8EFPISJ'SRXIRXW
;LEX-W(IFEXI# 8LI)PIQIRXWSJ(IFEXI 'LIEX7LIIX,IPTJYP,MRXW *PS[7X]PI7YQQEV]SJ'SRWXVYGXMZIERH6IFYXXEP7TIIGLIW *PS[MRK8MTW 7]QFSPW 7EQTPI7TIIGLIW
7EQTPI*PS[ -RXVSHYGXMSRXS(IPMZIV] 8VERWMXMSRW7MKRTSWXMRKERH6SEHQETW 'VSWW)\EQMREXMSR 'EWI%XXEGOW (MWEHZERXEKIW %RW[IVMRK(MWEHZERXEKIW
8STMGEPMX] %RW[IVMRK8STMGEPMX] 'VMXMUYIW %RW[IVMRK'VMXMUYIW 6YRRMRK'SYRXIVTPERW
%RW[IVMRK'SYRXIVTPERW
,S[XS+MZI+SSH6IFYXXEPW
8LI*MVWX2IKEXMZI6IFYXXEP
8LI*MVWX%J½VQEXMZI6IFYXXEP 8LI7IGSRH2IKEXMZI6IFYXXEP 8LI7IGSRH%J½VQEXMZI6IFYXXEP
7XVEXIKMG'SRWMHIVEXMSRWJSV6IFYXXEPW 'LIGOPMWXJSV;MRRMRKERH0SWMRK (IFEXI6ET7LIIX +IRIVMG%FFVIZMEXMSRW 'YXXMRK'EVHWERH'MXMRK)ZMHIRGI +YMHIPMRIWJSV&VMI½RK %7EQTPI&VMIJ +PSWWEV]&SVMRK;SVHW=SY2IIHXS/RS[ ;LEX-W(IFEXI#
$EBATE IS ABOUT CHANGE 7E ARE CONSTANTLY
ENGAGED IN A STRUGGLE TO MAKE OUR LIVES OUR
COMMUNITY OUR COUNTRY OUR WORLD OUR FUTURE A
BETTER ONE 7E SHOULD NEVER BE SATISlED WITH THE
WAY THINGS ARE NOW SURELY THERE IS SOMETHING
IN OUR LIVES THAT COULD BE IMPROVED $EBATE
IS THAT PROCESS WHICH DETERMINES HOW CHANGE
SHOULD COME ABOUT $EBATE ATTEMPTS TO JUSTIFY
CHANGING THE WAY WE THINK AND LIVE )N THE REAL
WORLD DEBATE OCCURS EVERYDAY ON THE mOOR OF
THE 5NITED 3TATES 3ENATE AND THE 5NITED 3TATES
(OUSE OF 2EPRESENTATIVES $EBATE OCCURS AT THE
5NITED .ATIONS THE FACULTY MEETINGS AT YOUR
SCHOOL AND AT YOUR DINING ROOM TABLE 4HE
PROCEDURES FOR THESE DEBATES MAY DIFFER BUT THE
PROCESS IS THE SAME DISCUSSION THAT RESOLVES
AN ISSUE WHICH WILL DETERMINE WHETHER CHANGE
IS GOOD OR BAD 4HE 5NITED .ATIONS DEBATED
WHETHER OR NOT THE )RAQ INVASION OF +UWAIT
WAS GOOD OR BAD THE FACULTY MEETINGS DEBATE
SCHOOL POLICIES YOU MAY RECENTLY HAVE DEBATED
WITH YOUR PARENTS AFTER DINNER ABOUT THE SIZE OF
YOUR ALLOWANCE OR WHEN YOU CAN BEGIN TO DRIVE
YOUR OWN CAR
)N THE CLASSROOM WE WILL ATTEMPT TO hFOR
MALIZEv THIS DEBATE PROCESS
9OU WILL WORK WITH A PARTNER 9OU AND YOUR
PARTNER FORM A hDEBATE TEAMv 3OMETIMES
YOU WILL HAVE TO BE FOR THE ISSUE THE AFlR
MATIVE AND SOMETIMES YOU WILL HAVE TO BE
AGAINST THE ISSUE NEGATIVE )N ANY INSTANCE
YOU WILL HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO GET READY FOR
THE DEBATE
9OU WILL DELIVER SPEECHES IN A FORMAT THAT IS
UNIQUE TO DEBATE 4HE SPEECHES ARE CALLED
CONSTRUCTIVES AND REBUTTALS %ACH PERSON
ON EACH TEAM WILL SPEAK TWICE 4HERE ARE
AFlRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVES AND NEGATIVE CON
STRUCTIVES 4HERE ARE AFlRMATIVE REBUTTALS
AND NEGATIVE REBUTTALS
9OU WILL LEARN RULES AND TECHNIQUES THAT
WILL SEEM STRANGE TO YOU 4HE WAY WE LEARN
HOW TO DEBATE MAY AT lRST SEEM DIFlCULT
"UT ONCE YOU TAKE ON THE CHALLENGE YOU
WILL BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND ITS RELATIONSHIP
TO DEBATING 4HE MOST DIFlCULT PART OF DE
BATE IS THE lRST FEW WEEKS AFTER THAT IT GETS
EASIER AND EASIER ONCE YOU HAVE LEARNED THE
RULES
7E WILL DEBATE ONLY ONE RESOLUTION -OST
OF OUR EMPHASIS WILL BE ON COMPETITIVE OR
TOURNAMENT DEBATING )N ORDER TO COMPETE
AT TOURNAMENTS AND TO GIVE THE DEBATERS
SUFlCIENT TIME TO PREPARE A STANDARD TOPIC
OR RESOLUTION IS USED ALL YEAR (UNDREDS OF
HIGH SCHOOLS AT THIS VERY MINUTE ARE BEGIN
NING TO RESEARCH AND DEBATE THE VERY SAME
ISSUES AND IDEAS THAT YOU ARE 4HE RESOLUTION
DETERMINES THE DEBATE AREA &ROM THIS AREA
THERE CAN BE THOUSANDS OF ISSUES SO THAT ALL
OF THE DEBATES ARE NEVER THE SAME AND ARE
ALWAYS CHANGING
4HOSE STUDENTS THAT WANT TO BE CHALLENGED
CAN PARTICIPATE IN DEBATE TOURNAMENTS
AGAINST OTHER HIGH SCHOOLS DURING THE SCHOOL
YEAR
%VI=SY6IEH]XS
+MZI-XE8V]#
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
8LI)PIQIRXWSJ(IFEXI
%HETXIH*VSQXLI4IEGL7XEXI(IFEXI'PEWWMG,ERHFSSO
8LI(IFEXI8SYVREQIRX
$EBATE TOURNAMENTS ARE HELD SO THAT STUDENTS FROM VARIOUS SCHOOLS CAN GATHER AND COMPETE
IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHO HAS A SUPERIOR PLAN TO SOLVE A PROBLEM THAT EXISTS WITHIN THE PRESENT
SYSTEM 7HEN ONE ARRIVES AT THE TOURNAMENT LOCATION IT IS GENERALLY A GOOD IDEA TO WAIT IN THE
MAIN LOBBY OR IN THE STUDENT CENTER WHERE THE PAIRINGS ARE POSTED )T IS RELATIVELY EASY TO LOCATE THIS
PLACE BY FOLLOWING THE LARGEST CROWD OF PEOPLE 4HE PAIRINGS OR SCHEMATICS ARE LISTS INDICATING THE
TEAMS THAT ARE DEBATING THE ROOM NUMBER AND THE JUDGE 4HERE IS A DIFFERENT PAIRING FOR EVERY
ROUND 'ENERALLY THE DEBATE ROUNDS OCCUR IN CLASSROOMS !FTER ONE READS THE PAIRING IT IS A WISE
IDEA TO lND THE ASSIGNED ROOM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO AS NOT TO DELAY THE TOURNAMENT -APS ARE
OFTEN AVAILABLE TO HELP lND THE LOCATION OF THE ROOMS
7HEN BOTH OF THE TEAMS AND THE JUDGE ARRIVE IN THE ROOM THE ROUND BEGINS -OST STUDENTS DO
NOT HAVE A CLEAR IDEA OF WHAT TO DO IN THE lRST FEW DEBATE ROUNDS 7HEN UNSURE ABOUT PROCEDURES
ONE SHOULD NOT HESITATE TO ASK THE JUDGE FOR HELP %VENTUALLY ONE BECOMES MORE COMFORTABLE DE
BATING AND THE NERVOUSNESS WILL SUBSIDE
4HERE ARE USUALLY lVE OR SIX PRELIMINARY ROUNDS IN A TOURNAMENT !LL TEAMS PRESENT AT THE TOUR
NAMENT PARTICIPATE IN THESE ROUNDS 3OMETIMES THERE ARE ALSO ELIMINATION ROUNDS 'ENERALLY THE
TOP SIXTEEN TEAMS ADVANCE TO THE ELIMINATION ROUNDS /NCE ELIMINATION ROUNDS BEGIN THE TEAM
WHO WINS A DEBATE ROUND ADVANCE WHILE THE OTHER TEAM IS ELIMINATED FROM THE TOURNAMENT 4HE
TEAMS WITH THE BEST RECORD IN THE PRELIMINARY ROUNDS ADVANCE TO THE ELIMINATION ROUNDS ! NOVICE
CAN BENElT GREATLY BY WATCHING THE MORE EXPERIENCED DEBATERS IN THESE ROUNDS
!LSO UPDATING RESEARCH AND PRACTICING SPEECH SKILLS ARE A MUST FOR SUCCESS
)\TPEREXMSRSJXLI6IWSPYXMSR
4HE PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION IS TO LIMIT THE DEBATE 4HE RESOLUTION AL
LOWS FOR AN EVEN DISTRIBUTION OF GROUND FOR BOTH THE AFlRMATIVE AND NEGATIVE
TEAMS &OR EXAMPLE THE RESOLUTION FOR THE SEASON WAS 2ESOLVED THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD GUARANTEE COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE
TO ALL 53 CITIZENS 4HE PURPOSE OF THE RESOLUTION IS TO SET THE YEARS PROBLEM
AREA 4HE PROBLEM AREA IS THE SITUATION THAT THE AFlRMATIVE TEAM IS ATTEMPT
ING TO SOLVE &ROM THE EXAMPLE ONE CAN SEE THAT THE PROBLEM AREA IS HEALTH
INSURANCE 4HE INTENT OF THE AFlRMATIVE TEAM WOULD BE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM
AREA 4O SOLVE THE PROBLEM AREA IN THIS EXAMPLE THE AFlRMATIVE WOULD HAVE
TO PROVIDE HEALTH INSURANCE FOR !MERICAN CITIZENS
7XSGO-WWYIWERHXLI6IWSPYXMSR
4HE STOCK ISSUES ARE THE lVE AFlRMATIVE BURDENS THAT HAVE TRADITIONALLY BEEN USED TO SHOW THAT
THE AFlRMATIVE CASE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE RESOLUTION 4HESE STOCK ISSUES ARE PRIMA FACIE THAT
IS THE AFlRMATIVE MUST MEET THESE BURDENS TO WIN THE ROUND BECAUSE THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES WITH
THE AFlRMATIVE
8STMGEPMX]
4OPICALITY IS THE STOCK ISSUE THAT INSURES THAT THE AFlRMATIVE TEAM STAYS WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK
OF THE RESOLUTION !NY VIOLATION OR FAILURE TO MEET A PARTICULAR WORD OF THE RESOLUTION PROVES THAT
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
THE AFlRMATIVE TEAM IS OUTSIDE OF THE RESOLUTIONS TOPIC AREA 6IOLATIONS CAN APPLY TO ANY WORD IN
THE RESOLUTION )F THE AFlRMATIVES CASE IS OUTSIDE OF THE RESOLUTION THE NEGATIVE TEAM WILL NOT BE
ABLE TO NEGATE OR ARGUE AGAINST IT )T IS HARD TO GET NEGATIVE EVIDENCE ON A TOPIC IF ONE DOES NOT
KNOW THE TOPIC &OR THIS REASON THE AFlRMATIVE MUST BE TOPICAL TO WIN THE DEBATE
7MKRM½GERGIERH,EVQW
3IGNIlCANCE AND HARMS DEAL WITH THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM (ARMS CAN BE DElNED AS THE
RESULTS WHICH WOULD OCCUR IF THE PROBLEM WERE NOT SOLVED 3IGNIlCANCE EVALUATES THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE HARMS 4HIS AREA MEASURE HOW MUCH IS NEEDED TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM 3INCE IT IS DIFlCULT TO
DECIDE TO WHAT EXTENT A PROBLEM NEEDS TO BE SOLVED SIGNIlCANCE AND HARMS AS OPPOSED TO SOLVENCY
OR TOPICALITY DO NOT CARRY AS MUCH WEIGHT IN THE ROUND
7SPZIRG]
3OLVENCY IS THE MEASURE OF WHETHER OR NOT OR TO WHAT DEGREE THE AFlRMATIVES CASE SOLVES FOR
THE PROBLEM IT IDENTIlES )F THE AFlRMATIVES PLAN DOES NOT SOLVE THE RESOLUTION THERE WOULD BE
NO NEED TO PUT IT INTO EFFECT 4OPICALITY AND SOLVENCY ARE THE STOCK ISSUES WHICH ONE WOULD WANT
TO PLACE THE MOST EMPHASIS IN THE ROUND ;(OWEVER ONE MUST REMEMBER THAT JUDGES WEIGH THE
HARMS AGAINST THE DISADVANTAGES IMPACT TO MAKE A DECISION=
-RLIVIRG]
)NHERENCY REFERS TO THE NECESSITY OF RESOLUTIONAL ACTION &OR INSTANCE IF THE AFlRMATIVE TEAM
PROPOSES THAT BUILDING LANDlLLS IN THE 53 WOULD CLEAN UP POLLUTION THE AFlRMATIVE WOULD BE
NONINHERENT BECAUSE THERE ARE ALREADY LANDlLLS IN THE 53 )NHERENCY IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF THE
PLAN IS ALREADY IN ACTION THERE WOULD BE NO NEED TO ENACT IT AGAIN
*MEX
&IAT IS THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE AFlRMATIVE TEAMS PLAN IS GOING TO BE PUT INTO EFFECT 4HIS ASSUMP
TION AVOIDS REDUCING DEBATE TO A QUESTION OF WILL #ONGRESS PASS AND PUT THE PLAN INTO OPERATION
)NSTEAD lAT ALLOWS A DEBATE ABOUT WHY IT WOULD OR WOULD NOT BE A GOOD IDEA TO ENACT THE PLAN )N
OTHER WORDS lAT MAKES FOR BETTER DEBATE &IAT IS GENERALLY DERIVED FROM THE WORD hSHOULDv IN THE
RESOLUTION 4HE DEBATERS ARE DEBATING WHETHER THE PLAN hSHOULDv BE ENACTED RATHER THAN WHETHER
IT WOULD BE ENACTED
7TIIGL3VHIVERH6IWTSRWMFMPMXMIW
4HE CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECHES ARE USED TO BUILD THE ARGUMENTS THAT THE AFlRMATIVE AND NEGATIVE
TEAMS HOPE TO WIN 4HE REBUTTALS ARE USED TO SOLIDIFY THE POSITION TAKEN BY EACH TEAM AND TO CON
VEY TO THE JUDGE WHY HESHE SHOULD VOTE FOR ONE TEAM OVER THE OTHER 4HE CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECHES
ARE NORMALLY EIGHT MINUTES IN LENGTH WHILE THE REBUTTALS VARY FROM FOUR TO lVE MINUTES WITH AN
ADDITIONAL TEN MINUTES TOTAL PREPARATION TIME FOR EACH TEAM !LL OF THESE TIMES ARE SET BY THE
TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR MAKING IT IMPORTANT TO READ THE RULES IN THE TOURNAMENT INVITATION SO THAT NO
CONFUSION OCCURS
!# n 4HE lRST SPEAKER IS FROM THE AFlRMATIVE SIDE 4HE !#S RESPONSIBILITY IS TO PRESENT A
CASE AND PLAN WHICH FALLS UNDER THE CURRENT RESOLUTION AND IS THE BASIS FOR THE DEBATE WHICH IS TO
FOLLOW 4HIS SPEECH IS THE ONLY ONE THAT IS PREWRITTEN
.# n 4HE SECOND SPEAKER IS FROM THE NEGATIVE TEAM 4HE .# STRATEGY WILL VARY ACCORDING TO
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
THE CASE WHICH IS PRESENTED IN THE PREVIOUS SPEECH !# BY THE AFlRMATIVE 4HE .# USUALLY CON
SISTS OF DISADVANTAGES TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS AND OTHER NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS SUCH AS CASE ATTACKS
!# n 4HE OBLIGATION OF THIS SPEAKER IS TO ANSWER THE ARGUMENTS PUT OUT BY THE .# 4HIS
PROVIDES THE lRST OPPORTUNITY FOR A TEAM TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE ROUND AND SWAY THE JUDGES BALLOT
TO THE AFlRMATIVE 4HE !# SETS THE STAGE FOR THE REST OF THE ROUND
.# n 4HIS SPEECH MAY BE USED TO ENTER NEW ARGUMENTS INTO THE ROUND BUT IS USUALLY USED TO
POINT OUT ERRORS IN THE AFlRMATIVE ARGUMENTS )F THE AFlRMATIVE TEAM DOES NOT ANSWER ALL OF THE
ISSUES BROUGHT INTO THE ROUND BY THE NEGATIVE TEAM THE NEGATIVE TEAM CAN CAPITALIZE ON THIS ERROR
AND WIN THE ROUND 4HIS SPEECH IS ALSO USED TO EXTEND THE ARGUMENTS GENERATED BY THE .# AND
TO RESPOND TO THE !#
.2 n 4HE lRST IN A SERIES OF REBUTTAL SPEECHES THIS SPEECH COVERS WHAT THE .# DID NOT ANSWER
AS WELL AS WHAT THE NEGATIVE TEAM WANTS EXTENDED THROUGH THE BLOCK EXTENSION OF THE .#
!2 n 4HIS IS THE lRST AFlRMATIVE REBUTTAL SPEECH 4HIS SPEECH IS ALSO USED TO BRING OUT IMPOR
TANT AFlRMATIVE ARGUMENTS AS WELL AS ERRORS IN THE NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS 4HIS SPEAKER IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR COVERING THE NEGATIVE BLOCK 4HIS PERSON MUST HAVE THE ABILITY TO SPEAK WELL IN ORDER TO COVER
ALL THE AFlRMATIVE ARGUMENTS MAKING THE !2 ONE OF THE MOST DIFlCULT SPEECHES IN THE DEBATE
ROUND
.2 n 4HIS SPEECH IS USED TO EXPLAIN TO THE JUDGE WHY HESHE SHOULD VOTE FOR THE NEGATIVE
RATHER THAN THE AFlRMATIVE TEAM !LL ARGUMENTS IN THE ROUND SHOULD BE CLEAR BY THIS POINT 4HE
.2 SHOULD USE THIS TIME TO ANSWER THE ARGUMENTS EXTENDED IN THE NEGATIVE BLOCK
!2 n 4HIS SPEECH THE LAST OF THE REBUTTAL SPEECHES PRESENTS THE LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE AFlR
MATIVE TO MAKE AN IMPRESSION ON THE JUDGE !T THIS POINT IN THE ROUND THE AFlRMATIVE TEAM SHOULD
HAVE EXPLAINED TO THE JUDGE WHY THE AFlRMATIVE HAS WON THE ROUND AND WHY THE CASE OUTWEIGHS
THE HARMS OF THE DISADVANTAGES
'VSWWI\EQMREXMSR
! THREE MINUTE PERIOD OF TIME BETWEEN THE CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECHES WHICH ALLOWS EACH SPEAKER TO ASK
THE OTHER QUESTIONS IN ORDER TO CLARIFY ARGUMENTS
#ROSS%XAMINATION /RDER
! #ROSS%XAMINED BY .
. #ROSS%XAMINED BY !
