The 3NR » Negative Strategy

Maximizing the 1NR’s potential

Roy Levkovitz — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:14:07 +0000

Preface: I was both a 1n and 2n in college, anything I write in defense of the 1n comes from the unbiased perspective of helping the negative win more debates.

The 1nr is the second most important speech the negative will give in the debate. There, I said it, deal with it. You’re crazy Roy!!, the 1nr, that 5 minute 3rd negative constructive? We can all agree that the 2nr is not only the most important negative speech but maybe the hardest speech in debate, but how can that 5 minute third negative constructive possibly be the second most important negative speech after that? The better question is how have people spent so long missing that truism? Hopefully I can convince you all below about the importance of this speech, and then how to more effectively give that speech

Why the 1nr is so important?

First, the 1nr just has as ton of prep. If we assume that the average prep used before the 2nc is 3 minutes, then you can assume the 1nr will have about 14 minutes to prep for their speech (3+8+3). That’s right, the negative has a speech where they have 14 or so minutes to read, analyze and deconstruct an opponent’s evidence. Time to re-read your own evidence, and prep out distinctions between your argument and your opponent’s arguments.

Second, as many of you all might have picked up on, there is no cross-x after the 1nr. Unlike the cross-x of the 2nc where a wily 2a is able to pick apart holes in the negative strategy, the inability to cross-x the 1nr means it is all on the 1ar to point out the problems, logical inconsistencies or lies of the speech. If the 2a embarrasses the 2n, the 1ar can reference the cross-x in the speech rather than needing to really devote time to explaining the arguments, that is not the case in the instance of the 1nr.

Finally, the 1ar gets 3 minutes free minutes of prep during the cx of the 2nc, so “sandbagging” some of the more prep intensive / important arguments to the 1nr also means the aff would either need to take more prep on issues, or just neglect them.

Optimizing the 1nr

Now that we know why the 1nr is such a dangerous tool for the negative, I’ll talk about how to make sure the 1nr gets utilized in an effective manner.

Pre-1nr: All negative teams go into the debate with a certain idea of what the block is going to look like, after the 2ac is done giving their speech the negative should take 10-20 seconds of prep time to discuss what the 2n is going to take and what the 1nr is going to take. After you all have figured that out the 1n should start cross-xing the 2a on the issues they are going to take. This is important for a couple of reasons, first you don’t crap the 2n’s style. If you start asking about stuff the 2n is going to take you might be holding evidence back from your partner who is prepping or might be asking about stuff your partner does not want discussed. Focus that cross-x on what you actually do plan on taking effectively starting your speech during the cross-x

A big point of contention is always about how the negative block should be distributed. Ineffective block distribution is the silent killer for negative win percentages. Poor block distribution makes it easier for good 1as to figure out what the negative is going for and allocate their time on the only viable negative strategy. The most +expected value (+ev) block distribution for the negative is one in which the 1nr takes a position that the 2a had read a decent amount of evidence on, allowing the negative to respond to those card directly. The problem with the 2n taking these positions is that 2nr prep time is extremely valuable, 2ns cannot afford to spend minutes of time reading 2ac evidence, giving those sheets of paper to the 1nr ensures you get evidence comparison + prep time left for the 2nr.

On the college treaties topic back in 2003 I heard about something that really changed my mind on how to optimize the 1nr (I’m sure this was done earlier but one of my first encounters with it). The University of Michigan’s top team was negative in this debate and the affirmative they were debating decided to read a free trade add on in the 2ac. The negative stood up did their thing, and with 3 or so minutes left in the 1nr, the 1nr went to the free trade add on and straight impact turned it. This put the aff in a huge hole. 1st they needed to find their free trade file and get it out, next they needed to continue prepping the rest of the negative block, and third they needed to invest their own prep time after the speech was done to get their free trade house in order. If the 2nc had stood up and impact turned the trade adv some of the “shock and awe” would have been lost, the 1ar would have used the cross-x of the 2nc to get the file out and ready, the 2a would be able to cross-x the 2n on the impact turns. The sandbagging benefit would have been lost completely.

