Review — The Shape of a Debate
The “shape” of a debate is not random—it is based on the structure and function of each of the speeches in the debate.
Some speeches are set up to “widen” the debate — to introduce new arguments and expand the number of options for
later in the debate. Other speeches need to “narrow” the debate — to extend fewer arguments in more depth to focus
the debate on the arguments most important to winning.
The 1NC introduces the
case position of the
affirmative. Some 1ACs
have lots of arguments,
while others have fewer,
more developed
arguments.
The 2AC widens the
debate by introducing new
offense on the off-case and
by reading add-ons (new
advantages in the 2AC).
The 1AR narrows the
debate by choosing only a
few arguments to extend
on each off-case position.
It can also kick an
advantage.
1AC
1NC
2AC
2NC/1NR
1AR
2NR
The 2AR has the most
narrow speech because
they should choose a very
small number of arguments
on each off-case and only
have to answer the case
attacks that the 2NR
extended.
2AR
Speeches that Should Widen the Debate
1NC
2AC
Speeches that Should Narrow and Deepen the Debate
2NC/1NR
1AR
2NR
2AR
The 1NC widens the
debate when they
introduce new off-case
positions and case attacks.
The 1NC usually contains
many options.
The 2NC/1NR have the
most time in the debate.
They should use this time
to narrow the number of
arguments in the debate by
increasing the depth on
each of those arguments.
For example, the negative
might only extend two of
the four off-case positions
and only two arguments on
each case flow.
The 2NR narrows the
debate by choosing the
final negative strategy — a
cohesive attack on the
affirmative. It will kick
other negative arguments.
Why Not Continue to Widen the Debate After the 2AC?
Certainly other speeches can widen the debate. One place where debaters often want to widen the debate (or at least
not narrow it) is the negative block. They believe that the block is very long, so why not extend all of the arguments to
put pressure on the 1AR? While this logic has some initial appeal, an example of how time constraints play out in a
debate serves to show why this isn’t a good strategy against a competitive team.
Scenario 1
Imagine, for the purposes of simplicity, that the in the 1NC Negative reads five off-case positions that are one minute
each and spends one minute on each of two advantages and one minute on solvency. So, at the end of that 1NC, the
negative has advanced 8 major positions and spent one minute on each position.
If the negative then decides to extend all of these positions into the block and spends equal time answering the 2AC and
developing the argument for each, they will spend an additional 1:37 on each of these positions in the block.
Going into the 1AR, then, the negative has spent 2:37 on each of their major positions. Yes, the affirmative has to cover
more positions (8) than if the negative had kicked some, but each of these positions is not very well developed. The
negative cedes the time advantage of the block by leaving their positions very shallowly developed. If the affirmative is
adequate on time allocation, they will likely be able to develop a few 2AC arguments on each flow and beat the negative
positions.
Scenario 2
Imagine the same 1NC — five off-case positions that are one minute each and one each minute on two advantages and
solvency.
In this debate, though, the negative decides to extend only two off-case positions (perhaps a DA and a counterplan) and
answer the two advantages and solvency. This means that they advance five negative positions into the block, which
gives them 2:36 for each if they divide time equally.
Going into the 1AR for this debate, the negative has spent 3:36 on each of their major positions. It is much more
difficult for the affirmative to respond to a developed position with good answers to each 2AC argument. It is easier to
“cover” five positions than eight, for sure, but it is much harder to beat two well-developed off-case positions than five
shallowly-developed ones.
Comparing to Affirmative Time
In scenario 1, the 2AC spends about 1:00 on each position and the 1AR spends about :37 on each position for a total of
1:37. In this example, the negative has only spent 1:00 more on each of the off-case positions (1:37 vs. 2:37) and far less
on the on-case positions because the affirmative spent 8:00 of the 1AC developing the case.
In Scenario 2, the 2AC also spends about 1:00 on each position, but the 1AR spends 1:00 on each. Initially this may seem
like an easier 1AR because they have more time for each than in Scenario 1. The important part, though, is comparative
time. In Scenario 2, the negative has spent 1:37 more than the affirmative on each of the off-case positions (2:00 vs.
3:37), a larger relative time difference.
Given that the 2NR has to kick the unneeded positions and that the affirmative also spent the 1AC developing the case,
the affirmative has a lot of 2AR time to spend beating the positions that the negative ends up going for. In order for the
negative to win, they need to be way ahead on time spent on major positions at the end of the 1AR.
Take Home Message
At the end of the debate, the team that has time invested in the important arguments generally wins. Good debates are
won on depth, not dropped arguments.
This strategy also puts the debate more in your control — you rely less on the other team being bad (dropping
arguments) and more on you being good (beating 2AC and 1AR arguments).
This is also why the affirmative is encouraged to extend a few 2AC arguments in the 1AR and to develop them well —it is
more difficult for the 2NR to beat a developed set of aff arguments than ones that are not.
Coverage as a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
While many debates in the novice division are won when the other team drops a major position, that will stop
happening very soon. Good debates are won when teams develop good arguments, not simply make so many
arguments that the other team can’t respond.
Moreover, while “covering” is often necessary to win (it’s hard to win if the 2AC drops a DA), it is not sufficient. As
teams get better, you need to set up the debate to beat good, developed arguments, not just dropped ones.