! #ROSS%XAMINED BY .
. #ROSS%XAMINED BY !
.YHKIW
*UDGES ARE THE PEOPLE WHO DECIDE THE OUTCOME OF THE DEBATE ROUND )N PRELIMINARY ROUNDS
THERE IS USUALLY ONE JUDGE PER ROUND WITH THREE OR MORE JUDGES IN ELIMINATION ROUNDS "ESIDES
DECIDING WHO WINS AND LOSES THE ROUND THE JUDGE RANKS AND ASSIGNS SPEAKER POINTS TO EACH DEBATER
4HE DEBATERS ARE RANKED lRST SECOND THIRD OR FOURTH WITH lRST BEING THE BEST 0OINTS ARE GIVEN
FROM ONE TO THIRTY WITH THIRTY BEING THE VERY BEST *UDGES RARELY GIVE BELOW TWENTY AND THEN ONLY
IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCE 4HE RANK AND POINTS A DEBATER RECEIVES RATES HOW WELL A DEBATER SPEAKS
ENUNCIATES AND PRESENTS ARGUMENTS "ECAUSE OF THESE CONDITIONS THE JUDGE SHOULD BE THE ONE
WHOM THE DEBATERS ADDRESS DURING THE ROUND NOT EACH OTHER
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
)T IS BEST TO KNOW ABOUT THE JUDGE BEFORE THE ROUND BEGINS +NOWING THE JUDGES PHILOSOPHY
ALLOWS THE DEBATER TO ADAPT HIS OR HER STYLE TO THE JUDGES &OR EXAMPLE IF ONE KNOWS THAT A CERTAIN
JUDGE IS A STOCK ISSUE JUDGE ONE COULD DELIVER A STRUCTURED CASE EMPHASIZING THE STOCK ISSUES 4HERE
ARE ALSO OTHER JUDGING PHILOSOPHIES 4HE ONE THAT IS MOST PREVALENT IS THE TABULA RASA JUDGE 4ABULA
RASA OR 4!" AS IT IS SOMETIMES CALLED MEANS THAT THE JUDGE HAS NO REAL PREFERENCE AND WILL LISTEN
TO ANYTHING THE DEBATERS WISH TO PRESENT 4!" JUDGES USUALLY ARE NOT AS UNBIASED AS THEY WOULD LIKE
THE DEBATER TO BELIEVE SO ONE SHOULD STILL TRY TO lND OUT THEIR LIKES AND DISLIKES 4HE NEXT KIND OF
JUDGE IS A STOCK ISSUE JUDGE 4HESE JUDGES LIKE EMPHASIS ON SUCH ARGUMENTS AS TOPICALITY SOLVENCY
SIGNIlCANCE AND INHERENCY 4HESE JUDGES PLACE A HEAVY BURDEN ON THE AFlRMATIVE TO BE TOPICAL
AND TO MEET ALL OF THE AFlRMATIVE BURDENS !NOTHER TYPE OF JUDGE IS THE GAMES JUDGE 4HIS JUDGE
BELIEVES THAT DEBATE IS A GAME AND THE DEBATERS SHOULD JUST PLAY BALL 'AMES JUDGES CAN USUALLY ALSO
BE CLASSIlED AS 4!" JUDGES 3TILL ANOTHER KIND OF JUDGE IS A POLICYMAKER n POLICYMAKERS CHOOSE THE
BEST PATH FOR SOCIETY AND DECIDE WHETHER THE CASE OUTWEIGHS THE DISADVANTAGES OR COUNTERPLANS
2EGARDLESS OF THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE JUDGE HESHE DOES NOT LIKE TO INTERVENE *UDGES LIKE THE
DEBATERS TO DECIDE THE OUTCOME AND TO WEIGH THE EVIDENCE IN THE LAST SPEECHES
!FTER THE ROUND THE JUDGE MAY IF TIME ALLOWS GIVE A CRITIQUE OF THE DEBATERS PERFORMANCE AND
MAKE SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT
7XVEXIK]
;MRRMRKER%VKYQIRX
)T IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE GOOD ARGUMENTS IN A DEBATE ROUND BUT DEVELOPING THEM IS THE ONLY WAY
TO WIN THEM 4HE EXPLANATION OF AN ARGUMENT IS ESSENTIAL IN CONVINCING THE JUDGE THAT THE ARGUMENT
IS ADVANTAGEOUS )N ORDER TO WIN AN ARGUMENT ONE MUST lRST EXPOSE THE mAWS IN THE OPPONENTS
ARGUMENTS .EXT ONE MUST EXPLAIN WHY HISHER ARGUMENTS SHOULD BE VALUED OVER THE OPPONENTS
ARGUMENTS 7HEN TRYING TO CONVINCE A JUDGE ONE MUST EXPLORE EVERY
ASPECT OF A PARTICULAR ARGUMENT ! WELL DEVELOPED ARGUMENT SHOULD
NOT FORCE THE JUDGE TO USE PERSONAL OPINION OR KNOWLEDGE TO MAKE A
DECISION AS TO WHO SHOULD WIN IT )N OTHER WORDS ONE WHO IS hDEBATE
ILLITERATEv SHOULD BE ABLE TO INTERPRET THE MEANING OF THE ARGUMENT
AND MAKE A FAIR DECISION AS TO WHO WON
!S A DEBATER IT IS MOST IMPORTANT FOR ONE TO ORGANIZE EVIDENCE BASED
ON USE AND EFFECTIVENESS &OR A SPEECH ONE WOULD NEED TO WRITE BRIEFS
THAT FEATURE THE STRONGEST ARGUMENTS THAT WOULD ALLOW ONE TO RESPOND
QUICKLY &OR EXAMPLE THE SECOND AFlRMATIVE MUST HAVE BRIEFS PREPARED
FOR EACH ANTICIPATED ARGUMENT "RIEFS SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR TOPICALITY
DISADVANTAGES COUNTERPLANS AND CASE ARGUMENTS 4HE BRIEFS SHOULD BE
NEATLY PREPARED AND EASILY ACCESSIBLE AS TO SAVE AS MUCH PREPARATION TIME
AS POSSIBLE ! BRIEF SHOULD INCLUDE BETWEEN SIX TO TWELVE ARGUMENTS 3OME
ARGUMENTS WILL BE BASED ON EXPERT OPINION AND SOME INVOLVE LOGICAL AR
GUMENTS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE PUBLISHED EVIDENCE 4HE NUMBER OF ARGUMENTS INCLUDED IN A BRIEF
SHOULD BE BASED ON THE !S READING ABILITY AND THE STRENGTH OF THE ARGUMENT BEING ANSWERED
4HE STRONGEST ARGUMENTS AGAINST A CASE SHOULD BE GIVEN THE MOST TIME /RGANIZATION OF BRIEFS IS
AS IMPORTANT AS CONTENT &OR THIS REASON ALL OF THE ! BRIEFS TO AN ARGUMENT SHOULD BE KEPT IN THE
SAME PLACE 2EMEMBER TIME LOST LOOKING FOR BRIEFS MEANS LESS PREPARATION TIME FOR THE !2 )T
ALSO MEANS LESS PREPARATION TIME FOR ARGUMENTS THAT ONE MIGHT NOT HAVE BRIEFS FOR /RGANIZATION
EFlCIENCY AND CONTENT ARE THE THREE THINGS THAT MAKE A GOOD !# 4HIS PHILOSOPHY SHOULD BE USED
FOR ALL SPEECHES
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
'LIEX7LIIX
7TIIGL3VHIVERH6IWTSRWMFMPMXMIW
ALL SPEECH TIMES IN MINUTES
#/.3425#4)6% 30%%#(%3
*R (IGH
(3
#OLLEGE
!# n 2EAD THE CASE AND PLAN #8 n .# ASKS THE QUESTIONS .# n 0RESENT THE DISADVANTAGE SHELLS lRST IF TIME PERMITS CASE ARGUMENTS
#8 n !# ASKS THE QUESTIONS !# n !NSWER !,, NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS 2EBUILD AND STRENGTHEN THE CASE 0OINT OUT ARGUMENTS THAT
THE NEGATIVE HAS NOT ATTACKED
#8 n .# ASKS THE QUESTIONS .# n 0RESENT ANY ADDITIONAL CASE ARGUMENTS NOT COVERED BY .# 2EMEMBER TO TAKE ONLY PART OF THE NEGATIVE
ARGUMENTS n LEAVE SOME FOR THE .2 SPEECH
2%"544!, 30%%#(%3
.2 n 0RESENT ALL OTHER NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS NOT COVERED IN THE .# $O NOT PRESENT THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS YOUR PARTNER
$ECIDE AHEAD OF TIME WHO WILL COVER WHICH ARGUMENTS
!2 n !NSWER !,, OF THE NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH THE .# AND THE .2 !NY DROPPED ARGUMENT COULD MEAN A NEGATIVE VICTORY
.2 n 0ICK A FEW ARGUMENTS THAT YOU THINK THE NEGATIVE SIDE IS WINNING AND CONCENTRATE ON THOSE 4ELL THE JUDGE EXACTLY WHY
TO VOTE FOR YOU 4ELL THE JUDGE WHY THE NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS OUTWEIGH
THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AFlRMATIVE
!2 n 2ESPOND TO NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS 0OINT OUT ANY ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DROPPED BY THE NEGATIVE TEAM 4ELL THE JUDGE WHY YOU WIN
4ELL THE JUDGE WHY THE AFlRMATIVE ARGUMENTS OUTWEIGH THE NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS
,IPTJYP,MRXW
$ONT FORGET TO BREATHE $EBATE IS FUN n ENJOY IT
!LWAYS POINT OUT DROPPED ARGUMENTS
)F YOU ARE NOT WINNING AN ARGUMENT TELL THE JUDGE WHY THAT ARGUMENT IS NOT IMPORTANT
"% .)#% THIS INCLUDES EVERYONE n YOUR OPPONENTS THE JUDGE YOUR COACH YOUR PARENTS
"EING RUDE DURING A ROUND DOES ./4 PROVE YOU ARE A BETTER DEBATER /FTEN YOU WILL LOSE SPEAKER
POINTS IF YOU ARE MEAN
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
8LI'SRWXVYGXMZI7TIIGLIW
%'
2'
7MKRMßGERGI,EVQ
°'EWI±%VKYQIRXW
4HERE IS OR THERE WILL BE A
SIGNIlCANT PROBLEM
4HE NEGATIVE MAY CHOOSE
TO ARGUE THAT AN ELEMENT OF
THE AFlRMATIVE CASE IS INCOR
RECTˆTHERE IS NO PROBLEM THE
PRESENT SYSTEM IS SUFlCIENT
TO COPE WITH THE PROBLEM
OR THE PLAN IS INSUFlCIENT TO
COPE WITH THE PROBLEM TO ANY
SIGNIlCANT DEGREE
-RLIVIRG]
4HE PRESENT COURSE OF AC
TION IS INSUFlCIENT TO COPE
WITH THIS PROBLEM !BSENT
PREVENTATIVE OR CORRECTIVE
ACTION THE PROBLEM WILL
CONTINUE TO OCCUR
4PER
! SPECIF IC PROPOSAL TO
CHANGE THE PRESENT SYS
TEM IN ORDER TO SOLVE THE
PROBLEM 4HE PLAN MUST
BE AN EXAMPLE OF THE SORT
OF ACTION CALLED FOR BY THE
RESOLUTION
7SPZIRG]
4HE PLAN IS SUFFICIENT TO
SOLVE THE PROBLEM OR AT
LEAST TO MITIGATE IT TO SOME
SIGNIlCANT DEGREE
8LI%'7XVYGXYVI
4HERE ARE BASIC TYPES
)3IGNIlCANCE(ARM
)))NHERENCY
0,!.
)))3OLVENCY
)$ESCRIPTION OF 3TATUS
1UO
0,!.
!DVANTAGES
! 3IGNIlCANCE(ARM
" )NHERENCY
# 3OLVENCY
$EBATERS ARE CREATIVE
SO DONT BE SURPRISED BY
STRANGE CASE STRUCTURES
4HE NEG ATIVE MAY ALSO
CHOOSE TO ARGUE THAT ANY
ARG UMENT MADE BY THE
AF F IRMATIVE IS NOT ONLY
INCORRECT BUT IS ACTUALLY
THE OPPOSITE OF THE TRUTH
#ONTRADICTORY ARGUMENTS
ARE NOT UNCOMMON
8STMGEPMX]8
%'
2'
%RW[IVMRKXLI
2IKEXMZI
)\XIRHMRK4%68
SJXLI2'
4HE !# ATTEMPTS TO AN
SWER THE ARGUMENTS MADE
BY THE .# BUT IT IS ALSO THE
JOB OF THE !# TO PREEMPT
THE ARGUMENTS THAT WILL BE
MADE BY BOTH OF THE NEXT
TWO NEGATIVE SPEAKERS 4HE
!# MUST THEREFORE MAKE
MUCH MORE EXTENSIVE ARGU
MENTS IN CERTAIN AREAS THAN
THE .# 4HIS IS A DElNITE
DISADVANTAGE STRATEGICALLY
AS THE ARGUMENTS MADE
BY THE !# MUST BE GOOD
ENOUGH TO WITHSTAND THE
ENTIRE BLOCK OF NEGATIVE
ATTACKS
4HE .# MUST CHOOSE
SOME BUT ./4 !,, OF
THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY
THE .# TO EXTEND 4HE
. AND THE . MUST COM
MUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER TO
MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE NOT
TRYING TO EXTEND THE SAME
ARGUMENTS
4HE PLAN IS NOT AN EXAMPLE 9WMRKXLI%'
OF THE SORT OF ACTION CALLED -OST !#S WILL ATTEMPT
TO USE ARG UMENTS AND
FOR BY THE RESOLUTION
EVIDENCE WHICH HAVE BEEN
FORWARDED IN THE !# TO
(MWEHZERXEKIW
ANSWER ARGUMENTS MADE
(%W
IN THE .# !FlRMATIVES
4HE PLAN CAUSES UNDESIRABLE WRITE THEIR lRST CONSTRUCTIVE
SIDEEFFECTS NOT NECESSARILY SPEECHES NOT ONLY TO MAKE
RELATED TO THE RESOLUTION OR THEIR CASE TO THE JUDGE BUT
THE CASE
ALSO TO PROVIDE THEM WITH
! "RINK
ARGUMENTS THAT WILL BE US
" ,INK
ABLE BY THE !#
# )MPACT
4HE NEGATIVE ARGUES THAT THE 4HIS IS THE LAST SPEECH IN
BAD EFFECTS OF THE PLAN OUT WHICH AFlRMATIVES ARE USU
WEIGH WHATEVER ADVANTAGES ALLY ALLOWED TO MAKE NEW
ARGUMENTS
THE AFlRMATIVE CLAIMS
-OST OF THE .# WILL BE
SPENT EXTENDING AND EX
PANDING ON ARG UMENTS
MADE IN THE .# 4HE .#
MUST ALSO ANSWER THE ARGU
MENTS MADE BY THE !#
4HE NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS
MAY CHANGE SUBSTANTIALLY
FROM THEIR ORIGINAL FORM
DURING THIS SPEECH
4HERE IS NO REQUIREMENT
THAT THE .# COVER PAR
TICULAR ARG UMENTS BUT
MANY .#S LIKE TO COVER
PLAN ARGUMENTS ESPECIALLY
DISADVANTAGES
2I[%VKYQIRXW
)T IS NOT AS COMMON AS
IT USED TO BE BUT .#S
WILL SOMETIMES MAKE COM
PLETELY NEW ARGUMENTS 4HE
!2 CAN RESPOND FREELY TO
THESE
'SYRXIVTPERW
! .EGATIVE PROPOSAL FOR AC
TION TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM
FORWARDED BY THE AFFIRM
ATIVE 4HESE PROPOSALS ARE
NORMALLY REQUIRED TO BE
NONTOPICAL
4HE OTHER REQUIREMENT FOR
COUNTERPLANS IS THAT THEY
DEMONSTRATE SOME REASON
WHY THE CASE IS A BAD IDEAˆ
vCOMPETITIVENESSv
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
8LI6IFYXXEPW
26
%6
)\XIRHMRK38,)6 8LI,EVHIWX
2'%VKYQIRXW
7TIIGLMRXLI(I
)N MANY WAYS THE .2 IS FEXIQE]FI
LIKE HAVING SEVERAL MORE
MINUTES OF .# 4HIS IS THE
SECOND SPEECH IN WHAT IS
CALLED THE hNEGATIVE BLOCKv
"ECAUSE THE .# AND THE
.2 ARE LIKE TWO PARTS OF
THE SAME SPEECH THE .2
MUST BE CAREFUL TO EXTEND
DIFFERENT BUT COMPLEMENTARY
ARGUMENTS FROM THE .#
&OR EXAMPLE IF THE .#
EXTENDS DISADVANTAGES THE
.2 MIGHT EXTEND ARGU
MENTS AGAINST THE AFlRM
ATIVE CASE
26
3ZIVGSQMRKXLI
4VIWYQTXMSR
SJXLI%6
4HE !2 MUST RESPOND TO
"/4( THE .# !.$ THE
.2 IN A VERY SMALL PERIOD
OF TIME 4HIS MEANS THAT
MOST !2S TEND TO BE FAST
AND AT LEAST SOMEWHAT CON
FUSING 4HIS IS THE SPEECH
IN WHICH THE AFFIRMATIVE
BEGINS TO SELECT THE ISSUES
ON WHICH THEY WILL BASE THE
DEBATE
4RUE THE !2 HAS MORE
SPEECH TIME TO COVER
BUT THE .2 HAS TO BE SO
PERSUASIVE THAT THE JUDGE
REMEMBERS HIS OR HER ARGU
MENTS EVEN AFTER THE !2 IS
OVER 4HE .2 MUST MAKE
SENSE OUT OF THE !2 AND
REFUTE THOSE ARG UMENTS
IN A CLEAR AND CONCLUSIVE
FASHION
'OOD ! 2S WILL MAKE
THESE ISSUES CLEAR TO THE
JUDGE WHILE STILL GIVING THE
!2 PLENTY OF OPTIONS
!T THE END OF A GOOD .2
THE JUDGE SHOULD UNDER
STAND THE FUNDAMENTAL
NEGATIVE POSITION IN THE
DEBATE AS WELL AS THE REA
SONS THE NEGATIVE FEELS IT
SHOULD WIN THE ROUND
5NLIKE THE .# THE .2
IS NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE NEW
ARGUMENTS UNLESS THEY ARE (SR³X*SVKIX=SYV
IN RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS 4VIZMSYW7TIIGLIW
4HE !2 MUST ANSWER THE
MADE BY THE !#
ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE
.# AND THE .2 BUT
4MGOERH'LSSWI
DONT FORGET TO EXTEND THE
4HERE IS NO REQUIREMENT
ARGUMENTS MADE IN THE
THAT THE .# AND THE
!# %VEN THOUGH IT MAY
.2 EXTEND !,, OF THE
SEEM LIKE THE !# WAS A
ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE
LONG TIME AGO REMEMBER
.# -OST NEGATIVES PICK
TO EXTEND YOUR hCASEv ARGU
AND CHOOSE THEIR BEST
MENTS AS WELL
ARGUMENTS (OWEVER THE
AF F IRMATIVE CAN EXTEND
ARGUMENTS MADE IN THE
!# THAT ARENT ANSWERED
BY THE NEG ATIVE BLOCK
SO "% #!2%&5, )F THE
NEGATIVE DOES NOT EXTEND
A DISADVANTAGE THAT THE AF
lRMATIVE HAS hTURNEDv THE
AFlRMATIVE IS FREE TO CLAIM
THAT DISADVANTAGE AS AN AF
lRMATIVE ADVANTAGE
8IPPMRKXLI7XSV]
'IVEN THE NUMBER OF ARGU
MENTS IN THE ROUND IT IS
EASY TO GET BOGGED DOWN
-AKE SURE TO PUT ALL THE
ARGUMENTS TOGETHER INTO
A hSTORYvˆAN EXPLANATION
OF WHICH ISSUES SUCH AS
DISADVANTAGES AND CASE
ARGUMENTS THE NEGATIVE
IS WINNING AND WHY THOSE
ISSUES ARE MORE IMPORTANT
THAN ANY ARGUMENTS THE
AFlRMATIVE MIGHT BE WIN
NING 4HIS STORY IS USUALLY
TOLD AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
.2 AS AN hOVERVIEWv 4HE
OVERVIEW SHOULD BE SHORT
BUT COMPREHENSIVE
%6
8LI*MREP;SVH
4HE !2 IS PROBABLY THE
MOST POWERFUL SPEECH IN
THE ROUND BECAUSE THERE
CAN BE NO RESPONSE TO THE
ARGUMENTS MADE IN IT 4HE
!2 USUALLY WALKS A lNE
LINE BETWEEN EXTENDING THE
ARGUMENTS MADE BY HIS OR
HER PARTNER AND MAKING
ARGUMENTS WHICH HAVE NOT
BEEN MADE BEFORE IN THE
DEBATE "ECAUSE NEW ARGU
MENTS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN
MOST REBUTTAL SPEECHES IT
IS IMPORTANT TO STAY ON THE
RIGHT SIDE OF THE LINE
8IPPMRKXLI7XSV]
! GOOD !2 TRACES THE AF
lRMATIVE LINE OF ARGUMEN
TATION FROM THE !# TO THE
FINAL SPEECH MAKING THE
JUDGE UNDERSTAND WHY IN
LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS
MADE IN THE .2 THE AFlR
MATIVE SHOULD STILL WIN THE
ROUND !S WITH THE .2
THIS hSTORYv USUALLY APPEARS
IN THE FORM OF AN OVERVIEW
TO THE SPEECH
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
*PS[MRK8MTW
$ONT EVER GIVE UP AND STOP 7HEN mOWING
A FAST DEBATER DO NOT STOP AND LISTEN )F YOU
MISS A RESPONSE GO ON TO THE NEXT RESPONSE
9OU CAN ALWAYS ASK THE DEBATER IN CROSSEX
AMINATION FOR YOUR MISSED RESPONSES 2E
MEMBER THE MORE YOU PRACTICE THE EASIER
mOWING GETS
$ONT BE DISORGANIZED 7HEN mOWING THE
DISORGANIZED SPEAKER DO NOT FOLLOW HIS OR
HER EXAMPLE 7RITE ALL OF HIS OR HER ARGU
MENTS IN ONE COLUMN ON A SEPARATE LEGAL
PAD 4HEN IN YOU SPEECH ANSWER ALL OF HIS OR
HER ARGUMENTS 4HEN GO BACK TO THE STRUC
TURE AND POINT OUT WHAT YOU ARE WINNING AND
WHAT YOUR OPPONENT FAILED TO ANSWER IN HIS
OR HER SPEECH
5SE STRUCTURE 3TRUCTURE AND LABEL ALL THE
ARGUMENTS ON YOUR mOW THE SAME WAY THAT
THE SPEAKER YOU ARE mOWING IS STRUCTURING
AND LABELING HIS OR HER ARGUMENTS "E SURE
TO WRITE DOWN ALL THE NUMBERS AND LETTERS
YOU HEAR ON YOUR mOW SO THAT YOU CAN REFER
TO SPECIlC SUBPOINTS OF YOUR PARTNER OR THE
OTHER TEAM LATER IN THE DEBATE
5SE PREmOWS &LOW ALL OF YOUR ARGUMENTS
CLEARLY BEFORE YOU SPEAK "EFORE THE DEBATE
IT WILL SOMETIMES BE POSSIBLE TO PREmOW GE
NERIC ARGUMENTS ON POSTIT NOTES
5SE YOUR PARTNER )F YOU CANNOT mOW ALL
OF YOUR ARGUMENTS BEFORE YOU SPEAK HAND
YOUR mOW TO YOUR PARTNER DURING CROSSEX
AMINATION AND HAVE HIM OR HER lLL IN YOUR
mOW FOR YOU 5SE THE OTHER TEAMS PREP TIME
TO TALK TO YOUR PARTNER ABOUT ARGUMENTS YOU
MIGHT HAVE MISSED
,ABEL YOUR ARGUMENTS /N YOUR BRIEFS AND
PREmOWS LABEL YOUR ARGUMENTS WITH SHORT
ACCURATE PRECISE AND SPECIlC LABELS WHICH
ARE NO MORE THAN FOUR WORDS LONG !S YOU
ARE LABELING PUT THE CRUCIAL WORDS lRST )F
YOU LABEL ARGUMENTS CORRECTLY YOU WILL BE
ABLE TO GIVE A BETTER SPEECH BECAUSE YOUR
JUDGE PARTNERS AND OPPONENTS WILL lND YOU
EASIER TO mOW
8LI2IIHJSV0SXWSJ*PS[TEHWERH
1ER]7LIIXWSJ4ETIV
9OU SHOULD USE MANY SHEETS OF PAPER FOR
EACH ARGUMENT AND YOU MANY WISH TO USE DIF
FERENT mOWPADS FOR DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS )N ANY
DEBATE YOU WILL HAVE
s
s
s
s
A mOW RELATED TO THE !# STRUCTURE
A mOW LISTING ARGUMENTS OF THE .# WHICH
ARE NOT RELATED TO THE CASE DISADS 4 COUN
TERPLANS ETC
A mOW LISTING ANY !# ARGUMENTS
A mOW LISTING EXTENSIONS OF THE .# OR NEW
ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE .#
*PS[MRK7TIIGLF]7TIIGL
!#
%VERYONE mOWS THIS SPEECH 4HE !F
lRMATIVE TEAM SHOULD HAVE THIS SPEECH
PREF LOWED ON POSTIT NOTES OR LEGAL
PADS 5SE LOTS OF SPACE BETWEEN EACH
ARGUMENT
.#
%VERYONE mOWS THIS SPEECH 4HE NEGATIVE
MAY HAVE THEIR GENERIC ARGUMENTS ALREADY
PREmOWED $URING THE CROSSEXAMINATION
PERIOD FOLLOWING THE .# THE .# mOWS
ONTO THE .#S mOW ANY RESPONSES THAT
THE .# DIDNT GET
!#
%VERYONE mOWS THIS SPEECH 5SE CROSS
EXAMINATION TO GET PARTS THAT YOU MISSED
OR HAVE YOUR PARTNER lLL IN THE MISSING
INFORMATION
.# %VERYONE BUT THE .# mOWS THIS SPEECH
4HE .2 FOLLOWS THIS SPEECH WITH EX
TENSION ARGUMENTS
.2
%VERYONE mOWS THIS SPEECH
!2
%VERYONE mOWS THIS SPEECH
.2
%VERYONE mOWS THIS SPEECH
!2
%VERYONE mOWS THIS SPEECH
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
7]QFSPW
GSYRXIVTPER '4
MWTVSTSVXMSREPXS|
WSPZIRG]WSPZIH7
PMRIEV 0
WMKRM½GERGI WMK
WYFWYQIW ‚
MQTEGX -
XSTMGEPMX] 8
ZSXMRKMWWYI :-
MRLIVIRG] -RL
XYVRXYVREVSYRH 8
HMWEHZERXEKI (%
GEYWIWGEYWIH A
HIGMWMSRVYPI (6
HVSTTIHGSRGIHIHEVKYQIRX ’
OVMXMOGVMXMUYI /
GSQTIXMXMZI GSQT
PMRO 0
MWIUYEPWETTVS\MQEXIP] !
EFSZI %
MWR´XRSXIUYEPRSX[SR´XHSR´X &
FIPS[ &
MRGVIEWILMKL B
VITIEXGMXI \
PS[HIGVIEWI ?
KVIEXIVXLER "
SZIVZMI[ 3:
PIWWXLER RYQFIV SFWIVZEXMSR 3FWSV3
VEXMSWTIV YRHIVZMI[ 9:SV9
IZMHIRGIGEVH IZSV3
[MXL [
GSWXFIRI½X GFE
[MXLSYX [S
VMWO 6
[MXLMR[R
VIWIEVGL V
FIGEYWI FG
GLERKI 6
WLSYPH W
XLIVIJSVI ‘
WLSYPHRSX WR
[EWGEYWIHF]@
HIKVII ×
MJERHSRP]MJMJJ
XLIVII\MWXWXLIVIMW š
XLVIWLLSPH 8,
VIEP[SVPH6;
XLISV]O
TSPMG] 4
UYIWXMSR #
WXERHEVH WXH
UYERXMJ] 5
YRMUYIRIWW 9
GSRWXMXYXMSREP'
RSXYRMUYI 29
YRGSRWXMXYXMSREP 9'
FIPSRKWXS D
MWVIPEXIHXS b
JYRGXMSRSJ\ J\
VIPEXMSRWLMT b
TVSFEFMPMX]SJ\ T\
VIEWSREFPI 6
½EX *
FIXXIV &
MQTPMIW ‰
HIR]<
TVIWYQTXMSR /
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
8LMW-W;LEX-X7SYRHW0MOI-RE7TIIGL
*MVWX%JÞVQEXMZI
'SRWXVYGXMZI
*MVWX2IKEXMZI
'SRWXVYGXMZI
7IGSRH%JÞVQEXMZI
'SRWXVYGXMZI
7E NOW PRESENT OUR SECOND
OBSERVATION THERE IS TOO MUCH
CRIME IN !MERICA 4HIS PROB
LEM PRESENTS ITSELF IN SEVERAL
DIFFERENT WAYS 3UBPOINT !
6IOLENT CRIME IS RAVISHING OUR
COUNTRY 4HE 7ALL 3TREET *OURNAL
EXPLAINS IN h4HERE CAN BE
NO QUESTION THAT GUN VIOLENCE IS
A MAJOR PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY
,AST YEAR ALONE OVER TEN THOU
SAND PEOPLE FELL VICTIM TO GUN
VIOLENCE 4HE CARNAGE HAS NOT
BEEN LIMITED TO THE INNER CITIES
4HE STILL OF THE SUBURBAN NIGHT
IS REGULARLY BROKEN BY THE SOUND
OF GUNSHOTSv
4HIS IMPACT IS WORSE THAN
A FULLSCALE WAR 4HE .EW 9ORK
4IMES REPORTS IN h7HAT
IS MOST SURPRISING IS THAT IT HAS
TAKEN !MERICANS SO LONG TO RE
ACT TO THE HORRIBLE COST OF GUN
OWNERSHIP !FTER ALL THOUSANDS
OF PEOPLE ARE KILLED BY GUNS EV
ERY YEAR )N SOME SMALLER COUN
TRIES IN THE WORLD THIS KIND OF
LOSS OF LIFE WOULD RIVAL THE DEATH
TOLL OF A BORDER WAR OR A MAJOR
FAMINEv
3UBPOINT " 2OBBERIES
PLAGUE OUR CITIES *OHN 7ILLIS
A REPORTER FOR THE !LPHARETTA
'AZETTE IN h4HE PROB
LEM SEEMS TO BE ESCALATING )T
IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO ATTEND
A GATHERING OF ANY SIZE IN THIS
CITY AND NOT HEAR STORIES OF
ROBBERIES MUGGINGS AND CAR
JACKINGS 4HESE CRIMINALS DO
NOT DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN OLD
AND YOUNG RICH AND POOR MAN
AND WOMAN !LL ARE POTENTIAL
VICTIMS )F WE DO NOT ADDRESS
THIS PROBLEM SOON WE WILL NOT
BE ABLE TO LEAVE OUR HOUSES WITH
OUT FEARING FOR OUR LIVESv
/N OBSERVATION TWO SUB
POINT ! THEY SAY VIOLENT CRIME
IS A PROBLEM 'ROUP THE TWO
CARDS /NE BOTH THESE CARDS
ASSUME THAT WE SHOULD PASS
GUN CONTROL LAWS NOT THAT VIO
LENT CRIME IS A PROBLEM 4WO
NEITHER OF THESE CARDS SAYS THE
PROBLEM IS GETTING WORSE &OR ALL
WE KNOW TEN THOUSAND DEATHS
COULD BE SIGNIlCANTLY LESS THAN
TWO YEARS AGO 4HREE VIOLENT
CRIME IS ON THE DECLINE #ELESTE
"ROWN PROFESSOR OF SOCIOLOGY
AT %MORY IN h)RONICALLY
AMIDST ALL THIS PANIC AND PARA
NOIA VIOLENT CRIME IS ON THE
DECLINE 5NNOTICED AND VIRTUALLY
UNREPORTED BY THE SUPPOSEDLY
LIBERAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA RATES
OF MURDER RAPES AND OTHER VI
OLENT ASSUALTS HAVE REACHED TEN
YEAR LOWSv &OUR THEY OVERSTATE
THEIR IMPACTS 4HE SECOND CARD
ONLY SAYS WERE A LARGE COUNTRY
NOT THAT CRIME IS WORSE THAN WAR
&IVE THERE ARE NO QUALIlCATIONS
FOR THEIR SOURCES !RE THESE REAL
ARTICLES OR LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
/N 3UBPOINT " THEY SAY
ROBBERIES ARE BAD /NE THEIR
AUTHOR IS AWFUL (ES A REPORTER
FOR A TINY NEWSPAPER )VE NEVER
HEARD OF 4WO THE EVIDENCE IS
WEAK )T ONLY SAYS THAT THE AUTHOR
THINKS THERES A LOT OF CRIME IN
HER CITY 4HERES NO RESEARCH AND
NO WARRANT FOR HER CLAIM 4HREE
MOST ROBBERIES ARE INSIGNIlCANT
4HE ,OS !NGELES 4IMES IN h!LTHOUGH ROBBERIES HAVE BEEN
ON THE RISE SINCE THE EARLY S
THE INCREASE HAS LARGELY BEEN IN
THE AREA OF SMALL BREAKINS
-ORE PEOPLE ARE LOSING THEIR CAR
STEREO BUT THERE ARE FEW MAJOR
ROBBERIESv &OUR THE EVIDENCE
OVERSTATES THE IMPACT 2OBBERY
MEANS YOU LOSE STUFF NOT THAT
YOU FEAR FOR YOUR LIFE
.OW OBSERVATION TWO SUB
POINT ! 'ROUP THEIR lRST THREE
ANSWERS /NE THEY CONCEDE
THAT THE PROBLEM IS SIGNIlCANT
)T DOESNT MATTER IF OUR AUTHORS
AGREE WITH OUR PLAN OR IF THEY
THINK PROGRESS IS BEING MADE
TEN THOUSAND PEOPLE ARE DYING
EVERY YEAR 4WO BOTH !# CARDS
ARE FROM PRESTIGIOUS NEWSPAPERS
4HE AUTHORS ARE BOTH REPORTERS
4HREE PREDICTIONS OF A DECLINE
IN VIOLENT CRIME ARE WRONG 4HE
.ATIONAL 2EVIEW IN h4HOSE
WHO THINK VIOLENT CRIMINALS ARE
GOING TO FADE INTO THE NIGHT ARE
MISTAKEN -INOR ASSUALTS ARE
DOWN BUT NEWSPAPERS ARE FULL OF
STORIES OF MASS MURDERS 4HESE
REPORTS WILL ONLY INCREASE IN THE
YEARS TO COMEv
/N .# NUMBER FOUR )
HAVE TWO ANSWERS &IRST EXTEND
THE .EW 9ORK 4IME CARD )T
PROVES THAT THOUSANDS DIE EV
ERY YEAR 3ECOND THE CARD JUST
GIVES PERSPECTIVE *UST BECAUSE
WE DONT THINK MUCH OF KILLING
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IN THE 53
DOESNT MAN THAT IS THE RIGHT
MENTALITY /N .# NUMBER
lVE THATS ANSWERED ABOVE
.OW SUBPOINT " 'ROUP
THEIR lRST TWO ANSWERS /NE THIS
CARD PROVES THAT ROBBERIES ARE
THREATENING THE SUBURBS 4WO
THEIR ANSWERS ARE ELITIST *UST
BECAUSE 7ILLIS IS WRITING FOR A
SMALL PAPER DOESNT MEAN HER
ARGUMENTS ARE WRONG 4HREE
NARRATIVES LIKE THIS PROVE THAT
NORMAL CITIZENS THINK CRIME IS
A MAJOR PROBLEM EVEN THOUGH
THE NEGATIVE REFUSES TO OPEN
THEIR EYES .# THREE AND FOUR
ARE NONRESPONSIVE 3O WHAT
IF ROBBERIES ARE SMALL THEYRE
STILL BAD %VEN IF YOU DONT DIE
YOU ARE ROBBED OF YOUR RIGHTFUL
PROPERTY
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
8LMW-W;LEX-X0SSOW0MOI3RXLI*PS[
*MVWX%JÞVQEXMZI
'SRWXVYGXMZI
*MVWX2IKEXMZI
'SRWXVYGXMZI
7IGSRH%JÞVQEXMZI
'SRWXVYGXMZI
/" #RIME
!SS GUN CTRL
'RANT SIG
! 6IOL #RIME
2SXI 3R ER
EGXYEP ¾S[ ]SY
[SYPH238[VMXI
XLI JYPP XMXPIW SJ
XLIWTIIGLIWSR
XLI XST SJ XLI
TEKI
!# EV AUTH QUAL
3
%V &VIOL B
6IOL CRIM B
73* 'UN CRIME + DEAD
6IOL #RIME ?
3
3
.94 'UN CTRL ,IKE WAR
%V BAD 53BIG
"ROWN YR LOW
%XAG )
3
.AT 2EV ASLT ? MURDER WILL B
8 .94
PROVES SIG
PERSPECT
.O QUAL
!
" 2OBBERY
3
7ILLIS QUALS /NLY 3!9 ROBS BAD
&EAR FOR LIFE
!UTH "AD
'RANT SIG
!NS ELITIST
%V BAD
.ARR POP PERC CRIME
2OBS &SIG
3
,!4 3MALL ROBS
.2
3TILL LOSE PROP
%XAG )
& DEATH
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
-RXVSHYGXMSRXS(IPMZIV]
"RIEF OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNICATION MODEL
3PEAKER -ESSAGE !UDIENCE
&EEDBACK "RIEF OVERVIEW OF SPEECH MECHANICS
! DIAPHRAGM ENERGY SOURCE OF YOUR SPEAK
ING MECHANISM
HAVE STUDENTS STAND UP AND LOCATE AT BASE
OF RIB CAGE
WHEN YOU GET hTHE WIND KNOCKED OUTv OF
YOUR hDIAPHRAGMv
HAVE A VOLUNTEER COME DOWN AND READ
WHILE BENT OVER AS LONG AS THEY CAN WITHOUT
INHALING $O THE SAME WHILE HE OR SHE IS
STANDING UP 3EE IF THEY CAN SPEAK LONGER
WHILE STANDING
" TRACHEA WINDPIPE
LOOKS LIKE A VACUUM HOSE OR DRYER HOSE
NOT THE SAME THING AS YOUR THROAT ESOPHA
GUS
# LARYNX VOICE BOX
HAVE STUDENTS LOCATE ADAMS APPLE
SELECT A VOLUNTEER TO BLOW UP A BALLOON AND
THEN RELEASE IT FORCING AIR OUT OF THE END
$ SOFT PALATE DETERMINES NASAL QUALITIES
HAVE ALL THE STUDENTS STAND AND HOLD THEIR
NOSE SAY THE VOWELS ! % ) / 5 WITH
NOSTRILS PINCHED
HAVE ALL THE STUDENTS STAND AND HOLD THEIR
NOSE SAY THE CONSONANTS - . AND .'