Juke the aff out- I feel like a huge percentage of 2ns give incredibly revealing speeches (like taking states and politics in the 1nr, or 8 mins of the K) they are to clearly telegraphing their moves to the aff. Dividing up the block by giving the 1n a key piece of paper that is viable in the 2nr might make the aff reconsider their 1ar time allocation. If that reasoning isn’t enough think about this, most 1as are 2ns, and since most 2ns go for what / all they took in the block they become less likely to give what the 1nr took any credit in their speech. This is becomes an exploitable play if you know how said 2n/1a thinks.

Obviously this is not a comprehensive list of ways you can utilize the 1nr. Every team has different positions they like to go for but hopefully you all will be able to maximize your negative block’s potential in the future by thinking about this post. The negative should really always have a stranglehold on the debate after the block, the last thing you want to do is let the aff off the hook

K overviews- Do’s and Dont’s

Scott Phillips — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:11:18 +0000

A good K overview should be like a good movie trailer- it should give me as the judge some idea of what is coming but still leave enough to keep me interested. Bad movie trailers either tell too much (and reveal all the funny lines in the movie) or give you no idea what is going on in the movie- and K overviews usually do one of those 2 things as well. Formulating a good overview is like having a good haircut- it frames the rest of the things you are going to do and establishes expectations. Its a place where you don’t need to be bound by having evidence or even rational thought- you are free to express yourself artistically and tell your own story. Sounds easy right?

So why do most K overviews fail miserably? Well the most common reason is they try to do everything in the overview. You can’t talk about the link and the impact and the alternative and your favorite band/movie/episode of the simpsons all in the overview it just doesn’t work. So your overview needs to be specialized, and since you can write them in advance it should be efficient and well thought out. As I see it there are basically a few purposes of a good K overview

-Explanation via analogy- this type of overview takes a complicated idea and explains it with a witty (preferably humorous) analogy so that everyone will understand it simply. This is trickier then it sounds- you can just pick a random even and try to relate it to what you are talking about- you have to identify a similarity at the level of structure or theme. So for example, while it may be an apt analogy to point out that your K of reality is like the Matrix because in the Matrix movie there are questions about reality an analogy like that is too on the nose. It’s an explicit part of the movie that reality is constructed- so by pointing that out you aren’t really doing anything insightful. When I say theme you need to think a little deeper about what is going on. So while it may be obvious that the Matrix relates to the critique of reality, it may be less obvious that the movie Toy Story is really about American unilateralism and the limits of hegemony. Interesting and thought provoking analogies will keep your judge entertained and your points high.

-Clarify points from the 1NC- how does your generic gobbledygook evidence refute the specifics of the affirmative? This is a good concept to pull out in the overview because it doesn’t really relate to a specific line by line argument as much as it relates to the theory of your argument. Arguments that can be used to refute specific line by line claims should be used that way.

-to draw large distinctions- for example if you read a critique of security based on marxist international relations theory and the 2AC responds with a slew of evidence about why postmodern approaches to IR are doomed you will at some point need to clearly explain why your K is not postmodern. This is a perfect issue for an overview- explain what your argument is and why it is different from what the aff evidence is indicting and then you don’t have to do it in response to each line by line argument.

So starting with cap, which isn’t that complicated. The goal of this overview was to convey the basic masking link in a hopefully humorous way:

Why do fat people drink diet coke? Because its an easy outlet for an underlying fear- health. Coke embodies all the characteristics of unhealthy western lifestyle- its cheap, readily available, and absolutely terrible for you. So we’re scared- scared of empty calories, high fructose corn syrup, and diabetes. The way capitalism solves the problem of overconsumption is not to consume less but to consume safer- take out the sugar, replace it, and keep guzzling. This makes us feel better but doesn’t address the underlying problem- thus you see people at a movie get a tub of popcorn slathered in artificial butter, a box of milk duds, and a 64 oz drink- but don’t worry, its diet coke. We don’t think about how the artificial sweeteners cause cancer and are physically addictive because we were only focused on the problem of sugar. It’s the same with renewable energy- our lives are organized around overconsumption and the way we use energy is only a small part of that. Using renewables to cut our carbon footprint or avoid middle eastern oil dependence takes one small problem in isolation and tries to solve it not to make our lives better but to make us feel better. Freed from the green guilt of consuming dirty fossil fuels we are free to continue over consuming all the goods we use the energy to produce. Even if the aff wins their whole case you should reject their flawed method for not addressing the root of the problem and because diet coke tastes like crap.

