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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.