% HARD PALATE ROOF OF MOUTH
%FFECTIVE $EBATE $ELIVERY
! !UDIBILITY
6OLUME
2ATE
A HUMAN BRAIN CAN COMPREHEND WORDS PER MINUTE
B MOST DEBATERS CAN SPEAK AT AROUND
WORDS PER MINUTE
C GET VOLUNTEERS TO SPEAK AS FAST
AS THEY CAN
D THE REALITY IS THAT IN ANY GIVEN
ROUND YOU CAN SPEAK A BIT MORE
SLOWER AND BE UNDERSTOOD WITHOUT
ANY SIGNIlCANT LOSS OF ARGUMENT
TIME OPTIMAL RATE AVERAGES WORDS LESS THAN THE FASTEST RATE
FOR THE ENTIRE SPEECH $ELIVERY
IS ALSO SMOOTHER
1UALITY
SELECT STUDENTS TO COME DOWN
WITH A PEN (AVE THE STUDENTS READ
THE SELECTION AS FAST AS THEY CAN WITH
A PEN IN THEIR MOUTH &OCUS ON
OVERPRONUNCIATION AND VOLUME
4HE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO IMPRESS YOUR
JUDGE IS NOT BY READING AS FAST AS YOU
CAN BUT BY READING COMPREHENSIBLY AS
FAST AS YOU CAN
" 6ISIBILITY &IVE #S
!NY SPEAKER IN ANY GIVEN SITUATION WILL TELL
YOU THAT lRST IMPRESSIONS ARE IMPORTANT
)N INTERVIEW SITUATIONS MOST PEOPLE ARE
hHIREDv IN THE MINDS OF THE INTERVIEWER
WITHIN THE lRST MINUTES BASED ON THEIR
APPEARANCE ALONE
$ELIVERY AND VISIBILITY ARE RELATED
#OMPETITIVE SERIOUS DEMEANOR READY
TO DEBATE ON TIME
#ONlDENT PROPER RESEARCH UP ON
TIME DEBATE CAMP
#OURTEOUS NOT SHMOOZING FRIENDLY
MATURE
#REDIBLE YOU WANT TO BE
#ONSERVATIVE DRESS APPROPRIATELY
DONT USE STREET LANGUAGE
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
# "E 0REPARED 3PEED %NHANCEMENT "EGINS
"EFORE THE $EBATE
'ET A COUNTDOWN TIMER FOR YOU AND
YOUR PARTNER TO SEE
7RITE BRIEFS TO FACILITATE QUICK DELIV
ERY
A ,ABELS &IVE WORD MAXIMUM
B 3IMPLE GRAMMAR
C !FlX CUTOUTS NEATLY $ONT PUT
EVIDENCE UPSIDE DOWN SIDE WAYS
OR TOO CLOSE TOGETHER
D 5SE A GOOD PHOTOCOPIER
E 7RITE YOUR TAGS WITH A DARK PEN
F 3PLIT YOUR BRIEFS INTO lRST LINE AND
SECOND LINE BLOCKS
G 5SE BRIEFS RATHER THAN CARDS
%VIDENCE TIPS FOR QUICK BUT COMPRE
HENSIBLE DELIVERY
A (IGHLIGHT TAG LINES ANDOR LAST
NAMES AND YEAR OF SOURCES
B 2ETAIN AT LEAST ONE RATIONALE OR
REASON PER CARD .O BLURBS
C 0LACE LONG COMPLEX CARDS IN
!#
D #ITE EVERY CARD ON THE BRIEFˆNO
hSAME SOURCE IBIDv
$ %FlCIENT $ELIVERY AND 4ECHNIQUE
5SE OF ROADMAPS BEFORE THE SPEECH
!LTERNATE EVIDENCE AND PRESSES FOR
JUDGE PEN TIME
5SE NUMBERS !VOID hNUMBER NEXTv
hANDv hNEXT CARDv
5SE DISCREET ARGU
MENTS 3IX CONSECUTIVE
hNOT UNIQUEv ANSWERS IS
NOT AN EFlCIENT USE OF
ARGUMENTS
3IGNPOST EFFECTIVELY
'ROUP AND CROSS AP
PLY WHEN APPLICABLE
7ATCH THE JUDGE FOR
FEEDBACK
% 4IME -ANAGEMENT
!LWAYS BE AWARE OF THE TIME 7ATCH
YOUR TIMER
%STABLISH hCOVERAGE QUOTASv BEFORE THE
SPEECH STARTS
0RIORITIZE +NOW WHAT TO DROP OR BLOW
OFF IF TIME IS SHORT
0LACE EACH ARGUMENT ON SEPARATE PADS
OF PAPER SINCE IT WILL BE EASIER TO TELL
HOW MUCH REMAINS IN THE SPEECH
& 'OING &AST
#OMPREHENSIBILITY IS MORE IMPORTANT
THAN SPEED
3TART OUT SLOW THEN GRADUALLY BUILD
UP
$ONT WASTE YOUR ENERGY BY SHOUTING
!LLOW FOR hPEN TIMEv 0AUSE BETWEEN
MAJOR ARGUMENTS
&ILL TIME COMPLETELY
' -ECHANICS
$ONT SMOKE n NOT ONLY IS IT A DISGUST
ING HABIT ITS NOT COOL YOU KNOW BUT IT
CAN REDUCE YOUR CLARITY AS A SPEAKER
!LWAYS STAND WHEN YOU SPEAK $ONT
CRUSH YOUR DIAPHRAGM
0RACTICE EVERY MORNING BEFORE A TOUR
NAMENT BY READING THE NEWSPAPER OUT
LOUD AND FAST WHILE OVEREMPHASIZING
PRONUNCIATION 4HIS WILL hWAKE UPv
YOUR VOCAL CHORDS AND hOILv YOUR LAR
YNX
"REATHE PROPERLY $ONT BEND OVER
AND READ "REATHE ONLY AT THE END OF
A SENTENCE
$ONT TAKE YOUR PEN WITH YOU WHEN YOU
SPEAK %SPECIALLY DO NOT TWIRL THE PEN
WHILE SPEAKING
( 0RACTICE %FFECTIVE $ELIVERY IN 0RACTICE
2OUNDS
$ONT BLOW THIS PART OF THE DEBATE OFF
BECAUSE hITS ONLY A PRACTICE ROUNDv
4RY TO DEVOTE A SESSION OR TWO EACH
MONTH TO SPECIF IC DELIVER Y TECH
NIQUES
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
8VERWMXMSRW7MKRTSWXMRKERH6SEHQETW
4HE BEST WAY TO ENSURE THAT THE JUDGE UNDER
STANDS THE ORDER IN WHICH YOU ADDRESS ISSUES
IS SIGNPOSTING 4RANSITIONS BETWEEN ARGUMENTS
ALSO HELP THE JUDGE TO FOLLOW THE ORDER IN WHICH
YOU MOVE FROM ARGUMENT TO ARGUMENT 4HIS WILL
BE HELPFUL NOT ONLY TO THE OTHER TEAM AND TO
THE JUDGE BUT ALSO TO YOUR PARTNER (AVING A
COHERENT DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUES WILL HELP THE
WHOLE DEBATE TO MOVE IN A MUCH SMOOTHER WAY
AND ALLOW MORE CLASH WITH THE OTHER TEAM
7IZIVEPXIVQWEVIMQTSVXERXXSYR
HIVWXERH
/N#ASE 4HE ARGUMENTS ON THE mOW PAGES THAT
BEGIN WITH THE !# 4HESE ARE ARGUMENTS WHICH
ARE USED TO PROVE THE STOCK ISSUES OF INHERENCY
SIGNIlCANCE AND SOLVENCY
/FF#ASE 4HESE ARE THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE
BROUGHT UP BY THE NEGATIVE WHICH DO NOT DI
RECTLY REFUTE THE CASE ARGUMENTS OF INHERENCY
SIGNIlCANCE AND SOLVENCY 4HEY ARE USUALLY DIS
ADVANTAGES COUNTERPLANS TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS
OR CRITIQUES
2OADMAP !LLOWS THE JUDGES AND THE OTHER
TEAMS TO KNOW WHICH MAJOR ARGUMENTS WILL BE
ADDRESSED IN WHAT ORDER
! 5SUALLY DONE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
SPEECH FOR THE JUDGES AND THE OTHER
TEAM
" $ONE IN THE ORDER OF USUALLY OFFCASE
ARGUMENTS AND THEN ON CASE
# %XAMPLES
.# 4HREE OFF CASE AND THEN THE CASE
DEBATE
!# 7ILL IDENTIFY THE OFFCASE ARGUMENTS
WHICH WILL BE ANSWERED lRST THEN
THE CASE
.# 3INCE THE .# WILL USUALLY EXTEND
SOME OF THE OFFCASE ARGUMENTS THE
.# USUALLY IDENTIlES THE SPECIlC
OFFCASE ARGUMENTS IN SEQUENCE THEY
WILL BE ANSWERED
3IGNPOSTING !LLOWS THE JUDGE AND OTHER
TEAMS TO IDENTIFY THE SPECIlC ARGUMENT BEING
ADDRESSED WITHIN EACH MAJOR ARGUMENT
! $ONE THROUGHOUT EACH SPEECH THIS
REQUIRES DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN EACH
ARGUMENT AND LABELING EACH ARGUMENT
" 5SUALLY NUMBERS AND LETTERS ARE USED BUT
DEBATERS MIGHT ALSO USE OTHER FORMS OF
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN EACH ARGUMENT
# %XAMPLES INCLUDE h/NE .OT5NIQUE
0RESENT POLICIES WILL CAUSE THE DISAD
4WO .O LINK 4HE PLAN DOES NOT CAUSE
THE DISADVANTAGE 4HREE 4URN 4HE PLAN
SOLVES THE IMPACT TO THE DISADv $EBATERS
CAN SUBSTITUTE THE WORD hNEXTv IN PLACE
OF SPECIlC NUMBERS BUT THE IMPORTANT
THING TO DO IS POST A SIGN WHICH INDICATES
THAT THE NEXT THING YOU ARE ABOUT TO SAY IS
A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT 4HIS WILL NOTIFY THE
JUDGE AND THE OPPONENT TO RECORD EACH
ARGUMENT AND NOT MISS YOUR BRILLIANCE
4RANSITIONS 4RANSITIONS PROVIDE INFORMATION
ABOUT WHERE YOU ARE ON THE mOW WHILE ALSO PRO
VIDING THE JUDGE TIME TO ORGANIZE THEIR mOWS
! 4HIS ADDRESSES THE WAY THAT WE MOVE
FROM ONE OFFCASE ARGUMENT TO ANOTHER
OR BETWEEN THE OFF CASE AND ON CASE
" /FTEN IN THE .# ONE DISAD WILL BE
READ AND WHEN MOVING IT TO
A SECOND ONE YOU SHOULD SAY
h.EXT OFFCASEv
# 7 HEN MOV ING
FROM THE OF F
CASE TO THE ON
CASE YOU SHOULD
SAY h.OW ON THE
CASE DEBATEv
:-'836=
()*)%8
)7
7
037
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
'VSWW)\EQMREXMSR
4HE CROSSEXAMINATION PERIOD OF A DEBATE
IS A TIME WHEN THE PERSON WHO IS NOT GOING TO
SPEAK NEXT IN THE CONSTRUCTIVES QUESTIONS THE
PERSON WHO HAS JUST lNISHED SPEAKING #ONSIDER
CROSS EXAMINATION AN INFORMATION EXCHANGE PE
RIODˆIT IS NOT THE TIME TO ROLE PLAY LAWYER #ROSS
EXAMINATION MAY SERVE lVE OBJECTIVES
4O CLARIFY POINTS
4O EXPOSE ERRORS
4O OBTAIN ADMISSIONS
4O SET UP ARGUMENTS
4O SAVE PREP TIME
-OST DEBATERS TEND TO IGNORE THE VALUE OF
GOOD CROSSEXAMINATION 2EMEMBER OF THE
ENTIRE DEBATE IS SPENT IN CROSSEXAMINATIONˆIT
SHOULD BE A MEANINGFUL AND ESSENTIAL PART OF THE
DEBATE )F NOTHING ELSE DEBATERS TEND TO UNDER
ESTIMATE THE IMPORTANCE THAT CROSSEXAMINATION
MAY HAVE ON THE JUDGE )N CROSSEXAMINATION
BRIEFS ARE NOT READ AND ADVANCED ARGUMENTS ARE
NOT SPEWED OUT #ROSSEXAMINATION WILL INDICATE
TO THE JUDGE JUST HOW SHARP AND SPONTANEOUS
THE DEBATERS ARE )NVISIBLE BIAS WILL ALWAYS OC
CUR IN A DEBATE ROUND AND JUDGES WOULD ALWAYS
LIKE THE SHARPEST TEAM TO WIN 'OOD EFFECTIVE
CROSSEXAMINATION OF THE OPPONENTS CAN PLAY
AN IMPORTANT PSYCHOLOGICAL ROLE IN WINNING THE
BALLOT OF THE JUDGE
,IVIMWXLIUYIWXMSRJSVQEX
]SYWLSYPHYWI
ˆ8IVVMXSV] ˆ4SWMXMSR ˆ5YEVVIP
4ERRITORY IDENTIlES TO THE JUDGE WHERE ON
THE mOW YOUR QUESTION PERTAINS %XAMPLE h/N
SUBPOINT B OF #ONTENTION /NE h OR h)N PLAN
PLANK ))) v
0OSITION SETS UP THE INTENT OF THE QUESTION
%XAMPLE h$OES THE EVIDENCE YOU READ ASSUMEv
OR h!RE YOU IMPLYING THATv
1UARREL BECOMES THE PURPOSE OF THE QUES
TION %XAMPLE h7HERE DOES THE EVIDENCE SAY
OR h4ELL ME WHERE THE LINK IS TO THE DISADv
3INCE YOU ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES TO USE FOR
YOUR CROSSEXAMINATION YOUR WORDING SHOULD BE
PRECISE -AKE YOUR QUESTIONS SIMPLE AND CLEAR
$O NOT TRY TO DEBATE THE OPPONENT IN THE CROSS
EXAMINATION 9OUR BEHAVIOR SHOULD BE DIRECT
YET FRIENDLY
(ERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS THAT EACH SPEAKER
SHOULD TRY TO GET ANSWERED DURING THEIR CROSS
EXAMINATION
2''VSWW<%'
'ET MISSING SIGNPOSTS AND ARGUMENTS
#ENTER MOST OF YOUR QUESTIONS ON THE PLAN
,OOK FOR PLAN ERRORS AND POSSIBLE LINKS TO
DISADS !SK FOR A COPY OF THE PLAN AND READ
IT
-AKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE THESIS
OF THE CASE AND WHAT ADVANTAGES ARE BEING
CLAIMED )F YOU ARE NOT SURE ASKNOW IS THE
TIME DO IT NOT AFTER THE !#
%''VSWW<2'
)F THE .# ARGUED TOPICALITY MAKE SURE THAT
YOU KNOW WHAT THE VIOLATIONS ARE AND WHAT
STANDARDS THEY ARE USING TO PROVE THAT YOU
ARE NOT TOPICAL
-AKE THE .# EXPLAIN ANY ARGUMENTS THAT
YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND
!SK THE .# TO EXPLAIN THE LINKS THRESHOLDS
ANDOR IMPACTS TO THE DISADS THAT WERE RUN
OUT OF THE .#
!SK THE .# TO EXPLAIN WHY THE COUNTERPLAN
IS BETTER THAN THE AFlRMATIVE !SK THEM TO
COMPARE SPECIFIC QUANTIFIABLE DISADVAN
TAGES
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
2''VSWW<%'ERH%''VSWW<
2'
!SK FOR ANY RESPONSES THAT YOUR PARTNER
MISSED
!SK FOR ANY BRIEFS OR EVIDENCE THAT YOU OR
YOUR PARTNER NEED IN ORDER TO ANSWER EVERY
RESPONSE GIVEN BY THE !#.#
!SK THE !#.# TO EXPLAIN WHY HE OR SHE
MAY HAVE GRANTED OUT SOME ARGUMENTSˆES
PECIALLY ON ADVANTAGES OR DISADVANTAGES
%GSKIRXWIXSJWYKKIWXMSRWJSPPS[W[LMGL[EWGSRWXVYGXIHF]+MJ
JSVH&P]XSRSJXLI9RMZIVWMX]SJ/IRXYGO]ERH&IVX)&VEHPI].VSJ
XLI9RMZIVWMX]SJ2SVXL'EVSPMRE8LIWYKKIWXMSRWEVIXEOIRJVSQ
%6+91)28%8-32%2(()&%8)46-2'-4%07%2(46%'8-')
VIZMWIHIHMXMSRIHMXIHF].EQIW11G&EXL
7YKKIWXMSRWJSVXLI5YIWXMSRIV
4HE TIME ALLOTTED FOR QUESTIONING IS A BRIEF
AND VALUABLE PERIOD IN WHICH SIGNIlCANT
INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE OP
PONENT 4HE QUESTIONER SHOULD CONlNE HIS
OR HER SPEAKING TO QUESTIONING THE OPPO
NENT THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR INTERPRETATIVE
OR EVALUATIVE COMMENTS UPON THE REPLIES
OF THE WITNESS &OLLOWUP QUESTIONS MAY
BE USED TO MAKE THE LISTENERS IMMEDIATELY
AWARE OF THE SIGNIlCANCE OF A PARTICULAR REPLY
BY THE WITNESS
4HE QUESTIONER SHOULD NOT APPROACH CROSS
EXAMINATION WITH THE AIM OF FORCING THE
OPPONENT TO CONCEDE THAT HIS OR HER CASE IS
A HOPELESS ONE BUILT ON SPECIOUS ARGUMENTS
AND INVALID EVIDENCE .O OPPONENT IN HIS
OR HER RIGHT MIND IS GOING TO DO THIS !