Moving on to Heidegger. The fundamental premise here is that calculative thought is but one way among many of revealing the world, when we get to caught up in calculative approaches we end up missing things and adopting bad policies. One of the reasons Zizek is so popular as an author is because he takes complex concepts and then uses a pop culture reference to explain them, you can do the same thing.

In the movie Roger Dodger and aging Lothario takes his socially awkward nephew out for a night on the town to teach him to talk to girls. Roger works at an advertising firm and his view on persuasion is simple: in order to get someone to buy something you first have to make them feel terrible about themselves. Convince them that their lives are empty and meaningless and that the only way to fill that hole inside themselves is to buy a pair of cargo pants. He talks to women by using an endless string of glib remarks and snide insults trying to lower their self esteem so that they feel bad enough to go home with him. As the movie progresses we see that Roger’s bravado is a front- it is his life that is totally empty and devoid of meaning. He hooks each potential pick up for a short time but ultimately they are turned off by his act and he ends up alone. Roger has used a flawed form of calculation to formulate his plan, and so he keeps getting poor results.

Ok i’ll skip the part where this gets related to the aff and just outline the arguments made within-

1. Error replication- roger does the same thing over and over again

2. problem solution- his behavior is decided in advance

3. Value to life- he ends up lonely and alone

4. Only one way among many- there are other superior ways to relate to others

Etc.

Lastly, for the psychoanalytic critique of ethics. This argument is extremely convoluted but basically argues that we are all infinitely powerful, but that we deny our power because of “learned helplessness”- we think we can’t actively change the world and so we turn to others, namely the state, to act and live our lives for us. This becomes problematic when it comes to ethics- instead of helping the homeless person we see in our daily lives, we are more likely to vote for politicians who claim they will help someone. This creates a distance between us and those in need of our help. This “gap” becomes filled in by others, often with negative/violent results.

If you dump a frog into a pot of boiling water it will immediately jump out. If, on the other hand, you put a frog into a pot of cold water and slowly turn up the heat it will sit there as you cook it alive. Humans are not much different really. Were anyone to suddenly find themselves plunged into Auschwitz 1943 the confrontation with the heinous acts of the holocaust would most certainly elicit utter moral revulsion. If, however, people are gradually acclimated to injustices history proves they will tolerate almost anything. The same is true for our system of ethical engagement. We have been conditioned to mediate our individual moral law through the system of governance. We attempt to perfect our liberal democracy by gradually becoming more and more open, more just, more ethical. These gradual attempts to improve our relation to the other vis a vis the state, however, make a true ethical connection impossible. The true ethical encounter comes from suspending our belief in gradualism and demanding an immediacy to our moral law: to postulate ethics not as a sliding scale on a slow and steady incline, but as an all or nothing gamble where we must continually risk it all. In the Shawshank Redemption Andy Dufresnee tries to reconstruct his life, his real life, inside the walls of the prison. He returns to work as an accountant, he continues to practice geology, he even gets to sleep each night with the likes of Rita Hayworth and Racquel Welch. Eventually he comes to the realization that no matter how closely he reconstructs his outside life within the walls of the prison it still remains a fantasy. It is at this point, in his rejection of gradualism, that hope of escape, of tunneling out of Shawshank becomes possible. His confrontation with the immediacy of his desire for freedom is a metaphor for the way we must reform our ethical conduct. No matter how many times we attempt to legislate morality through liberal democratic institutions, we are still separated from the other, and from a true ethical encounter by a barrier as real as the walls of Dufresne’s prison.

The other thing is you need to explain specific links/how the alternative would solve in relation to the advantage. Don’t just say “at the top we have three links- they use the state, they ignore the economic system, and they smell bad”. To take an example from this weekend, lets say the aff reads nuclear power with a proliferation advantage and a poverty advantage- that nuclear power allows cheap water from desalination and that solves poverty.

