by author and date, as well as what the argument says.

3.  Explain the implications of particular parts of the critique being unanswered by the affirmative (eg, they granted the impacts and only argued the links, or vice versa).

4.  Read several more cards in the block building up both the links and impacts of the critique.

C. ADAPTING DISADVANTAGES TO TRADITIONAL JUDGES

We all know what disadvantages are, right?  But in order to conceive of disadvantages in front of different styles of judges, it is important to think about what a disadvantage really says.

Disadvantages in front of traditional judges:  This is where debaters should emphasize that, like the affirmative case, the disadvantage is a kind of story.  The story is speculative in nature:  It says that the affirmative sets into motion a chain of events culminating in impacts more severe than those prevented by the affirmative plan. 

When arguing a disadvantage in front of traditional judges, debaters should:

1.  Present the disadvantage as a story.

2.  Fill in the gaps (in evidence) with the story.

3.  Carefully explain the risk of the disadvantage and why it outweighs the affirmative.

4.  Spend time on case mitigating the affirmative advantages and explaining how they are less likely to happen than the disadvantage.

D. ADAPTING DISADVANTAGES TO NATIONAL CIRCUIT JUDGES

Disadvantages in front of national circuit style judges:  "Fast" judges usually consider disadvantages to be the "bread and butter" of debate.  At the same time, after having heard so many disadvantage debates, many of these judges are also highly suspicious of generic disadvantages. 

When arguing a disadvantage in front of national circuit judges, debaters should:

1.  Have the most recent updates possible for uniqueness and brinks.  You should check the newspaper or your on-line information service every day.  Uniqueness "from today" is always great to have.

2.  Answer every single affirmative answer to the disadvantage.  These judges will not give you leeway when you drop arguments.

3.  Explain the link and why uniqueness makes the link important. 

4.  Read as many extention cards as possible (and as necessary) even into the 2NR.

E. ADAPTING CASE ARGUMENTS TO TRADITIONAL JUDGES

Case argumentation has become a "lost art."  Many teams don't even go to case, instead relying on offcase arguments to outweigh the affirmative.  But judges still say they like to see it more often.

Debaters running case arguments in front of traditional judges should:

1.  Explain which of the stock issues (solvency, inherency, harms, significance) they are arguing against.

2.  Give "impacts" to the case arguments. 

3.  Make good analytical argumentation when no evidence is available.  Traditional judges will be especially impressed by this, since many such judges feel that debaters today are too reliant on evidence.

F. ADAPTING CASE ARGUMENTS TO NATIONAL CIRCUIT JUDGES

Debaters running case arguments in front of national circuit judges should:

1.  Clearly signpost the part of case you are answering.

2.  Make lots of arguments (including both claims and reasons for the claims), forcing the 2AC to answer them.

3.  Extend 2 or 3 voting issues on case in the 2NC or the 1NR.

G. ADAPTING TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS TO TRADITIONAL JUDGES

Many traditional AND national style judges are reluctant to vote on topicality, especially late in the year when cases have been run for a long time.  But this generalization should not be applied to all judges.  Some have no problem voting on topicality, both as a way of holding the affirmative accountable and as an "easy way" to make a decision without having to look to case or disadvantage card wars.

Debaters running topicality in front of traditional judges should:

1. Attack plans that are clearly not within the mainstream of the topic because they are outside the topic or are a very narrow interpretation of the topic. DON’T GO FOR TOPICALITY AGAINST BASICALLY TOPICAL CASES.

2.  Remind the judge that topicality is one of the stock issues.

3.  Emphasize that topicality is more than just a "ground issue."  It is a stock issue.

4.  Use phrases like "resolutional integrity" and "framers' intent."  Make it clear that the affirmative has BROKEN THE RULES!

H. ADAPTING TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS TO NATIONAL CIRCUIT JUDGES

Debaters running topicality in front of national circuit judges should:

1.  Show that the affirmative interpretation would cause harmful consequences—they would make topic too broad to be able to do research against; that their interpretation takes away critical negative arguments that you need to be able to win. DON’T LET THE AFF JUST COUNTER-DEFINE. Show that their counter-definition is BAD.

2.  Explain why ground loss is important.  Tell the judge you can't run disadvantages against plans which (eg) do not "substantially change" foreign policy.

3.  Explain the implications of topicality to the debate community.  Talk about how limited topics are best for small, resource-challenged schools.

4.  Read extention evidence on the definitions.