SIGNIlCANT OBJECTIVE WILL BE ATTAINED IF THE
QUESTIONER IS ABLE TO DISCREDIT SOME OF THE
EVIDENCE ON WHICH ONE OR MORE OF THE KEY
POINTS IS BASED IF SOME OF THE REASONING IS
SHOWN TO BE SHALLOW OR IMPROBABLE OR IF THE
OPPONENT IS FORCED TO ADMIT THE EXISTENCE OF
ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS
#ROSSEXAMINATION SHOULD BE ORGANIZED
4HE QUESTIONER WHO JUMPS FROM POINT TO
POINT WILL NOT ONLY CONFUSE THE OPPONENT AND
LISTENER BUT ALSO WILL BE UNABLE TO PURSUE A
THOUGHT LONG ENOUGH TO FORCE THE OPPONENT
TO UNWILLING CONCLUSIONS
! LINE OF QUESTIONING SHOULD BE PURSUED TO
ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION !S A GENERAL RULE THE
EXAMINER SHOULD NOT STOP THE QUESTIONING
BEFORE THE CONCLUSION HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR
! CONCLUSION THAT IS OBSCURE TO THE OPPONENT
WILL MOST LIKELY BE EVEN MORE OBSCURE TO THE
LISTENER
#ROSSEXAMINATION SHOULD BE CONDUCTED IN A
FRIENDLY ALBEIT TRENCHANT SPIRIT /NE WRITER
HAS OBSERVED h$URING THE EXAMINATION THE
CROSSEXAMINER IS IN CHARGE (IS ;(ER= TASK IS
A TEST OF TACT AND GOOD JUDGMENT (E ;3HE=
MUST AVOID OFFENDING HIS ;HER= OPPONENT OF
THE AUDIENCE AND YET HE ;SHE= MUST NOT BE
TIMID IN HIS ;HER= QUESTIONING 3O LONG AS
HE ;SHE= RETAINS HIS ;HER= GOOD NATURE SELF
CONTROL AND A SENSE OF FAIRNESS HE ;SHE= MAY
CONDUCT A VIGOROUS AND AGGRESSIVE EXAMINA
TION WITHOUT FEAR OF GIVING OFFENSEv 4HOUGH
THE QUESTIONER MAY BE AGGRESSIVE IN HISHER
PROBING OF THE OPPONENTS CASE THERE IS NO
PLACE IN INTERCOLLEGIATE DEBATE FOR THE BUL
LYING TACTICS THE DOMINEERING APPROACH IS
TOO FREQUENTLY SEEN IN CROSSEXAMINATION
-OREOVER THERE IS MUCH DOUBT THAT BULLYING
TACTICS ARE EFFECTIVE h-ORE CASES HAVE BEEN
WON BY PUTTING LEADING QUESTIONS CASUALLY
THAN BY EMPLOYING VIGOROUS AND BELLIGERENT
METHODS OF CROSSEXAMINATIONv
4HE QUESTIONER SHOULD ALWAYS BE IN CONTROL
OF THE CROSSEXAMINATION PERIOD ! TALKATIVE
OPPONENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MONOPO
LIZE THE TIME 4HE EXAMINER MAY INTERRUPT
TO INFORM HIMHER THAT HISHER ANSWER IS
SUFlCIENT 4HIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
EXAMINER HAS LICENSE TO RESTRICT THE WITNESS
TO MONOSYLLABIC REPLIES IT DOES MEAN THAT
HESHE HAS A RIGHT TO PREVENT lLIBUSTERING
ON THE PART OF THE OPPONENT !N EVASIVE
WITNESS SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO AVOID
ANSWERING THE QUESTION
4HE QUESTIONING PERIOD SHOULD NOT BE USED
SIMPLY TO REITERATE IN QUESTION FORM THE
MATERIAL THE OPPONENT HAS PRESENTED IN
HISHER CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECH %XAMINE THE
ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING HISHER APPROACH
AND ATTACK THE AUTHORITIES FACTS AND ARGU
MENTS IN SUCH A WAY THAT HESHE IS FORCED
TO REVEAL INFORMATION THAT HESHE NORMALLY
WOULD NOT HAVE DISCLOSED
4HE QUESTIONER SHOULD ALWAYS AVOID THE
hISNT IT A FACTv FORM OF CROSSEXAMINATION
UNLESS IT IS USED TO ACQUAINT THE AUDIENCE
WITH THAT INFORMATION OR TO GET THE OPPO
NENTS POSITION ON RECORD !S ONE LAWYER
HAS POINTED OUT hAN EXAMINATION WHICH
CONSISTS OF SUCH QUESTIONS MERELY GIVES THE
WITNESS AN OPPORTUNITY TO mATLY CONTRADICT
THE TESTIMONY OF ONES OWN WITNESS AND IS A POOR SUBSTITUTE FOR NO CROSSEXAMINATION
AT ALL 3UCH QUESTIONS MAY lND A PLACE NOW
AND THEN IN AN EXTENDED CROSSEXAMINATION
BUT A CROSSEXAMINATION SHOULD NEVER CONSIST
OF A SERIES OF SUCH QUESTIONS AND NOTHING
MOREv
#ROSSEXAMINATION SHOULD BE CONCENTRATED
ON THE WEAK PORTIONS OF THE OPPONENTS
CASE 4HE EXAMINER SHOULD NOT ALLOW THE
OPPONENT TO RENDER THE STRONG PARTS OF HIS
HER CASE EVEN MORE INVULNERABLE BY ASKING
QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE PARTS
.OT ONLY IS THE DIRECT ANSWER MORE EFFECTIVE
BUT IT ALSO PERMITS THE QUESTIONER TO OBSERVE
LISTENERS RESPONSES AND CAPITALIZE ON THOSE
REACTIONS
4HE QUESTIONER SHOULD MAKE NO PERSONAL
ATTACK ON OPPONENTS 5NLIKE THE LAWYER
WHO IS INTERESTED IN DISCREDITING EITHER
THE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS OR THE WITNESS
HIMHERSELF THE DEBATER IS INTERESTED IN
DISCREDITING ONLY THE OPPOSITIONS EVIDENCE
AND ARGUMENTS
!NSWERS OF THE OPPONENT SHOULD NOT BE
REPEATED UNLESS THEY ARE BEING REPEATED
FOR EMPHASIS 4HE QUESTIONER WASTES VALU
ABLE TIME REPEATING THE ANSWERS AS MANY
BEGINNING CROSSEXAMINERS DO
4HE EXAMINER SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS OF ASKING
QUESTIONS TO WHICH THE ANSWERS ARE UNKNOWN
7ELLMAN INDICATES THAT THE EXAMINER DOES
NOT HAVE TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO EVERY QUES
TION HE ASKS BUT HE WARNS THAT NO EXAMINER
h SHOULD ASK A CRITICAL QUESTION UNLESS HE
IS REASONABLY SURE OF THE ANSWERv
1UESTIONS SHOULD BE BRIEF SIMPLY STATED AND
PHRASED POSITIVELY ,ONG INVOLVED COMPLEX
QUESTIONS ONLY CREATE CONFUSION FOR EVERYONE
CONCERNED
/NCE THE CROSSEXAMINATION HAS BEGUN
THE QUESTIONER USUALLY DOES NOT CONFER WITH
HERHIS COLLEAGUE UNTIL IT IS CONCLUDED
4HOUGH THE PURPOSE OF QUESTIONING IS TO
ESTABLISH THE VALIDITY OR NONVALIDITY OF AN
ARGUMENT KEEP IN MIND THAT THE CROSSEX
AMINATION IS BEING CONDUCTED FOR THE BENElT
OF THE LISTENERS 4HE QUESTIONER THEREFORE
SHOULD SPEAK DISTINCTLY AND LOUD ENOUGH FOR
THE LISTENERS TO HEAR /NE SHOULD NOT TURN
ONES BACK TO THE LISTENER WHILE QUESTIONING
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
±0SSO-HSR´XGEVI
LS[QER]XMQIW
]SYEWOQIXLI
UYIWXMSRXLIER
W[IVMWWXMPP23
=SYEPWSRIIHE
FVIEXLQMRXSV
WSQIXLMRK
7YKKIWXMSRWJSVXLI;MXRIWW
4HE WITNESS SHOULD REALIZE THAT THE RESPONSI
BILITY FOR THE COURTESY AND FAIRNESS RESTS AS
MUCH WITH HIMHER AS WITH THE EXAMINER
4HE RESPONDENT SHOULD MAINTAIN CONTROL
OF HISHER EMOTIONS DESPITE PUGNACITY
SARCASM AND DISCOURTESY ON THE PART OF THE
EXAMINER
4HE WITNESS SHOULD NOT BE AFRAID TO SAY
h) DONT KNOWv )T IS BETTER TO ADMIT EARLY
THAT ONE DOES NOT KNOW THAN TO HAVE THE
EXAMINER DEMONSTRATE IT AFTER THE WITNESS
HAS TRIED TO CONCEAL IT
4HE WITNESS SHOULD NOT TALK SOLELY TO THE
QUESTIONER 4HE QUESTIONER MUST KEEP IN
MIND THAT IT IS THE LISTENERS EVALUATIONS
THAT ARE MOST IMPORTANT
!LL FAIR QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ANSWERED IN A
STRAIGHTFORWARD MANNER 4HE WITNESS SHOULD
NOT TRY TO USE THE OPPONENT TIME BY GIV
ING LONGWINDED ANSWERS $EBATE LOSES ITS
VALUE AND FUNCTION IF THE PARTICIPANTS EN
GAGE IN EVASIVE TACTICS )T HAS BEEN POINTED
OUT HOWEVER THAT THE
WITNESS MAY EXERCISE
SOME CONTROL OVER
THE QUESTION PERIOD
BY CONTROLLING THE
TIMING OF THE ANSWERS
)F YOU FEEL THAT THE QUESTIONER IS RUSHING
YOU YOU CAN SLOW DOWN THE ANSWERS )F YOU
FEEL THAT THE QUESTIONER IS EXPOSING THE
QUESTIONERS INEPTITUDE YOU CAN ATTEMPT A
CONTRAST IN STYLE AND RATE OF SPEAKING
4HE WITNESS SHOULD NOT TRY TO CROSSEXAMINE
THE EXAMINER DURING THE QUESTION PERIOD
2EMEMBER THAT THE TIME BELONGS TO THE
EXAMINER FOR QUESTIONING THE WITNESS WILL
HAVE A CHANCE TO CROSSEXAMINE LATER
4HE WITNESS MUST BE ON GUARD CONTINUALLY
FOR THE TRAPS THE EXAMINER IS CONSTANTLY
SETTING (OWEVER THIS MUST NOT PREVENT THE
WITNESS FROM GIVING DElNITE ANSWERS WHERE
THEY ARE APPROPRIATE ! WITNESS WHO GIVES
ONLY EQUIVOCAL REPLIES DESTROYS THE LISTENERS
CONlDENCE IN HERHIS ABILITY TO GIVE ANY
VALID ANSWERS
/NCE THE CROSSEXAMINATION HAS BEGUN THE
WITNESS USUALLY DOES NOT CONFER WITH HERHIS
COLLEAGUE UNTIL IT IS CONCLUDED
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
'EWI%XXEGOW
4HE NEGATIVE TEAM HAS THE OBLIGATION OF
PROVING THE AFlRMATIVES CLAIMS FALSE 4HERE
ARE THREE MAJOR STRATEGIES OF WHICH AT LEAST ONE
MUST BE USED $ISADVANTAGES 4OPICALITY AND
#OUNTERPLAN 4HESE THREE OPTIONS WILL BE DIS
CUSSED IN SEPARATE CHAPTERS
'ENERALLY SPEAKING THE .# WOULD RUN
THESE POSITIONS AND THE .# WOULD ATTACK THE
CASE ANDOR EXTEND ADVANCE THESE POSITIONS
9OUR STRATEGY WILL VARY FROM DEBATE TO DEBATE
BUT ALWAYS TRY TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE DISADVANTAGE
IN YOUR NEGATIVE APPROACH
,ETS TOOK A LOOK AT WHAT THE NEGATIVE COULD
ARGUE ABOUT THE AFlRMATIVE CASE 7E WILL CALL
THESE CASE ATTACKS
!NECDOTAL EVIDENCE )F YOU HEAR THE AFlR
MATIVE TALK ABOUT ONE ISOLATED EXAMPLE YOU
SHOULD MAKE THE CLAIM THAT THIS IS ANECDOTAL
EVIDENCE &URTHER YOU SHOULD CLAIM THAT ONE
SHOULD NOT BASE POLICY ON ONE EXAMPLE
!SSERTIONS )F THE AFlRMATIVE MAKES A CLAIM
WITHOUT GIVING ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OR
REASONING THIS IS AN ASSERTION AND NOT A
PROVEN ARGUMENT 9OU SHOULD POINT THIS
OUT TO THE JUDGE AS AN UNSUPPORTED CLAIM
WILL USUALLY NOT STAND
DATE OF THE EVIDENCE IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
)F THE AFlRMATIVE READS EVIDENCE THAT SAYS
THE ECONOMY IS ON THE BRINK OF COLLAPSE OR
A WAR IS ABOUT TO START OR SOME OTHER TIMELY
ISSUE WHEN THE EVIDENCE WAS WRITTEN CAN BE
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
6AGUE REFERENCES -ANY TIMES DIFFERENT
AUTHORS WILL USE THE SAME WORD TO REFER TO
DIFFERENT IDEAS OR SITUATIONS ! POLITICAL
DISASTER FOR A $EMOCRAT IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT
THAN AN POLITICAL DISASTER FOR A 2EPUBLICAN
.O CAUSALITY 3OMETIMES EVIDENCE WILL RE
FER TO CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EVENTS BUT THIS
ASSERTION DOES NOT MEAN THAT ONE CAUSES
THE OTHER 4HE TRAGEDY AT #OLUMBINE (IGH
3CHOOL ILLUSTRATES HOW SOME SAW THE CAUSE
AS ACCESS TO WEAPONS SOME AS ACCESS TO THE
)NTERNET SOME AS ACCESS TO VIOLENT GAMES
AND MOVIES AND OTHERS AS PART OF AN ALIEN
ATED SUBURBAN YOUTH 4HE EXISTENCE OF ALL
THESE VARIABLES IN THE SAME PLACE DOES NOT
GUARANTEE THAT THERE )3 CAUSATION BETWEEN
ANY OF THESE PROBLEMS AND THE TRAGEDY IN
#OLORADO
4HE AFlRMATIVE WOULD WIN IF THERE WERE MORE
ADVANTAGES THAN DISADVANTAGES
#ONCLUSIONARY EVIDENCE )F THE AFlRMATIVE
READS EVIDENCE WHICH MERELY STATES THE CON
CLUSION OF THE AUTHOR WITHOUT THE REASONS
AND EVIDENCE USED TO SUPPORT THAT CONCLU
SION THEN THE VALIDITY OF THE CLAIM CANNOT
BE ASSESSED 4HIS IS A POOR USE OF EVIDENCE
AND SHOULD BE NOTED TO THE JUDGE WHO WILL
USUALLY DISMISS SUCH EVIDENCE
"IASED SOURCE "E ON THE LOOKOUT FOR WHY
AN AUTHOR MIGHT MAKE CERTAIN CLAIMS
3OMETIMES BIAS CAN BE REVEALED IN THEIR
JOB THEIR AFlLIATIONS OR THE MANNER IN
WHICH THEY STATE THEIR CASE )DENTIFYING
BIASED SOURCES WILL HURT THE CREDIBILITY
OF SOME EVIDENCE
$ATES /N RAPIDLY CHANGING ISSUES THE
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
(MWEHZERXEKIW
$ISADVANTAGES ALSO CALLED hDISADSv OR h$!Sv ARE NEGATIVE
ARGUMENTS WHICH PROVE THE EFFECTS OF THE PLAN WOULD BE
BAD 4HUS THE DISADVANTAGES ARE COMPARED TO THE ADVAN
TAGES TO DECIDE WHETHER THE EFFECTS OF THE PLAN ARE MORE
ADVANTAGEOUS THAN DISADVANTAGEOUS 4HERE ARE MANY
DIFFERENT PARTS TO A DISAD AND MOST DISADS HAVE SOME OR
ALL OF THESE PARTS 4HESE PARTS ARE
%HMWEHGERFIXLSYKLXSJPMOIETIVWSRWXERHMRK
SREGPMJJ
&VMRO
4HE BRINK STATES THAT A CERTAIN SITUATION EXISTS WHERE SOME
THING COULD GO EITHER WAY 4HIS MEANS THERE IS A RISK OF A
PROBLEM HAPPENING AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE
9RMUYIRIWW
4HE UNIQUENESS STATES THAT THIS PROBLEM WILL NOT HAPPEN
IN THE FUTURE OR IS HAPPENING NOW 4HIS IS REFERRED TO AS
THE STATUS QUO OR WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW
8LIFVMRO[SYPHQIERXLEXXLITIVWSRMWWXERHMRK
SRXLIIHKISJXLIGPMJJ
8LIYRMUYIRIWW[SYPHQIERXLEXXLITIVWSR[MPP
RSXNYQTSJJXLIGPMJJYRPIWWTYWLIH
-EMR´XQSZMR´
0MRO
-QTEGX
4HE IMPACT DESCRIBES THE PROBLEM THAT WILL HAPPEN AND
WHY IT IS BAD 4HIS IMPACT IS USUALLY SOMETHING VERY LARGE
AND HARMFUL 4HE NEGATIVE USES THIS IMPACT TO SAY THAT
THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN SHOULD NOT BE DONE BECAUSE ALTHOUGH
THE PLAN MIGHT CAUSE SOMETHING GOOD TO HAPPEN THE
PROBLEMS THE PLAN CAUSES ARE WORSE
4PER
WSR
4IV
4HE LINK STATES WHY THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN CAUSES THIS PROB
LEM TO HAPPEN 4HE NEGATIVE USUALLY READS A PIECE OF
EVIDENCE SAYING WHY THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN CAUSES THE WAY
THINGS ARE NOW TO CHANGE
8LI PMRO [SYPH QIER XLEX TPER GSQIW YT ERH
TYWLIWXLITIVWSRSJJXLIGPMJJ
8LIMQTEGX[SYPHQIERXLEXXLITIVWSRLMXWXLI
FSXXSQSJXLIGER]SRVIEPP]LEVH
3[8LEX´WKSRRE
PIEZIEQEVO
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
8LVIWLLSPH
4HE THRESHHOLD IS HOW BIG THE PLAN HAS TO BE TO CAUSE THE
PROBLEM PRESENTED IN THE DISAD TO HAPPEN )F THE PLAN IS
A VERY BIG ONE IT WILL PROBABLY CAUSE THE PROBLEM )F THE
PLAN IS TINY IT PROBABLY WONT CAUSE THE PROBLEM 3AYING
THAT A DISAD HAS A SMALL THRESHHOLD INDICATES THAT IT WONT
TAKE A VERY LARGE FORCE TO PUSH THE PERSON OFF THE CLIFF
8MQI*VEQI
4HE TIME FRAME IS HOW LONG BEFORE THE PROBLEM THE DISAD
PRESENTS HAPPENS )F THERE IS AN ESPECIALLY SHORT TIME
FRAME THEN THE PROBLEM THE PLAN CREATES MIGHT HAPPEN
BEFORE WHATEVER GOOD THINGS THE PLAN CREATES )F THAT HAP
PENS THEN THE PLAN PROBABLY ISNT A GOOD ONE )F THERE IS
A LONG TIME FRAME THEN THE GOOD THINGS THE PLAN CREATES
WOULD HAPPEN BEFORE THE PROBLEMS IT CREATES )F THIS IS THE
CASE THE PLAN PROBABLY IS A GOOD IDEA
8LIXLVIWLLSPH[SYPHQIEWYVILS[LEVHXLITPER
[SYPHLEZIXSTYWLJSVXLITIVWSRXSJEPPSJJXLI
GPMJJ-JXLITIVWSR[EWWIZIRJIIXJVSQXLIIHKI
SJXLIGPMJJ XLITPER[SYPHLEZIXSFILYKIXS
TYWLXLIQSJJ
40%2
8LIXMQIJVEQI[SYPHQIEWYVILS[PSRKFIJSVI
XLITIVWSRJIPPSJXLIGPMJJ-JXLIVI[EWEPSRKXMQI
JVEQIXLIRXLITIVWSR[SYPHXIIXIVSRXLIIHKI
SJXLIGPMJJJSVE[LMPIFIJSVIJEPPMRK
-´Q[EMXMRK
-JXLIVI[IVIEWLSVXXMQIJVEQIXLIRXLITIVWSR
[SYPHJEPPSJJXLIGPMJJVMKLXE[E]
;IPP XLEX
[EWUYMGO
-RXIVREP0MRO
3OMETIMES WHEN THE PLAN CHANGES SOMETHING IT DOES NOT
CAUSE A PROBLEM RIGHT AWAY 4HIS IS WHEN AN INTERNAL LINK
IS NEEDED 4HE INTERNAL LINK STATES THAT WHEN THE PLAN
CAUSES SOMETHING TO CHANGE WHICH IS THE LINK THEN THAT
CAUSES THE PROBLEM WHICH IS THE IMPACT
8LI MRXIVREP PMRO [SYPH FI XLEX [LIR XLI TPER
TYWLIWXLITIVWSRSJJXLIGPMJJXLIJEPP[MPPFIWS
FMKXLEXXLITIVWSR[MPPLYVX'SRRIGXMRKXLIJEPP
ERHXLILYVXVIUYMVIWERMRXIVREPPMROJEPPMRKLYVXW
ERHXLILYVXMWXLIMQTEGX
8LMWMWR´X
KSRREFITVIXX]
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
%RW[IVWXS(MWEHZER
XEKIW
2SRYRMUYI
4HE NONUNIQUE ARGUMENT STATES THAT THE PROBLEM THE
DISAD PRESENTS WILL HAPPEN ANYWAY IN THE STATUS QUO )F IT
WERE TO HAPPEN ANYWAY IT DOESNT MATTER IF THE AFlRMATIVE
PLAN CAUSES THE PROBLEM OR NOT
8LIVIEVIQER]EJ½VQEXMZIEVKYQIRXWXLEXKMZI
VIEWSRW[L]HMWEHZERXEKIWEVIRSXXVYI,IVIEVI
EJI[SJXLIQSVITSTYPEVSRIW
8LIRSRYRMUYIEVKYQIRX[SYPHQIERXLEXXLI
TIVWSR[EWNYQTMRKER][E]-XHSIWR´XQEXXIVMJ
XLITPERTYWLIWXLIQSVRSX
-FIPMIZI
-GER¾]
0MRO8YVR
4HE LINK TURN STATES THAT WHEN THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN HAP
PENS THE PROBLEM THE DISAD PRESENTS IS AVOIDED 4HIS
OFTEN MEANS THAT WHEN THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN HAPPENS THE
EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE PROBLEM HAPPENS
0MRO8EOISYX
4HE LINK TAKEOUT STATES THAT THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN DOESNT
ACTUALLY CAUSE THE PROBLEM THE DISAD PRESENTS
8LIPMROXYVR[SYPHQIERXLITPERTYWLIHXLI
TIVWSRE[E]JVSQXLIIHKISJXLIGPMJJ
TPER
8LI PMRO XEOISYX [SYPH QIER XLEX XLI TPER
HSIWR´XTYWLXLITIVWSREXEPP
TPER
-QTEGX8YVR
4HE IMPACT TURN STATES THAT THE PROBLEM THE DISAD PRESENTS
IS ACTUALLY A GOOD THING
-QTEGX8EOISYX
4HE IMPACT TAKEOUT STATES THAT THE PROBLEM THE DISAD
PRESENTS IS NOT SERIOUS OR HARMFUL
8LI MQTEGX XYVR [SYPH QIER XLEX XLI TIVWSR
PERHW MR PMQI NIPPS 8LIVI´W EP[E]W VSSQ JSV .