Specific Link- Prolif

Anti proliferation rhetoric perpetuates injustice- it creates a hierarchy of nations- those who can and can’t rationally utilize nuclear weapons. This hierarchy of nations causes structural violence- 3rd world nations are written off as irrational and crazy (probably read a card here)

Specific Link- Utgoff Evidence

Their Utgoff card is a link- it assumes nuclear weapons are only dangerous when used -that they are perfectly acceptable as long as no “shoot outs” occur. This erases the history of violence that accompanies nuclear power and weapons construction- from uranium mining poisoning water supplies to testing on indigenous lands. Utgoff only focuses on “nuclear crises”- the exact mindset our Cuomo evidence is critiquing. (again, helped by a card)

Specific link- solving prolif

The way nuke power solves prolif is boosting US NPT credibility- but the NPT is a violent international regime that uses sanctions as an enforcement mechanism- when the “crises” of korean proliferation arose the international community cut off all trade causing massive famine and turning the entire country into a death camp. Even if the plan is a good idea, the representations they use directly justify the economic weapons that cause structural violence

Now, you should relate the alternative to their advantage

Voting neg solves water better- the reason people can’t get clean water isn’t because water is expensive its because economic equality is rampant due to structural violence. Even if the plan lowers the cost of water that doesn’t change the fact that food, healthcare, and education will all be out of financial reach for most people living in poverty- they don’t alter the fundamental issue of social justice.

We eliminate the need to control proliferation- positive peace ends the reactive cycle of enemy creation and arms racing- the solution to proliferation is not to try and police others from getting weapons, its to scale back our own military to make other nations feel safer and stop prolif on the demand side.

Game Winning Analysis

Scott Phillips — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:37:12 +0000

One of the things judges/coaches beat into debaters heads over and over again is that they need more explanation of things. Instead of explaining the importance of this instead I thought I would post some examples of how to explain things better.

Bad 2NR

Extend conditionality is key to negative flexibility- without it we couldn’t read a lot of arguments, reading a lot of arguments improves the quality of debate because we discuss more issues. Also the affirmative gets infinite prep so we should get something too. Not a voter- reject the argument.

Good 2NR

Conditionality is key to negative flexibility- the affirmative gets infinite prep to select the best case, best arguments, and best evidence. The negative can’t possibly bring this level of prep to every case- conditionality is an equalizer because it allows us to make in round decisions to compensate for the disparate level of preparation- we can kick arguments that are un-winnable and focus on others. The alternative is educationally bankrupt- forcing us to go for a counterplan that is doomed after the 2AC makes the rest of the debate pointless. This outweighs affirmative offense- the affirmative can adapt to conditionality by writing efficient blocks, selecting the best evidence, and having diverse strategic options- there is no other reasonable remedy for the preparation advantage garnered by the affirmative. And- the remedy should not be a voting issue- if the affirmative wins it is illegitimate for us to kick the counterplan then don’t let us kick it- they control their strategic choices like time allocation. If damage is already done its because they didn’t think through the 2AC not because we asserted the option to kick the counterplan.

Bad argument: Extend our evidence that Obama is spending capital on healthcare now. This proves their political capital link should have happened and there is no uniqueness for the Afghanistan DA.

Good Argument: Healthcare should trigger their political capital link- while they are right that they read specific link evidence to our case their internal link evidence is not specific- it just says political capital is key to getting more troops. There is no meaningful distinction between the capital Obama is spending on health care and the capital he would theoretically spend on the plan. In fact health care is a much larger and more controversial proposal than our case- the negative is in a double bind. Either passing big controversial social service programs costs enough capital to prevent troops at which point health care triggers the link, or its possible that Obama can do that and get troops at which point the plan wouldn’t be enough to trigger the link either. It is inconceivable that Obama has some magical goldilocks level of capital that is just enough to do health care and troops but not enough to add the plan- they have no evidence to support this. Don’t believe their BS assertions- failure to hold the negative to a high level of scrutiny on issues like this warps debate- it encourages them to research terrible politics disads that have no value other than they catch the aff by surprise and win because the aff has no specific carded responses- this encourages the neg to evade debate instead of clashing. Defense of this kind should be viewed as absolute- if we win this argument it doesn’t reduce the risk of the disad to 70%, it reduces it to Zero.

Bad 2NR on Try or Die: Our disad is faster than the case- so timeframe takes out their inevitability claims. You should vote negative to avoid war in the short term since we both access the same hegemony impact.

