Growth of an Urban Debater: Key Benchmarks
In order to measure the qualitative growth an urban debater, the Urban Debate Network should
have designated benchmarks for each of year of an urban debater’s development. These
benchmarks should help urban debate educators and administrators design teaching strategies and
methods, and should help them assess the progress of individual debaters. Benchmarks can also
assist Leagues in balancing the crucial focus on the scope of programming – student participation
metrics – with results-oriented and sustained commitment to programming that is qualitatively
meaningful and consistent with broader standards of rigor in the high school competitive academic
community.
These benchmarks are offered as objectives for urban debaters to work to achieve, as they are
developing as a debater, though they are not an absolute sequence, required of every debater to be
taught and learned in and only in the designated year.
Year One Benchmarks
Debate Round Mechanics
(i)
Speech order, times, basic roles, cross-examination, prep time
(ii)
Role of the judge, function of the ballot
Debate Tournament Mechanics
(i)
Pairings, prelim rounds, elim rounds
(ii)
Seedings, speaker points and awards, elim structure
Basic Affirmative Burdens
(i)
Case burdens: inherency, harms, solvency
(ii)
Off-case burdens: desirability, topicality
Basic Negative Argument Options
(i)
Case attacks – structure and utility
(ii)
Off-case arguments: disadvantages and topicality violations – structure and
utility
Use of Evidence
(i)
Evidence formatting: tag, cite, text
(ii)
Evidentiary standard in debate: what needs to be evidenced and why
332 S. Michigan Ave, Suite 500 • Chicago, IL 60604 • t. 312-437-0175 • f. 312-427-6130 • www.urbandebate.org
Flowing
(i)
(ii)
Mechanics: structure of a flow, what is flowed
Utility: how a flow is used and why it is used that way
Responsiveness/Clash
(i)
The principle of responsiveness in debate (silence = assent)
(ii)
Line-by-line debating
File Organization and Maintenance
(i)
Labeling and organizing file folders
(ii)
Organizing files as the library of argument options, including filing with subdivisions and the capacity to easily access commonly used arguments
Introduction to the Topic
(i)
Outlining the public policy context from which the topic comes
(ii)
Understanding the Core Files cases and negative arguments
Speaking Skills
(i)
Speaking fluidly, clearly, with proper pronunciation, with adequate volume,
and with eye contact
(ii)
Including the use of emphasis, vocal dynamics, and non-verbal
communication for persuasive effect
Year Two Benchmarks
Speaker Duties
(i)
Affirmative speaker duties and roles: 1AC, 2AC, 1AR, and 2AR
(ii)
Negative speaker duties and roles: 1NC, 2NC/1NR (the negative block), and
2NR
Advanced Negative Options: Counterplans and Critiques
(i)
Counterplans: structure, solvency, net benefits, competition theory, common
utility
(ii)
Kritiks: structure, links, common utility
Creating Negative Strategies
(i)
Assembling pieces to form a coherent position
(ii)
Focusing on the end game: which arguments will be extended in the 2NR
and how the round will be won, including the use of impact calculus
Advanced Affirmative Strategy
(i)
How the case answers the most common winning negative arguments
(including counterplans)
(ii)
Offense (link turn and impact turn strategies), defense (non-unique and takeouts of link, internal link, and impact), and impact calculus
Refutation Skills
(i)
Perfecting the refer and respond construct (“they say x, but we say y”)
(ii)
Grouping and cross-applying arguments while refuting
Argument Inter-Relationships
(i)
Seeing how arguments inter-relate across the flow by considering the real
world context of arguments
(ii)
Resolving the inter-relationships of arguments in a debate in favor of your
own
Introduction to Debate Research
(i)
Techniques for electronic and library research, including the collection of
cites from competition, and wikis
(ii)
Researching for pieces of debate evidence
Organizing the Use of Evidence
(i)
Choosing the best and most useful Core Files arguments, supplementing
with additional research and updates, and not using or deleting weaker
arguments
(ii)
Highlighting or underlining, and carefully filing, all key arguments from the
Core Files (and other files), particularly the most commonly used negative
generics (beginning with the 1NC versions) and 2AC blocks
The Topic: Key Themes
(i)
Reading the key articles and book sections that make up the Core Files and
other commonly run arguments
(ii)
Understanding the broader themes on the topic, both affirmative and
negative, and their public policy contexts.