8LIMQTEGXXEOISYX[SYPHQIERXLEXXLIGPMJJ[EW
SRP]X[SJIIXXEPP8LITIVWSRWXYFWXLIMVXSI
;IEO
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
8STMGEPMX]
;LEX-W8STMGEPMX]#EOE°8±
$EBATE IS ABOUT MAKING GOOD POLICY AND YOU
CANT HAVE A GOOD POLICY UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT
THE KEY WORDS OF THE POLICY MEAN 3OME WORDS
ARE VERY DIFlCULT TO DElNE AND THERE ARE HUGE
DEBATES ABOUT THEM (OW DO YOU DElNE hGOODv
OR hBADv FOR EXAMPLE )TS EASY TO UNDERSTAND
THIS CONCEPT BY THINKING ABOUT A CONVERSATION
YOU MIGHT HAVE WITH YOUR PARENTS ,ETS SAY YOUR
PARENTS TELL YOU TO BE HOME hAT A REASONABLE
HOURv 7HEN YOU SHOW UP AT AM YOU GET
IN BIG TROUBLE h"UT ) WAS HOME AT A REASONABLE
HOURv YOU COMPLAIN h!LL MY FRIENDS STAY OUT
UNTIL v 9OUR PARENTS ARE NOT IMPRESSED BY
THIS ARGUMENT h2EASONABLE MEANS MIDNIGHTv
THEY SAY (OW WERE YOU SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHAT
hREASONABLEv MEANT 4OPICALITY DEALS WITH ARGU
MENTS ABOUT WHAT WORDS MEAN
%VERY YEAR THERE IS A DIFFERENT RESOLUTION FOR
HIGH SCHOOL POLICY DEBATE )T IS THE AFlRMATIVES
JOB TO COME UP WITH SPECIlC POLICIES OR hPLANSv
THAT SUPPORT THE GENERAL IDEA OF THE RESOLUTION
7HAT IF THE AFlRMATIVE POLICY IS A GOOD IDEA BUT
IT DOESNT SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION &OR EXAMPLE
THE AFlRMATIVE MIGHT ARGUE THAT EVERY HUNGRY
CHILD IN !MERICA SHOULD BE FED 4HIS MAY SEEM
LIKE A GOOD IDEA BUT WHAT IF THE RESOLUTION SAYS
WE OUGHT TO MAKE SCHOOLS BETTER 4HE PLAN IS
lNE BUT IT DOESNT SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION 4HE
NEGATIVE WOULD ARGUE THAT THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN
IS h./4 4/0)#!,v 4HIS KIND OF ARGUMENT CAN
BE EVEN MORE POWERFUL THAN A DISADVANTAGE
THE CONTINENT OF !FRICA -ANY EXPERTS MIGHT SAY
hNOv HOWEVER BECAUSE %GYPTIAN CULTURE MIGHT
BE CONSIDERED h-IDDLE %ASTERNv INSTEAD OF h!F
RICANv 4HERE IS NO RIGHT OR WRONG ANSWER FOR
WHAT A WORD MEANS BUT IT IS POSSIBLE TO MAKE
ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHICH DElNITION IS BETTER
;MRRMRK;MXL8STMGEPMX]
4OPICALITY EXISTS TO ,)-)4 WHAT THE AFlRMATIVE
MAY TALK ABOUT SO THE NEGATIVE CAN HAVE A REA
SONABLE CHANCE TO ARGUE AGAINST THE CASE )F THE
AFlRMATIVE COULD TALK ABOUT ANYTHING HOW COULD
THE NEGATIVE PREPARE FOR THE DEBATE 4HE NEGA
TIVE ARGUES THAT TOPICALITY IS A 6/4).' )335%
)N OTHER WORDS THEY ARGUE THAT THE AFlRMATIVE
SHOULD LOSE THE DEBATE IF THE NEGATIVE
CAN PROVE THAT THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN
DOES NOT SUPPORT
THE RESOLUTION
9OU CAN WIN
THE DEBATE BY
TALKING ABOUT
%VKYMRK%FSYX(IßRMXMSRW
/F COURSE MOST AFlRMATIVE PLANS SEEM FAIRLY
TOPICAL AT lRST (OWEVER IF YOU RESEARCH DIFFERENT
DElNITIONS FOR THE WORDS IN THE RESOLUTION IT IS
EASY TO lND DElNITIONS THAT CONTRADICT WHAT THE
AFlRMATIVE PLAN DOES &OR EXAMPLE WHAT IF THE
RESOLUTION SAYS WE SHOULD INCREASE AID TO !FRICAN
NATIONS 4HE AFlRMATIVE MIGHT OFFER A PLAN TO IN
CREASE AID TO %GYPT )S %GYPT AN !FRICAN NATION
-ANY PEOPLE MIGHT SAY hYESv SINCE %GYPT IS ON
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
DElNITIONS
4OPICALITY IS A VERY POWERFUL ARGUMENT
BECAUSE THE AFlRMATIVE CAN LOSE THE DEBATE ON
TOPICALITY EVEN IF THEY ARE WINNING EVERY OTHER
ARGUMENT IN THE DEBATE !FTER ALL IF THE PLAN
IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF THE RESOLUTION THEN WHO
CARES WHAT A GREAT IDEA IT IS 4HE JUDGE WOULD
THROW OUT ALL THE AFlRMATIVE ARGUMENTS JUST LIKE
A JUDGE IN A COURTROOM CAN THROW OUT A CASE IF
IT IS IRRELEVANT 4HIS ARGUMENT IS REFERRED TO AS
hJURISDICTIONv )T MEANS THAT THE JUDGE CANNOT
VOTE FOR A NONTOPICAL PLAN BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN
HER JURISDICTION
1EOMRKE8STMGEPMX]%VKYQIRX
4OPICALITY ARGUMENTS CAN BE WRITTEN AHEAD
OF TIME JUST LIKE DISADVANTAGES )N GENERAL h4v
ARGUMENTS HAVE THE FOLLOWING FORMAT
! $ElNITION
%VIDENCE THAT DElNES ONE OR MORE IMPOR
TANT WORDS IN THE RESOLUTION
" 6IOLATION
!N EXPLANATION OF WHY THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN
IS NOT AN EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF ACTION DE
SCRIBED BY THE RESOLUTION !NSWERS THE QUES
TION hWHY DOES THE PLAN VIOLATE THE NEGATIVE
DElNITIONSv
# 2EASONS TO 0REFER THE .EGATIVE $ElNITION
!RGUMENTS ABOUT WHY THE NEGATIVE DEl
NITION IS BETTER FOR DEBATE THAN OTHER DEl
NITIONS OF THE WORDS BEING CONTESTED )F
THE AFlRMATIVE OFFERS A DIFFERENT DElNITION
WHY SHOULD THE JUDGE PREFER THE NEGATIVE
DElNITION
$ 6OTING )SSUE
2EASONS WHY THE AFlRMATIVE SHOULD LOSE IF
THE NEGATIVE WINS TOPICALITY 4HE TWO MAIN
REASONS ARE *URISDICTION AND $EBATABILITY
*URISDICTION MEANS THE JUDGE CANT VOTE FOR
THE PLAN IF IT IS NOT PART OF THE TOPIC $EBAT
ABILITY MEANS THAT THE NEGATIVE WOULD NOT
HAVE A FAIR CHANCE TO DEBATE IF THE AFlRMATIVE
DID NOT HAVE TO OPERATE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF
THE RESOLUTION
6IEWSRWXS4VIJIVXLI
2IKEXMZI(IßRMXMSRW
4HERE ARE BASICALLY TWO TYPES OF ARGUMENTS
NEGATIVES USE TO PROVE THEIR DElNITIONS ARE THE
BEST 3TANDARDS AND 3PECIlC !RGUMENTS
7XERHEVHW
3TANDARDS ARE VERY GENERAL ARGUMENTS
ABOUT DElNITIONS 4HEY DESCRIBE WHAT KINDS OF
DElNITIONSˆIN GENERALˆARE BEST &OR EXAMPLE
MANY NEGATIVES ARGUE THAT DElNITIONS THAT DRAW
A "RIGHT ,INE ARE BEST 4HIS MEANS THAT THE DEl
NITION MAKES IT CLEAR WHAT IS TOPICAL AND WHAT IS
NOT &OR EXAMPLE IF ) WANTED TO lND A DElNITION
OF THE WORD hAPPLEv ) WOULD NOT WANT A DElNI
TION THAT DESCRIBED IT AS hA FRUITv 4HAT DElNITION
DOES ./4 DRAW A BRIGHT LINE BETWEEN APPLES
AND ALL OTHER FRUIT ) WOULD WANT A DElNITION THAT
DISTINGUISHED APPLES FROM OTHER KINDS OF FRUIT
4HERE ARE HUNDREDS OF POSSIBLE STANDARDS
FOR DElNITIONS
7TIGM½G%VKYQIRXW
3PECIlC ARGUMENTS TALK ABOUT THE NEGA
TIVE DElNITION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE RESOLUTION
OR THE DEBATE ROUND )F THE RESOLUTION IS ABOUT
COMPUTERS FOR EXAMPLE ) MIGHT ARGUE THAT THE
WORD hAPPLEv SHOULD MEAN hA SPECIlC BRAND OF
COMPUTERv INSTEAD OF hA FRUITv BECAUSE THE lRST
DElNITION IS MORE SPECIlC TO THE OTHER WORDS
IN THE RESOLUTION
3PECIlC ARGUMENTS MIGHT ALSO INCLUDE ARGU
MENTS ABOUT GRAMMAR &OR EXAMPLE SOME WORDS
CAN BE NOUNS OR VERBS ! SPECIlC TOPICALITY AR
GUMENT MIGHT DISCUSS THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE
WORDS IN THE RESOLUTION SHOULD BE DElNED IN
A CERTAIN WAY BECAUSE IT IS USED AS A NOUN AND
NOT A VERB ,IKE STANDARDS THERE ARE HUNDREDS
OF POSSIBLE SPECIlC ARGUMENTS
6IQIQFIV8S;MR8STMGEPMX]XLI
2IKEXMZI1YWX4VSZI
8LEXXLI2IKEXMZI(I½RMXMSRWEVI
7YTIVMSV%2(
8LEXXLI%J½VQEXMZI4PER(SIW2SX1IIX
8LSWI(I½RMXMSRW
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
%RW[IVMRK8STMGEPMX]
$ONT PANIC *UST BECAUSE THE NEGATIVE MAKES
AN ARGUMENT DONT ASSUME THAT ITS TRUE 4HE
TRUTH IS THAT IT IS VERY DIFlCULT TO WIN TOPICALITY ON
THE NEGATIVE AND RELATIVELY EASY TO WIN TOPICALITY
ON THE AFlRMATIVE $ONT GET COCKY THOUGH )F
YOURE NOT CAREFUL TOPICALITY CAN RUIN AN OTHER
WISE SUCCESSFUL AFlRMATIVE ROUND
%JßVQEXMZI8STMGEPMX]8MTW
7RITE YOUR PLAN WITH AN EYE TO TOPICALITY
7HEN YOU WRITE YOUR AFlRMATIVE CASE YOU
MAKE A SERIES OF STRATEGIC DECISIONS
-OST OF THESE REVOLVE AROUND SOLV
ING THE PROBLEM YOUR CASE IDEN
TIlES 5SUALLY YOU TRY TO lND THE
POLICY THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM
THE BEST 3IMILARLY YOU SHOULD
LOOK FOR A POLICY THAT SEEMS TO
BE A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF THE RESO
LUTION $OES THE PLAN SOUND LIKE
IT TAKES THE KIND OF ACTION REQUIRED
BY THE RESOLUTION 7RITE THE PLAN USING
AS MANY OF THE WORDS IN THE RESOLUTION AS
POSSIBLE
ABOUT THE SAME THINGS AS THE RESOLUTION IS
LARGELY IRRELEVANT -AKE SURE YOUR 0,!. IS
TOPICAL
0REPARE YOUR TOPICALITY ANSWERS AHEAD OF
TIME !NTICIPATE THE KINDS OF TOPICALITY AR
GUMENTS THE NEGATIVE IS LIKELY TO RUN AGAINST
YOU AND WRITE OUT ANSWERS AND COUNTERDEl
NITIONS BEFORE THE TOURNAMENT
'SQQSR%RW[IVWXS8STMGEPMX]
#OUNTERDElNITIONS 4HE NEGATIVE WILL READ
A DElNITION OF ONE OF THE WORDS IN THE
RESOLUTION THAT MAKES YOUR PLAN
SOUND NONTOPICAL )T IS YOUR JOB
TO ANSWER THAT DElNITION WITH A
hCOUNTERDElNITIONv A DIFFERENT
DElNITION OF THE SAME WORD THAT
MAKES YOUR PLAN SOUND TOPICAL
/NCE YOU READ A COUNTERDElNI
TION MAKE SURE TO MAKE ADDITIONAL
ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHY YOUR DElNITION
IS BETTER THAN THE NEGATIVE DElNITION
8
2ESEARCH THE WORDS OF THE RESOLUTION 4HE
NEGATIVE WILL RESEARCH VARIOUS DElNITIONS OF
THE IMPORTANT WORDS IN THE RESOLUTION 4HE
AFlRMATIVE SHOULD DO THE SAME THING ,OOK
FOR DElNITIONS THAT CLEARLY INCLUDE THE KIND
OF ACTION TAKEN BY THE PLAN &AILING THAT LOOK
FOR THE BROADEST POSSIBLE DElNITIONS
2ESEARCH hCONTEXTUALv EVIDENCE -OST PEO
PLE BELIEVE THE FUNCTION OF TOPICALITY IS TO
PROVIDE A REASONABLE LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF
CASES THE AFlRMATIVE CAN RUN )F YOU CAN lND
EVIDENCE THAT TALKS ABOUT YOUR POLICY AND THE
WORDS OF THE RESOLUTION IN THE SAME SENTENCE
OR PARAGRAPH YOU CAN READ THAT EVIDENCE
AGAINST TOPICALITY VIOLATIONS TO MAKE YOUR
CASE SOUND REASONABLE
2EMEMBER !DVANTAGES DONT MAKE YOU TOP
ICAL 4OPICALITY FOCUSES ON WHAT THE 0,!.