Good 2NR on Try or Die: Look try or die is code for we don’t solve anything- they may win the uniqueness claim that structural factors make long term collapse of hegemony inevitable- but that isn’t a reason to vote affirmative if our disad turns the case because that proves the aff will have no meaningful effect on hegemonic decline. While the economy may make hegemony fail in the long run, our disad is a more proximate cause of hegemonic decline. This means the disad turns the case more than the case turns the disad- its logically possible that failure in Afghanistan will short circuit affirmative solvency, it is not possible that the boost the affirmative provides to hegemony decades from now can prevent our impact. Short term factors should be given higher weight because long term factors are definitionally more uncertain and more likely to be solved by intervening actions. Long term terminal impact uniqueness arguments have been vastly over emphasized in debates in the last decade- it is more meaningful to delay nuclear war for a decade then to vote aff on the absurdly low probability that impact uniqueness makes the da impact “inevitable”.

Bad 2AR on Value to life: Extend our not an idiot evidence that says value to life is inevitable- people will always have value for some reason so there is no way we kill all of it- plus you have to be alive to have value so the case outweighs.

Good 2AR on Value to Life: Existence is a philosophical pre-requisite to value- this makes the case’s death impact a logical prior to the negatives impact. Also- death is irreversible whereas value is fully reversible- we may lose ontology today but hire existential detectives who find it for us next week. This may appear a trivial distinction but if we both win the full weight of our impacts it should serve as the tie breaker. Finally, our impact outweighs on all levels

A. Magnitude- even if hegemony entails a violent ordering of the world that views people as mere objects- that doesn’t devalue every life on the globe- only the lives of countries opposed to US leadership. Extinction effects everyone equally- our impact accesses a broader spectrum than their value to life claims- and if value to life can truly be lost surely some of the people out there have already lost it- their uniqueness is highly suspect because the US has been managing the globe for decades. Death however has a clear brightline- 6.8 billion die if you vote neg- emo kids all ready think their lives have no value.

B. Timeframe- when exactly does our management devalue lives ? Surely it isn’t instantaneous because if it is than its already happened by us reading our case- you should privilege our concrete impacts over nebulous value to life claims. In reality lives wouldn’t be devalued until the US came in contact with resistors to the hegemonic order and had to violently manage them- if we win solvency this will never happen.

C. Probability- our not an idiot evidence indicates that multiple values like reciprocity, compassion, and aesthetics give life meaning. The likelihood that we eliminate all of them is very low whereas the likelihood that nuclear war kills people is certain- it hasn’t been contested. The negatives argument that our impacts are constructed threats is circular- our impacts are constructed because the people who write them construct threats- our Sokal evidence says empirical data should be given the most value- empirically we have been able to prevent war and people maintained their value to life. Prefer this to abstract theorizing.

Adapting at Nationals

Scott Phillips — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:44:50 +0000

If you actually want to do well at NFL/CFL you will need to adapt. Most people do this terribly or not at all. If your attitude is “whatever I do what I want” well then you can do that wherever you live and not need to go to Alabama.

1. Slow down- most judges will want you to go slow, and not slow to you- slow to them. At CFLs I was on several panels where the debaters were like “whats your paradigm” (an insanle stupid question btw) and the other 2 judges said something like “i’m not very experienced… stock issues… persuasion…i’m old…” all of which translates to go slow. Then the teams went “fast” (for them). The other two judges would stop flowing 2 seconds into each speech and the debaters would never notice or care. You are basically rolling dice at this point. Some quick guidelines

-default to the slow side- PT Barnum once said no one ever went broke betting against the intelligence of the american public, likewise, no one ever lost at NFLs for going too slow. It’s pretty simple to see why- if you go fast and the judge doesn’t like it, you’ve auto lost. If you go fast and they are ok with it, you then still have to win the debate. 75%+ of judges aren’t going to like it- so by going fast you have a partial shot at winning 25% of judges (generously)- does that sound like a winning strategy to you? But furthermore, you rarely NEED to go fast in these debates to win. You are not debating the top 10% of national circuit teams at NFL’s, you are debating a lot of smaller regional teams who don’t take debate as competitively as many who would read the 3nr. They will have mediocre cases/evidence, not be very experienced etc. What they will be good at is talking “persuasively”- I put that in quotes because I personally do not find some idiot fluff talking and using folksy wisdom while dropping the politics disad to be particularly “persuasive” in getting me to vote for their plan, but I am no tthe majority judge at these things. So you don’t need to go fast, and it is more likely to hurt you.