Speaking Skills
(i)
Speaking clearly and articulately, with minimal use of verbal crutches, even at
higher rates of speed
(ii)
Maintaining clear organization throughout a speech, handling issues in a
debate with the use of signposting and without jumping around, and
beginning the speech with a clear roadmap
Year Three and Four Benchmarks
Affirmative Case Research and Construction
(i)
Seeking and finding evidence sufficient to improve upon a Core Files case
and to construct a new affirmative case, including assembling a case from
internet links and other accessible sources
(ii)
Constructing three layers of affirmative blocks: the 1AC, 2AC front-lines,
and affirmative rebuttal extension blocks
Researching Cases on the Negative
(i)
Tracking down negative case arguments, starting with affirmative research
sources
(ii)
Approaching negative case research as a search for links and case-specific
strategies, including PICs and other counterplans
Building Formidable Generics
(i)
Structure and utility of big negative generic positions that apply to a wide
variety of cases on the topic
(ii)
Maintenance of negative generics – e.g., uniqueness, impact scenarios,
emphasis on links and counterplan solvency so as to make generic strategy
more case-specific
Advanced Topicality Debating
(i)
(ii)
Effective, specifically applied, clearly articulated debating about standards for
interpreting the meaning of the word or words at issue in the topicality
violation, and compelling argumentation for (or against) topicality being a
voting issue
Evidence-based, comparative debate about the language and context of
definitions used to interpret the topic
Using Frontlines and Extension Blocks
(i)
Structuring all blocks so that there is a frontline, from which individual
extension blocks can be written for each point in the frontline
(ii)
Knowing where and why evidence fits on frontline vs. extension blocks
Analyzing and Arguing Over Text
(i)
Close reading skills and their relationship to winning debate “micro-debates”
(e.g., debates about individual cards)
(ii)
Assimilating the relationship between winning “micro-debates” and the
bigger picture
Advanced Cross-Examination Skills
(i)
Projecting confidence, mastery, and the ethos of a formidable debater in
cross-ex
(ii)
Using cross-ex to set up strategies and/or gain concessions about evidence
and what it says, not merely for clarification
Risk Calculations
(i)
The components of risk analysis (e.g., timeframe, probability, uniqueness,
causation, impact)
(ii)
Using risk calculations to explain which arguments are most important in the
debate, and why your arguments outweigh your opponents’
Story-Telling
(i)
Narrating the overall, big-picture story of the debate round in the last two
rebuttals, or setting up that story-telling in the previous two rebuttals,
(ii)
Identifying inter-relationships between issues in the debate and making
strategic or conditional concessions, when applicable, in order to enhance
one’s overall position (“Even if [or though] they are right about X, we still
win because of Y.”)
Advanced Theory
(i)
Conditionality, dispositionality, PICs, kritik framework, agent specification,
permutation theory, and other common theory arguments
(ii)
Performative and other forms of critical debate – including facility with links,
the implications of discourse/speech acts, kritik alternatives, e.g.
Refining Rebuttal Technique
(i)
Word economy, embedded clash and other advanced methods to maximize
clash within speech time limits
(ii)
Rebuttal re-works, mini-debates, and other practice methods to refine
rebuttal technique
Making the Topic Your Own
(i)
Formulating an intellectual position on the topic, and converting that
intellectual interest into an affirmative case and negative generics
(ii)
Gaining an overall strategic view of the most effective arguments on the
topic, and building on that view to obtain a deep knowledge of at least one
sub-area of the topic