DOES 4HE FACT THAT YOUR ADVANTAGES TALK
#ONTEXTUAL EVIDENCE 2EADING EVIDENCE
FROM THE TOPIC LITERATURE THAT LINKS YOUR
PLAN WITH THE WORDS OF THE RESOLUTION CAN
HELP MAKE YOUR PLAN SOUND REASONABLE
4HE h7E -EETv ANSWER 2EAD THE NEGATIVES
DElNITION -OST OF THE TIME IT ISNT AS EXCLU
SIVE AS THEY SAY IT IS 4RY TO THINK OF REASONS
YOUR PLAN ACTUALLY hMEETSv THEIR DElNITION
)N OTHER WORDS THINK OF REASONS WHY THE
NEGATIVES DElNITION ACTUALLY DESCRIBES THE
PLAN INSTEAD OF EXCLUDING IT
4HINGS THAT CHECK ABUSE .EGATIVES WILL TRY
TO ARGUE THAT THE PLAN IS ABUSIVE THEY WILL
SAY THAT IF THE JUDGE ALLOWS THE PLAN TO BE
TOPICAL HUNDREDS OF OTHER PLANS WILL ALSO
BECOME TOPICAL 4HIS IS hABUSIVEv BECAUSE IT
PUTS TOO MUCH OF A BURDEN ON THE NEGATIVE TO
RESEARCH THOSE HUNDREDS OF NEW PLANS 4HE
AFlRMATIVE OFTEN ARGUES THAT OTHER THINGS
hCHECKv OR PREVENT THIS ABUSE
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
! ,ITERATURE CHECKS 4HE AFF IRMATIVE
SHOULD ARGUE THAT THEIR PLAN IS REA
SONABLE BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON EVIDENCE
FOUND IN THE TOPIC LITERATURE )N OTHER
WORDS THE AFlRMATIVE ARGUES THAT THE
JUDGE SHOULD NOT WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT
TOPICALITY BECAUSE THE AFlRMATIVE CASE
GENERALLY CONCERNS ITSELF WITH THE SAME
ISSUES AS THE RESOLUTION
" /THER WORDS CHECK 4HE RESOLUTION IS
COMPOSED OF MANY DIFFERENT WORDS 4HE
AFlRMATIVE OFTEN ARGUES THAT SINCE THE
PLAN HAS TO BE AN EXAMPLE OF !,, THE
DIFFERENT WORDS IN THE RESOLUTION THEN
VIOLATING A SINGLE WORD IS NOT SUCH A BIG
DEAL )F THE PLAN MEETS ALL THE WORDS IN
THE RESOLUTION EXCEPT ONE FOR EXAMPLE
THEN IT IS STILL TALKING ABOUT THE SAME
GENERAL THINGS AS THE RESOLUTION
# 3OLVENCY CHECKS 4HE AFlRMATIVE HAS TO
PROVE THAT ITS PLAN SOLVES THE PROBLEM
IDENTIlED BY THE CASE /N TOPICALITY THE
AFlRMATIVE OFTEN ARGUES THAT ITS DEl
NITIONS COULD NOT REALLY ADD HUNDREDS
OF NEW PLANS TO THE TOPIC BECAUSE MOST
OF THOSE NEW PLANS WOULD NOT SOLVE ANY
SIGNIlCANT PROBLEM
#OUNTERSTANDARDS 4HE NEGATIVE ASSUMES
THAT THE JUDGE MUST USE CERTAIN STANDARDS
TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF TOPICALITY 4HE AFlR
MATIVE SHOULD THINK OF ITS OWN STANDARDS
4HE MOST COMMON AFFIRMATIVE COUNTER
STANDARD IS hREASONABILITYv ALSO KNOWN AS
hDEBATABILITYv 4HE AFlRMATIVE ARGUES THAT
AS LONG AS THE PLAN IS REASONABLE THE JUDGE
SHOULD IGNORE TOPICALITY 4HE AFlRMATIVE
MUST PROVIDE REASONS WHY ITS PLAN IS REA
SONABLE 4HESE REASONS MIGHT INCLUDE THINGS
LIKE hIF THE NEGATIVE HAS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE
CASEˆIF THE NEGATIVE CAN FAIRLY $%"!4% THE
CASEˆTHEN THE PLAN IS REASONABLY TOPICAL
4HE BOTTOM LINE OF REASONABILITY IS THAT IT
URGES THE JUDGE NOT TO CHOOSE BETWEEN TWO
COMPETING DElNITIONS )NSTEAD THE JUDGE IS
URGED TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAN
UNFAIRLY HARMS THE NEGATIVE IN THE ROUND
SUE -OST DEBATER ARE TAUGHT THAT TOPICALITY
IS AN ABSOLUTE VOTING ISSUE WHICH MEANS THAT
THE NEGATIVE CAN WIN THE ENTIRE ROUND JUST
BY WINNING TOPICALITY .OT EVERYONE AGREES
THAT THIS IS TRUE HOWEVER (ERE ARE SOME
COMMON REASONS AFlRMATIVES GIVE WHY THE
JUDGE SHOULD NOT CONSIDER TOPICALITY
! ,ANGUAGE IS INDETERMINATE )S THERE
SUCH THING AS hTHE BESTv DElNITION 5L
TIMATELY THE WORDS WE USE TO DESCRIBE
THINGS ARE NOT PRECISE 5SING AN EARLIER
EXAMPLE WHAT IS hA REASONABLE HOURv FOR
A TEENAGER TO GET HOME AT NIGHT 4HERE
IS NO PRECISE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION
"ECAUSE LANGUAGE IS IMPRECISE OR hIN
DETERMINATEv MANY AFlRMATIVES ARGUE
THAT IT IS UNFAIR TO BASE A DECISION IN A
ROUND ON COMPETING DElNITIONS
" 4OPICALITY IS NOT hREAL WORLDv -ANY
TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS ARE BASED ON THE
ASSUMPTION THAT A DEBATE ROUND IS LIKE A
COURTROOM )N A COURTROOM A JUDGE CAN
THROW OUT A CASE IF IT DOES NOT MEET CER
TAIN STRICT DElNITIONS )N SUCH A CASE WE
WOULD SAY THAT THE JUDGE LACKS JURISDICTION
OVER THE CASE -ANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT
DEBATE ROUNDS ARE MORE LIKE LEGISLATURES
THAN COURT ROOMS )N A LEGISLATURE SUCH
AS #ONGRESS REPRESENTATIVES ARE FREE TO
DEBATE ABOUT ANYTHING AS LONG AS IT IS
IMPORTANT -ANY AFlRMATIVES ARGUE THAT
TOPICALITY DOES NOT REmECT THE hREAL WORLDv
REQUIREMENTS OF POLICYMAKING
# 4OPICALITY SILENCES IMPORTANT VOICES
)N MANY CASES IMPORTANT IDEAS ARE NOT
HEARD BY POLICYMAKERS BECAUSE THEY
COME FROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE UNPOPULAR
OPINIONS 0OLICYMAKERS AVOID LISTENING TO
THESE IMPORTANT IDEAS BY USING OBSCURE
RULES AND PROCEDURES 3OME AFFIRMA
TIVES ARGUE THAT TOPICALITY IS JUST ANOTHER
MEANINGLESS PROCEDURE WHICH PREVENTS
IMPORTANT IDEAS FROM BEING DEBATED %V
IDENCE DESCRIBING THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
PLAN IS HELPFUL IN MAKING THIS CLAIM
2EASONS WHY TOPICALITY IS ./4 A VOTING IS
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
'VMXMUYIW
%(MJJIVIRX;E]XS%XXEGOXLI%JßV
QEXMZI
-OST OF THE ARGUMENTS IN A DEBATE ROUND
ARE BASED ON THE KINDS OF ARGUMENTS MADE BY
TRADITIONAL POLICYMAKERS SUCH AS LEGISLATORS AND
POLITICAL ANALYSTS 4RADITIONAL POLICYMAKERS ARE
NOT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO COMMENT ON IMPORTANT
PUBLIC ISSUES HOWEVER )NCREASINGLY DEBATERS
HAVE BEGUN TO MODEL SOME OF THEIR ARGUMENTS
ON THE OBJECTIONS OF PHILOSOPHERS RHETORICAL
CRITICS AND OTHER SCHOLARS
4HE CRITIQUEˆAKA THE KRITIK OR THE +ˆIS
AN ARGUMENT USUALLY USED BY THE NEGATIVE TO
ATTACK THE AFlRMATIVES FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMP
TIONS 3OMETIMES THE AFlRMATIVE MAKES THESE
ASSUMPTIONS BY CHOICE AND SOMETIMES THEY
MAKE THESE ASSUMPTIONS BECAUSE ITS
THEIR JOB TO DEFEND THE RESOLUTION )N
EITHER CASE THE NEGATIVE FOCUSES ON
WHAT THE OTHER TEAM SAYS ). 4(%
2/5.$ NOT WHAT THEY PROPOSE TO
DO OUTSIDE THE ROUND
/NE OF THE SIMPLEST EXAMPLES OF
A CRITIQUE MIGHT BE AN ARGUMENT THAT
THE LANGUAGE THE AFlRMATIVE USES IS RACIST
&OR EXAMPLE SOME SCHOLARS ARGUE THAT CERTAIN
KINDS OF POLICY LANGUAGE CONTAINS HIDDEN RACISM
SUCH AS SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS MADE AGAINST
WELFARE )F THE AFlRMATIVE WERE TO MAKE ONE OF
THESE ARGUMENTS THE NEGATIVE MIGHT USE A CRI
TIQUE TO POINT OUT THE HIDDEN RACISM IN THE CASE
AS A REASON TO VOTE AGAINST THE AFlRMATIVE
7HAT IS AN ASSUMPTION !N ASSUMPTION IS A PART
OF AN ARGUMENT WHICH PEOPLE THINK IS TRUE BUT
THEY NEVER EXPLICITLY PROVE TO BE TRUE
(OW ARE ASSUMPTIONS REVEALED 3OMETIMES AS
SUMPTIONS ARE REVEALED BY THE LANGUAGE THAT
WE USE TO MAKE OUR CLAIMS AND ARGUMENTS
3OMETIMES ASSUMPTIONS ARE REVEALED IN THE WAY
WE CLAIM TO KNOW SOMETHING 4HE lRST TYPE OF
CRITICISM IS A LANGUAGE CRITIQUE AND THE SECOND
TYPE OF CRITICISM IS A PHILOSOPHICAL CRITIQUE
(OW DOES A NEGATIVE ATTACK THE ASSUMPTIONS &IRST
THE NEGATIVE MUST IDENTIFY THE ASSUMPTION AND
HOW IT IS REVEALED 3ECOND THE NEGATIVE MUST
EXPLAIN HOW THE ASSUMPTION LINKS TO THE CRITIQUE
!ND THIRD THE NEGATIVE MUST EXPLAIN THE IM
PLICATIONS OF THE CRITIQUE 3OUNDS LIKE A
DISADVANTAGE DOESNT IT
/
,YL#;LEX#)\GYWI1I#
$ONT WORRY IF YOURE CONFUSED #RITIQUES ARE
COMPLICATED ARGUMENTS AND MANY PEOPLE ARE
NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE KINDS OF IDEAS ASSOCIATED
WITH CRITIQUES ,ETS ANSWER SOME BASIC QUES
TIONS
7HAT IS THE CRITIQUE ! CRITIQUE IS A WAY TO CRITICIZE
THE ASSUMPTIONS AN AFlRMATIVE MAKES OR THE LAN
GUAGE DEBATERS USE TO MAKE THEIR ARGUMENTS
7HAT ARE THE POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS OF
THE CRITIQUE 'ENERALLY CRITIQUES
CAN HAVE THREE IMPLICATIONS /NE
IS THAT THEY MIGHT PROVE THAT THE
AFFIRMATIVE CASE DOES NOT PROVE
THE HARM 3ECOND THEY MIGHT PROVE
THAT THE AFlRMATIVE IS UNABLE TO SOLVE
4HIRD THEY MIGHT HAVE CONSEQUENCES
SIMILAR TO THOSE OF A DISADVANTAGE )N OTHER
WORDS A CRITIQUE MIGHT JUSTIFY VOTING AGAINST
THE AFlRMATIVE ALTOGETHER IN ORDER TO REJECT THE
ASSUMPTIONS THE AFlRMATIVE MAKES
%RSXLIV)\EQTPI
4HE CRITIQUE CAN OPERATE IN THE SIMPLEST
FACETS OF YOUR LIFE 9OU WITNESS SOME OF THESE
IN YOUR OWN CLASSROOM 4HINKING ABOUT TESTING
AND TESTTAKING CAN ILLUSTRATE HOW A CRITIQUE
MIGHT FUNCTION
#HALLENGING THE HARM ASSUMPTIONS -ANY
PEOPLE ASSUME STUDENTS DO NOT LEARN AS
MUCH AS THEY USED TO BECAUSE TEST SCORES ARE
LOWER THAN THEY WERE IN THE PAST (OWEVER
THE NEGATIVE MIGHT CHALLENGE THE ASSUMP
TION THAT TEST SCORES ARE A RELIABLE MEASURE
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 4HIS CHALLENGES
THE WAY PROPONENTS OF TESTING ASSUME TEST
SCORES PROVIDE USEFUL INFORMATION )F THE
TEST SCORES ARE UNRELIABLE THEN THE AFlRMA
TIVE CANNOT PROVE THE HARM BY PROVING TEST
SCORES ARE LOW 4EST SCORES THE NEGATIVE
WOULD ARGUE DO NOT REVEAL ACCURATE INFOR
MATION OF STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT THEREFORE
THEY CANNOT BE USED TO PROVE THAT STUDENTS
ARE UNDERACHIEVING
#HALLENGING SOLVENCY -ANY PEOPLE ARGUE
THAT TESTING SHOULD BE USED TO GUIDE CUR
RICULUM CHANGES IN ORDER TO ENHANCE STUDENT
LEARNING (OWEVER IF TESTS ARE CRITIQUED
BECAUSE THEY DO NOT TRULY MEASURE WHAT A
STUDENT HAS LEARNED THEN USING TEST RESULTS
TO REVISE THE CURRICULUM IS A WASTED EXERCISE
AND WILL NOT ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF IMPROVING
STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
$ISADVANTAGEOUS CONSEQUENCES 4HE NEGA
TIVE MIGHT ARGUE THAT THERE ARE DISADVANTAGE
IMPLICATIONS OF SUPPORTING THE AFlRMATIVE
IN LIGHT OF THE CRITIQUE 3OME MIGHT ARGUE
THAT TESTING DOES NOT MEASURE KNOWLEDGE
BUT INSTEAD INDICATES HOW GOOD STUDENTS
ARE AT TAKING TESTS #ONSEQUENTLY INCREAS
ING TESTS OR MAKING TESTS MORE RIGOROUS WILL
ONLY SERVE TO PERPETUATE RACISM AND SEXISM
IN EDUCATION 4HE NEGATIVE MIGHT ARGUE
THAT THE JUDGE SHOULD REJECT ANY POLICY THAT
RESULTS IN GREATER RACISM AND SEXISM
;L]%VI'VMXMUYIW:EPYEFPI#
#RITIQUES ARE VALUABLE ARGUMENTS FOR SEVERAL
REASONS
#RITIQUES ARE HIGHLY GENERICˆTHAT IS THEY
CAN BE APPLIED TO A LARGE VARIETY OF CASES
4HE RESOLUTION ALWAYS MAKES CRITICAL AS
SUMPTIONS SUCH AS WHO SHOULD ACT HOW THE
POLICY SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED WHY A PAR
TICULAR AREA IS IMPORTANT ETC 4HE CRITIQUE
PROVIDES A GENERAL ARGUMENT THAT CAN BE
USED TO ATTACK THOSE CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS
WEIGH AGAINST WHATEVER ADVANTAGE THE AFlR
MATIVE CAN CLAIM
#RITIQUES INTEGRATE MANY ARGUMENTS INTO
ONE POSITION "ECAUSE THE CASE ARGUMENTS
FREQUENTLY STEM FROM THE CRITIQUE THE NEG
ATIVE HAS A POSITION IN THE DEBATE THAT IS
COHERENT
#RITIQUES FREQUENTLY HAVE A PRIORI IMPLI
CATIONS !N A PRIORI ARGUMENT IS ONE THAT
MUST BE RESOLVED lRST USUALLY BEFORE THE SUB
STANTIVE ISSUES OF THE DEBATE ARE RESOLVED )N
OUR EXAMPLE OF TESTING THE NEGATIVE COULD
ARGUE THAT POLICIES THAT REINFORCE RACISM OR
SEXISM ARE SO NOXIOUS THAT THEY NEED TO BE
AVOIDED ABSOLUTELY )F TESTING IS RACIST OR
SEXIST IT SHOULD BE REJECTED REGARDLESS OF
SUBSTANTIVE BENElTS THAT MIGHT RESULT FROM
INCREASED TESTING
#RITIQUES FREQUENTLY AVOID UNIQUENESS PROB
LEMS #RITIQUES ARE OFTEN FOUND IN THE WRIT
INGS OF THOSE WHO CRITICIZE CURRENT POLICIES
!FlRMATIVE DEBATERS FREQUENTLY RELY ON SOME
ELEMENT OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM TO IMPLEMENT
THEIR PLANS OR TO PROVE WHY NEW POLICIES
WOULD BETTER ACHIEVE THE GOALS OF THE PRESENT
SYSTEM #RITIQUE WRITERS FREQUENTLY ARGUE IN
EFFECT THAT THE GOALS OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM
SHOULD BE REJECTED AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY )N
ADDITION MANY CRITIQUE WRITERS ARGUE THAT
THE MOST IMPORTANT PLACE TO REJECT ACCEPTED
IDEAS IS IN INDIVIDUAL SETTINGS THUS MAKING
THE CRITIQUE UNIQUE EACH TIME A JUDGE HAS
THE OPPORTUNITY TO REJECT THE AFlRMATIVE
#RITIQUES SHIFT THE DEBATE TO NEGATIVE
GROUND !FlRMATIVES ARE USED TO DEBATING
ON 4(%)2 GROUND THE CASE EVIDENCE AND
THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE PLAN #RITIQUES OFFER
NEGATIVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHIFT THE FOCUS
OF THE DEBATE TO AN ISSUE THEY ARE MORE FA
MILIAR WITH THE INTRICACIES OF THE CRITIQUE
4HIS CAN GIVE THE NEGATIVE A SORT OF hHOME
lELDv ADVANTAGE IN THE ROUND
#RITIQUES HAVE MULTIPLE CONSEQUENCESˆTHAT
IS THEY CAN MINIMIZE THE AFlRMATIVE ADVAN
TAGE WHILE ALSO PROVIDING AN ARGUMENT TO
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
%RW[IVMRK'VMXMUYIW
7HILE CRITIQUES ARE A VALUABLE NEGATIVE ARGU
MENT THEY ARE ALSO VULNERABLE TO SOME GENERAL
AFlRMATIVE ANSWERS 4HE FOLLOWING ARGUMENTS
ARE SUGGESTIONS THAT REQUIRE MORE SUBSTANTIVE
DEVELOPMENT FROM YOU AS YOU RESEARCH AND DE
BATE CRITIQUES DURING THE ACADEMIC YEAR
$EBATE THE SPECIlC CRITIQUE 4HERE ARE MANY
ANSWERS TO CRITIQUES THAT MERELY REQUIRE RE
SEARCH LIKE ANY OTHER NEGATIVE ARGUMENT
2EMEMBER THAT PHILOSOPHERS AND RHETORICAL
CRITICS GET INTO ARGUMENTS WITH EACH OTHER
JUST LIKE LEGISLATORS AND POLICY ANALYSTS DO
4HE GENERAL RULE IS FOR EVERY GROUP OF
SCHOLARS WHO SUPPORT THE IDEAS BEHIND THE
CRITIQUE THERE IS A DIFFERENT GROUP OF SCHOL
ARS WHO THINK THE IDEAS IN THE CRITIQUE ARE
TERRIBLE )F YOU lND OUT THAT A CERTAIN CRITIQUE
IS BEING RUN RESEARCH IT JUST LIKE YOU WOULD
ANY OTHER ARGUMENT IN ORDER TO lND THOSE
SCHOLARS WHO DISAGREE WITH IT
5SE CROSSEX TIME TO ASK ABOUT THE CRITIQUE
9OU CANT DEBATE WHAT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND
AND CRITIQUES CAN BE VERY DIFlCULT TO UNDER
STAND /FTEN EVIDENCE IN CRITIQUES USES ACA
DEMIC JARGON AND OBSCURE WORDS $ONT BE
INTIMIDATED )F THE OTHER TEAM CANT EXPLAIN
WHAT THESE WORDS MEAN THE JUDGE WONT BE
WILLING TO VOTE FOR THEM )F THEY #!. EXPLAIN
THEM THEN YOU WILL BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND
THEM TOO !SK HOW THE PLAN LINKS TO THE
CRITIQUE AND WHAT IMPLICATIONS THE CRITIQUE
HAS IN THE ROUND $ONT LET THE OTHER TEAM
$ONT FORGET TO USE YOUR OWN BRAIN /NCE
YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CRITIQUE SAYS YOU
CAN ANSWER IT WITH ARGUMENTS THAT MAKE
SENSE TO YOU !LSO REMEMBER THAT THE