-Bad habits- if you do any of the bad speaking habits like stuttering, double breating etc. these are magnified when you try and go like moderately fast for the most part- they stand out more because there is not as much quick recovery like when you go super fast. This makes you sound really terrible. You should be really practicing on having a smooth rate of delivery. If you sound really really good and are smooth judges won’t KNOW when you are actually going reasonably fast because none of the warning signs are there- and lets be clear- many of these judges are about style over substance- so if you can trick them (not hard to do) then you are in good shape.

-Overviews and summaries- actually work well here. For each contention of your case you should have a short introduction that explains the general concept so that your judges hear it before they fall asleep or stop flowing. Same with a disad- a short explanation of the thesis at the top. In later speeches- don’t go for hyper technical overviews, its story time. Very many of your judges will have a predominanlty speech background (or some other background) meaning they don’t know a lot about the topic. This should also lead you to mainstream/simple arguments instead of obscure complex ones. Now some will say “but some judges will be smart” and yes, some will. They will be in the minority however, and adapting doesn’t alienate smart judges because they know you are playing the game, whereas dumb judges will be alienated by you not adapting.

2. Professionalism

-no tag team cx- even if they say its ok, they are lying. They expect you both to be involved in asking and answering questions and really how hard is this

-Dress nice- you may think it sucks that you cant wear your flip flos, lip ring, and slayer t-shirt but are you going to this thing to make a fashion statement or win 10k? This one is a total no brainer, you can make your “im a unique rebel” statements later.

-Be nice- more so than at any other tournaments judges at these things care about decorum, so no matter what the other team does kill them with kindness. All jokes should be double checked that they couldn’t be misinterpreted as mean spirited.

-Minimize prompting – if your partner is about to drop a disad say something, but other wise STFU when they are speaking, this isn’t public forum and its not grand crossfire (thank god)

-Know what your evidence says- you should be able to answer cx questions intelligently without having to constantly reference your evidence or get it back to read it. Particularly if you are the 1A- you should be able to sail through any CX about your case.

3. Realize they aren’t going to call for 100 cards and sort it out- most judges call for zero and at CFL they can’t call for any- so reading 10 link cards is meaningless- read 1 or 2 and then explain them /re read key parts out loud etc.

4. Focus on qualifications- you should always read them in your 1AC/other speeches and emphasize when the other team does not have qualified evidence. Add a little style to this, don’t just say

“economic decline causes war-mead 92″

say “Economic decline causes nuclear war, this is Mead, a Senior Fellow on the Council on Foreign Relations, writing in 1992″

5. Look up- watch the judges to see if they are flowing/paying attention. Make eye contact. Also- note if they are flowing sideways- this is a pretty good sign no matter how fast you are going you are going to fast (esp if your judge is Ross or Dallas).

6. Don’t freak out about disclosure- if the other team doesn’t disclose they probably suck and its not a big deal.

Aesthetics of Debate

Roy Levkovitz — Mon, 11 May 2009 13:56:37 +0000

First, let me clarify cause it seems as if this being taken to an extreme. At no point did I say do not read new affs. I advanced a nuanced difference between one shot affs with lower quality evidence versus the merits of breaking a strong new aff. If you are confused about the difference well… figure it out.

Secondly, I think Scott and Rajesh’s posts both deal with the purely competitive aspect of debate and less with the merits of having good debate, this leads to….

Lastly- the fact that some teams do not have good strategies does not mean that others do not. I feel like some people read pretty good strategies on various affs and discussions post the toc revealed others had decent strats vs affirmatives they did not debate.

Debate as an Aesthetic (Yes K people I’m familiar with a big word too)

Debate is a competitive activity, but so is playing Chess, Checkers, Uno, Apples to Apples and Monopoly. The reason people choose debate is because it is something that is both fun to do and has a competitive outlet. Would people debate if there were no winners or losers and no awards? Probably alot less… I cannot deny that the competition is what keeps manyof us intrigued and involved in this activity. BUT the reason you see people coaching and involved in this activity for so long is because there is something special about this activity that differentiates it from other competitive things. The reason I discussed at 2 different points the debate between Bellarmine and Westminster in the finals is because that is what good debate should be. Its not just about protecting your house, its about having great debates not just in the biggest rounds of the year but every debate should have some greatness in it.

The slippery slope is this if we focus too much and solely on the competitive (breaking unsustainable affs or disads we know are truly false) without regard for the implications this has to the activity what will become of the activity? If debate becomes a race to the ridiculous with bad evidence being produced by the aff and neg we lose what is great about this activity.

I’ve been in debate for around 11 years now and have seen drastic changes in this activity, some good others not so good. This activity has seen people poop in a bag, pie someone in the face, a coach drop his pants, a transition away from the norms of contemporary debate for whatever reason they chose and the advancement of more critical arguments instead of just policy arguments, and finally…. the Internet.

We are at as critical juncture for this activity, the ability to access anything on the internet has meant that we can literally get a hold of anything on the internet good, bad , stupid, fake, credible, or no qualifications at all. Within the framework of competitive success or maybe even external to it ask yourself this when you cut cards and produce files. Am I doing something that betters this activity? It used to be that the worst thing one would cut is an Op-ed and cite it as a newspaper that has drastically changed. It is now our burden to protect this activity.

Balancing the educati0n vs competitive aspects of this activity is something we all struggle with. I’m not sure there is an answer or perfect balance but it is something we need to think about when we decide what arguments to produce or read. What you do has trickle down effects onto others. Much of this one shot aff stuff started in college and trickled down to high school.

Some of you all will say BS Roy you are one of the most competitive people I know. That is probably true. I am not lecturing as someone who is high and mighty superior to you all (while its possible that is true in some instances) but my time as a coach has led me to changing how I approach debate related issues.

To those who believe Scott is gonna bash this post, he cannot he has already conceded. Scott: i dont think ive ever heard u say u yelled at ur kids for not learning, lots of yelling over losingme: well they arent learning not to loseScott: ahahahahah touche ok that comeback was pretty good, i concede

The Meaning Of “Offense/Defense: There’s Only A Risk”

Bill Batterman — Fri, 08 May 2009 16:46:37 +0000

Debaters say a lot of things in debates that are not arguments in themselves but which contain cues that trigger meaning in the minds of their audience (their opponents and, most importantly, the judge). As Roy discussed in an article about “Defense”, one such cue is used to frame the way the judge approaches his or her evaluation of the debate. In many 2NRs or 2ARs, the debater starts with something like this:

Evaluate this debate through an offense/defense paradigm—they only have defense so there’s only a risk that we outweigh.

In many cases, the opposing team does not refute this framing of the debate. In a few cases, they respond by insisting that the judge not evaluate the debate using an offense/defense paradigm and then extend their defensive arguments.

But what does it mean to evaluate a debate using the “offense/defense paradigm?” Distinguishing between offensive and defensive arguments is easy enough; categorizing arguments this way is indeed one of the most helpful ways for new debaters to conceptualize a round. Put most simply, offensive arguments are those that provide a reason to vote for you while defensive arguments are those that provide a reason not to vote against you. Easy enough.

Deploying this distinction between offensive and defensive arguments as a decision-making calculus, however, is a little more complicated. As Roy argues, too many judges use “they’ve only got defense” as an excuse not to make judgments about each teams’ arguments. If the negative goes for a disadvantage and the affirmative goes for “this disadvantage does not make sense (because it is missing internal links, is empirically denied, links more to the status quo than our plan, etc.)”, it is nonsensical for the negative to implore the judge to employ an offense-defense paradigm and therefore exclude consideration of the affirmative’s responses to the disadvantage.

“Offense/defense—there’s only a risk” is not a reason to only evaluate offensive arguments. Offense/defense is a way of categorizing arguments, not resolving them. In the vast majority of debates, it does not provide any helpful guidance for judges as they evaluate the two teams’ arguments.

Instead of reciting this line at the top of the 2NR or 2AR, debaters should explicitly compare the offensive and defensive arguments made by both sides. If one’s best shot of winning is to minimize the importance of defensive arguments against a high-magnitude impact, one should make those arguments explicitly instead of relying on the “offense/defense” crutch. Separating out offensive from defensive arguments is a helpful way to approach a rebuttal, but it does not obviate the need for debaters to win their framing of the impacts… it is a starting point, not the destination.

This should seem obvious to many readers, but it is important to unpack the meanings that we imbue upon certain phrases. “Offense/defense—there’s only a risk” is by no means the only instance in which a few words have come to mean much more than that, but it is certainly one of the most frequently used.

The bottom line is that debaters should strive to make their impact arguments and framing of debates more sophisticated and judges should be leery of assigning meaning to utterances that do not fully communicate a complete argument.