EVIDENCE IN THE !# IS DESIGNED TO ANSWER
OBJECTIONS TO THE CASE 5SE THAT EVIDENCE
CREATIVELY
5TILIZE YOUR SPECIlC AFlRMATIVE ANSWERS
-ANY OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE CRITIQUE
ARE VERY GENERALIZED BUT THE AFlRMATIVE
CAN POINT TO SPECIlC EVIDENCE TO PROVE BOTH
THEIR HARMS AND THEIR SOLVENCY 4HUS GENERAL
INDICTMENTS MIGHT NOT BE AS PERSUASIVE AS THE
SPECIlC PROOFS OFFERED BY THE AFlRMATIVE
$EBATE THE UNIQUENESS OF THE CRITIQUE
.EGATIVE CRITIQUE DEBATERS TRY TO AVOID THE
UNIQUENESS DEBATE AND ARGUE THAT IT IS IR
RELEVANT (OWEVER THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE
CRITIQUE FREQUENTLY OCCUR AT THE MARGINS OF
INCREMENTAL IMPACT )N OTHER WORDS THE
CRITIQUE OFTEN TALKS ABOUT HARMS THAT ARE
ALREADY OCCURRING ALL AROUND US 4HE AFlR
MATIVE SHOULD STRESS THAT IF THE AFlRMATIVE
ADVANTAGE IS INTACT THE MARGINAL INCREASE
IN DISADVANTAGE BEYOND THE PRESENT SYSTEM
DOES NOT MERIT REJECTION
!RGUE THAT THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE )F THE AFlR
MATIVE HARM IS SUBSTANTIAL THE PLAN IS LARGELY
SOLVENT AND THE CRITIQUE HAS UNIQUENESS
PROBLEMS PRESS THE NEGATIVE TO DEFEND WHAT
THEIR ALTERNATIVE TO THE PLAN AND THE PRESENT
SYSTEM WILL BE )F THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE THEN
IT MAKES UNIQUENESS ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE
CRITIQUE THAT MUCH MORE VALUABLE
!TTACK THE ALTERNATIVE )F THE NEGATIVE OF
FERS ALTERNATIVES TO THE PLAN AND THE PRESENT
SYSTEM THEN THE AFlRMATIVE CAN ARGUE THAT
THE ALTERNATIVE IS A BAD IDEA
-AKE THE NEGATIVE DEFEND THE IDEA OF CRI
TIQUES -ANY MEMBERS OF THE DEBATE COM
MUNITY HAVE ACCEPTED THE IDEA OF CRITIQUING
ASSUMPTIONS AS ACCEPTABLE (OWEVER MANY
OTHERS DO NOT BELIEVE THAT PHILOSOPHICAL AND
RHETORICAL IDEAS HAVE ANY PLACE IN POLICY
DEBATE -AKE THE NEGATIVE EXPLAIN WHY WE
SHOULD CONSIDER THESE KINDS OF ARGUMENTS
IF THE GOAL OF DEBATE IS TO TRAIN STUDENTS TO
STUDY POLICY ISSUES LIKE LEGISLATORS AND POLITI
CAL ANALYSTS DO
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
6YRRMRK'SYRXIVTPERW
! COUNTERPLAN IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN THAT
IS PRESENTED BY THE .EGATIVE TEAM 3OMETIMES THE NEGATIVE
WILL NOT ONLY ARGUE THAT THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN IS A BAD IDEA
BUT WILL ALSO PRESENT THEIR OWN WAY OF SOLVING THE PROBLEMS
CITED BY THE AFlRMATIVE TEAM
-LEZIQ]S[R
MHIESR[LEXXSHS
,IKE THE AFlRMATIVE TEAM THE NEGATIVE TEAM MUST PROVE THE COUNTERPLAN IS FAIR AND A GOOD IDEA
#OUNTERPLANS HAVE TO MEET TWO BURDENS
'SYRXIVTPERWWLSYPHFIRSRXSTMGEP
!FlRMATIVE PLANS HAVE TO BE TOPICAL 4HEREFORE NEGATIVE PLANS COUNTERPLANS SHOULD BE NONTOPI
CAL 4HIS WAY THE NEGATIVE CANNOT RUN PLANS THAT SUPPORT THE DEBATE RESOLUTION
'SYRXIVTPERWQYWXFIGSQTIXMXMZI
#OMPETITION IS A TERM USED TO DESCRIBE THE BATTLE BE
TWEEN THE !FlRMATIVE PLAN AND THE #OUNTERPLAN &OR
A COUNTERPLAN TO COMPETE WITH THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN
AND TO WIN IT MUST BE PROVEN THAT THE COUNTERPLAN
ALONE IS BETTER THAN THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN ALONE OR BET
TER THAN ADOPTING THE COUNTERPLAN AND AFlRMATIVE
PLAN TOGETHER 4HE COMPETITION OF THE COUNTERPLAN IS
DETERMINED IN TWO WAYS
%R]XLMRK]SYGERHS
-GERHSFIXXIV
! -UTUAL %XCLUSIVITY 4HIS MEANS THE COUNTERPLAN
AND THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN CANNOT OCCUR AT THE SAME
TIME 4HEY CANNOT EXIST TOGETHER
" .ET "ENElTS 4HIS MEANS THAT DOING THE COUNTERPLAN ALONE PROVIDES MORE BENElTS THAN DO
ING THE PLAN ALONE AND PROVIDES MORE BENElTS THAN DOING THE COUNTERPLAN AND PLAN TOGETHER
#OUNTERPLANS LIKE AFlRMATIVE PLANS CAN HAVE ADVANTAGES 4HESE ADVANTAGES PROVE WHY THE
COUNTERPLAN IS BETTER THAN THE AFlRMATIVE /FTEN THE ADVANTAGES OF THE COUNTERPLAN ARE NEGA
TIVE DISADVANTAGES TO THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN
=SY'ER³X,EZI=SYV'EOI%2()EX-X8SS
ZW
)EX
XLEX
WYGOIV
8LMWSPHWE]MRKHIWGVMFIWRIXFIRI½XWTVIXX][IPP-JXLITVSFPIQMWXLEX]SYEVI
LYRKV]XLITPERQMKLXFIXSLEZIEGEOI8LIGSYRXIVTPER[SYPHFIXS)%8XLI
GEOI8LIGSYRXIVTPERMWRIXFIRI½GMEPFIGEYWIIEXMRKXLIGEOIWSPZIW]SYVLYRKIV
TVSFPIQ%2(MJ]SYXV]XS±LEZI²XLIGEOIEXXLIWEQIXMQIXLEX]SYIEXMX]SY
[MPPFIZIV]GSRJYWIHERHTVSFEFP]QIWW]±)EXMRKXLIGEOI²MWQSVIEHZERXE
KISYWXLERNYWXLEZMRKMXERH±IEXMRKXLIGEOI²MWEPWSEFIXXIVMHIEXLER&38,
±IEXMRKXLIGEOI²ERH±LEZMRKXLIGEOI²EXXLIWEQIXMQI
! COUNTERPLAN MUST MEET THESE BURDENS IN ORDER TO BEAT THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
%RW[IVMRK'SYRXIVTPERW
'SYRXIVTPERWQYWXQIIXGIVXEMRFYVHIRWMRSVHIVXSFIEXXLI%J½VQEXMZI
TPER8LIVIJSVIMXMWXLINSFSJXLIEJ½VQEXMZIXSWLS[LS[XLIGSYRXIVTPER
HSIWRSXQIIXXLIWIFYVHIRW %J½VQEXMZIERW[IVWWLSYPHI\TSWIXLI
¾E[WMRXLIGSYRXIVTPERERHWLS[[L]MXMWEFEHMHIE
%J½VQEXMZIERW[IVWGERFIJSYRH[LMPIPSSOMRKEXHMJJIVIRXTEVXWSJXLI
GSYRXIVTPER
,I]
;EMXEWIGSRH
8LMWHSIWR´X
PSSOVMKLX
8LI
GSYR
XIV
TPER
8LIGSYRXIVTPERMWXSTMGEP
4HE AFlRMATIVES SHOULD MAKE SURE THE COUNTERPLAN IS NONTOPICAL )F THE COUNTERPLAN IS TOPICAL IT
SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE ONLY THE NEGATIVE GETS TO DEFEND THE RESOLUTION 4HE NEGATIVE HAS
EVERYTHING ELSE TO CHOOSE FROM
8LIGSYRXIVTPERMWRSXGSQTIXMXMZI
!FlRMATIVES SHOULD ARGUE THAT THE COUNTERPLAN IS NOT COMPETITIVE WITH THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN )N
ORDER TO DO THIS AFlRMATIVE TEAMS HAVE THREE CHOICES
! 0ROVE IT IS NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
&IXXIVXLER
EWMRKPITPER%FPIXS
FIEXGSYRXIVTPERWIZIV]
[LIVI
" 0ROVE IT IS NOT NET BENElCIAL
# /FFER PERMUTATIONS
0ERMUTATIONS ARE AN AFlRMATIVES SPECIAL WEAPON AGAINST COUNTERPLANS 0ERMUTA
TIONS ARE ARGUMENTS THAT PROVE THE ENTIRE PLAN CAN BE COMBINED WITH PARTS
OF THE COUNTERPLAN IN ORDER TO GAIN
THE ADVANTAGES OF THE COUNTERPLAN
WITHOUT REJECTING THE PLAN
4IVQYXEXMSR
)EXMRKLEPJXLIGEOI[MPPWEXMWJ]SYVLYRKIV[MXL
SYXVSXXMRKSYVXIIXLSVGEYWMRK[IMKLXKEMR%RH
[IWXMPPKIXXSWIISYVFIEYXMJYPGEOI
7SPZIRG]
!FlRMATIVES CAN ARGUE THAT THE COUNTERPLAN DOES NOT
SOLVE 4HE AFlRMATIVE SHOULD LOOK TO SEE IF THE COUNTER
PLAN SOLVES THE AFlRMATIVE ADVANTAGE THE ADVANTAGES
OF THE COUNTERPLAN AND AVOIDS THE DISADVANTAGES
(MWEHZERXEKIW
#OUNTERPLANS LIKE AFlRMATIVE PLANS CAN HAVE DISADVANTAGES 4HE AFlRMATIVE SHOULD ARGUE THAT
IF THE COUNTERPLAN IS DONE SOMETHING BAD WILL HAPPEN THAT WOULDNT OTHERWISE HAPPEN IF THE AF
lRMATIVE PLAN IS DONE
=SYWMV
EVIZIV]
HERKIVSYW
GSYRXIV
TPER
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
,S[XS+MZI+SSH6IFYXXEPW
-OST DEBATERS COACHES AND JUDGES WOULD
AGREE THAT REBUTTALS ARE THE MOST DIFlCULT AND
YET THE MOST IMPORTANT PARTS OF THE DEBATE .OT
ONLY IS THERE LESS TIME WITHIN EACH SPEECH BUT
EACH DEBATER HAS TO SORT THROUGH ALL OF THE ISSUES
TO DETERMINE WHICH ONES ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT
ONES 7HAT A DEBATER DOES OR DOES NOT DO IN
REBUTTALS WILL DECIDE WHO WINS THE DEBATE 6ERY
FEW DEBATERS ESPECIALLY BEGINNERS CAN HOPE TO
EXTEND EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE CON
STRUCTIVE SPEECHES $EBATERS DONT HAVE TO DO
THAT AND JUST BECAUSE A TEAM MAY HAVE DROPPED A
POINT OR AN ARGUMENT IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC REASON
TO VOTE AGAINST THAT TEAM 7HAT MATTERS IS THE
TYPE OF ARGUMENT THAT IS EXTENDED OR DROPPED
IN REBUTTALSˆTHIS WILL DETERMINE THE WINNER OF
THE ROUND
8LMROEFSYXXLIWIJSYVMWWYIW[LIR
VIFYXXEPWLETTIR
s 7HICH ARGUMENTS HAVE MORE WEIGHT AT THE
END OF THE ROUND
s 7HICH OUTCOMES DISADS COUNTERPLANS ARE
MORE LIKELY GIVEN LOTS OF INTERNAL LINKS
s 7HAT ABOUT TIME FRAMEˆWHAT HAPPENS
lRST
s 7HAT ABOUT THE QUALITY OF EVIDENCE
,IVIEVIWSQISXLIVLIPTJYPLMRXW
!VOID REPETITION $ONT JUST REPEAT YOUR
CONSTRUCTIVE ARGUMENTS "EAT THE OTHER
TEAMS ARGUMENTS AND TELL THE JUDGE WHY
YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE BETTER
!VOID PASSING SHIPS $ONT AVOID WHAT THE
OTHER TEAM SAID 9OU MUST CLASH DIRECTLY
WITH THEIR RESPONSES
!VOID hLUMPING AND DUMPINGv $ONT TRY
TO GO FOR EVERYTHING 9OU CANT MAKE RESPONSES TO EACH ARGUMENT IN A FEW MIN
UTES
"E ORGANIZED $ONT MINDLESSLY TALK ABOUT
ISSUES AT RANDOM "E SPECIlC AND LOGICAL
ABOUT WINNING ISSUES
$ONT BE A BLABBERING MOTORMOUTH 3PEAK
QUICKLY BUT NOT BEYOND YOUR ABILITY )F YOU
SPEAK TOO FAST YOU WILL STUMBLE AND NOT GET
THROUGH AS MUCH
$ONT WHINE TO THE JUDGE ABOUT FAIRNESS OR
WHAT THE OTHER TEAM MIGHT HAVE DONE THAT
YOU THINK IS UNETHICAL -AKE RESPONSES AND
BEAT THEM
$ONT MAKE NEW ARGUMENTS 9OU CAN READ
NEW EVIDENCE BUT YOU CANT RUN NEW DISAD
VANTAGES OR TOPICALITY RESPONSES 9OU ARE
LIMITING TO EXTENDING THE POSITIONS LAID OUT
IN THE CONSTRUCTIVE SPEECHES
5SE SIGNPOSTING -AKE SURE THE JUDGE KNOW
WHERE YOU ARE ON THE mOWSHEET 4HIS IS NOT
THE TIME TO LOSE THE JUDGE ON THE mOW
5SE ISSUE PACKAGES /RGANIZE YOUR ARGU
MENTS INTO ISSUE PACKAGES #HOOSE ARGU
MENTS WHICH YOU WANT TO WIN $ONT GO FOR
EVERYTHING %XTEND THOSE ARGUMENTS THAT
YOU NEED TO WIN
#ROSSAPPLY ARGUMENTS )F YOU DROPPED AN
ARGUMENT IN A PRIOR SPEECH THAT YOU THINK
WAS IMPORTANT DONT ACT LIKE YOUR LOSING
#ROSSAPPLY ARGUMENTS YOU MADE SOME
WHERE ELSE IN THE DEBATE
9QQ[IPPNYHKI
!VOID READING EVIDENCE ONLY 9OU MUST BE
EXPLAINING AND TELLING THE JUDGE WHY THESE
ISSUES WIN THE DEBATE
!VOID REREADING EVIDENCE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN
READ IN CONSTRUCTIVES 9OU CAN MAKE REFERENCE
TO IT BY PULLING IT BUT DONT REREAD IT
%VIFYXXEPMWRSXXLIXMQIXSKSWPS[
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
8LI*MVWX2IKEXMZI6IFYXXEP
8LIKIRIVEPTYVTSWISJXLI26MW
X[SJSPHXSWIPIGX[MRRMRKEVKY
QIRXWERHXSTVIWWYVIXLI%6
4HE SINGLE BIGGEST MISTAKE .2S MAKE IS TO
REPEAT OR hEXTENDv EXACTLY WHAT THE .# DID )F
YOU REMEMBER ONLY A SINGLE IDEA FROM THIS SEC
TION IT SHOULD BE THIS $/ ./4 #/6%2 4(%
.# )335%3 4HE PROPER DIVISION OF LABOR IN
THE NEGATIVE BLOCK ALLOWS THE .# AND .2 TO
PURSUE SEPARATE ISSUES TO INCREASE THEIR CHANCES
OF WINNING THE DEBATE 7HEN THE .2 MERELY
REPEATS THE .# THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PRESSUR
ING THE !2 IS LOST AND THE DEBATE BECOMES
MUDDLED AND CONFUSED
-J]SYVIQIQFIV
SRP]32)MHIE
JVSQXLMWWIGXMSR
MXWLSYPHFIXLMW
(3238'3:)6
8,)2'-779)7
7HAT YOU NEED TO DO IS TO BALLOON SOMETHING
7HICH ARGUMENT YOU BALLOON WILL VARY FROM
ROUND TO ROUND 4YPICALLY THE .2 MUST REALIZE
THAT WILL LESS SPEECH TIME THEY CAN ONLY BALLOON
ONE MAJOR ISSUE AND CONSEQUENTLY THEY MUST SE
LECT THE RIGHT ONE 2EMEMBER THE PURPOSE OF
THE .2 IS TO ESTABLISH WINNING ARGUMENTS AND
PUT THE PRESSURE ON THE !2 )T FOLLOWS THAT
THE ARGUMENT CHOSEN MUST HAVE ENOUGH IMPACT
TO WIN THE ROUND AND BE DEVELOPED ENOUGH TO
REQUIRE TIME AND ATTENTION IN THE !2
4HIS STRATEGY NECESSITATES THE DROPPING OF
ARGUMENTS 4HE NEGATIVE HAS THE LUXURY OF
FOCUSING ON THE WEAKEST PART OF THE AFlRMATIVE
CASE SO THEY CAN STRATEGICALLY DROP CERTAIN ARGU
MENTS IN ORDER TO CONCENTRATE ON THOSE PARTS
)N ADDITION TO BALLOONING ONE MAJOR ISSUE
AND STRATEGICALLY DROPPING INCONSEQUENTIAL ONES
THE .2 HAS THE OPTION OF QUICKLY ARGUING A FEW
KEY CASE ATTACKS &OR EXAMPLE YOU MAY HAVE
SOME CLEAR AND PERSUASIVE SOLVENCY PRESSES
&INALLY THE .2 MUST COVER ANY ADDITIONAL
ADVANTAGES THAT WERE CLAIMED IN THE !# THESE
ARE SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS hADDONSv 4HE
.# COULD COVER ADDONS BUT USUALLY DOESNT
BECAUSE THE .2 HAS MORE TIME TO PREPARE
8MTWJSVXLI26
'IVE A TEN SECOND INTRO AND A ONELINE CON
CLUSION WHICH PERSUASIVELY STATES THE IMPACT
YOUR SPEECH HAS IN THE ROUND
7HEN BALLOONING IT IS CRUCIAL THAT YOU CARE
FULLY ANSWER !# RESPONSES POINTBYPOINT
$ONT REPEAT TAGS %XTENDING AN ARGUMENT IS
NOT REPEATING THE ARGUMENT )T IS REBUTTING
THE AFlRMATIVES ARGUMENT AND EXPLAINING
WHY YOURS IS BETTER
5SE NO PREP TIME 4HE BIGGEST FAVOR YOU
CAN DO FOR THE !2 IS TAKE LOTS OF PREP TIME
BEFORE YOUR SPEECH 4HE .2 SPEECH SHOULD
BE PREPARED DURING THE .#
h3TEALv PREP TIME AND USE IT WISELY 9OU HAVE
ALL THE PREP TIME USED BY THE .# ALL THE
SPEECH TIME USED BY THE .# AND ALL THE
TIME SPENT CROSSEXAMINING THE .# TO GET
YOUR SPEECH READY 4HATS MORE TIME THAN
ANYONE ELSE IN THE ROUND 5SE IT TO PREPARE
EXCELLENT WRITTENOUT EXPLANATIONS OF KEY
POINTS IN YOUR SPEECH
!NTICIPATE !2 RESPONSES AND PREEMPT
THEM !S THE SEASON PROGRESSES YOU WILL
KNOW WHAT TO PREEMPT BY mOWING THE !2
2ESIST THE TEMPTATION TO CLOSE UP SHOP AFTER
YOUR .2
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
8LI*MVWX%JÞVQEXMZI6IFYXXEP
8LITYVTSWISJXLI%6MWWMQTPI
HSR³XPSWIXLIHIFEXI
IN ORDER BEFORE YOU BEGIN TO SPEAK
4HE STRATEGY IS EQUALLY SIMPLE DONT DROP
ANYTHING #OVER EVERY IMPORTANT ARGUMENT 9OU
CANNOT ANSWER EACH SUBPOINT ON AN ARGUMENT
BUT YOU SHOULD ANSWER ANY ARGUMENT WHICH
COULD POTENTIALLY WIN THE DEBATE FOR THE NEGA
TIVE 4HERE ARE THREE AREAS IN WHICH YOU MAY
DROP SOME POINTS TO COVER THE ENTIRE ISSUE
s $ISADS 0ICK A SET OF !# ARGUMENTS TO EX
TEND /R IF THE DISAD WAS INTRODUCED IN .#
GO FOR LINKS OR IMPACTS BUT NOT BOTH 9OU
SIMPLY DONT HAVE TIME
s #OUNTERPLANS !GAIN GO FOR A SET OF !#
RESPONSES 'O FOR EITHER TOPICALITY COMPETI
TIVENESS OR DISADVANTAGES 4HE AFlRMATIVES
HAVE THE LUXURY OF PICKING AND CHOOSING
WHICH COUNTERPLAN TAKEOUTS TO EXTEND
s #ASE ATTACKS 9OU DONT HAVE TO WIN EVERY
CARD ON CASE 9OU NEED TO WIN ENOUGH TO OUT
WEIGH DISAD RISKS 9OU NEED TO WIN ENOUGH
OF THE PRIMA FACIE BURDENS OF THE !# )F
YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE ADVANTAGE YOU MAY
CHOOSE TO JETTISON THE WEAKEST ONE
8MTWJSVXLI%6
7ORD ECONOMY "E CONCISE %VERYTHING
SHOULD BE ON BLOCKS 5SE ABBREVIATIONS
(IGHLIGHT YOUR EVIDENCE %LIMINATE PET
PHRASES $ONT OVEREXPLAIN 0REmOW
YOUR SPEECH 0LACE IMPORTANT WORDS
lRST ON THE LABEL
2EFER TO PREVIOUS EVIDENCE )T IS NOT
POSSIBLE TO READ MUCH EVIDENCE IN THE
!2 5SE THE EVIDENCE FROM THE !#
AND !# BY EXTENDING THE CARDS
"E ORGANIZED )T IS IMPORTANT TO BE
ORGANIZED FOR ALL SPEECHES AND IT IS
CRITICALLY IMPORTANT TO BE ORGANIZED
FOR THE !2 (AVE ALL OF YOUR BRIEFS
/RDER OF ISSUES !LWAYS PUT TOPICALITY lRST
IN THE !2 4HEN GO TO DISADSCOUNTERPLANS
'O TO CASE LAST %NDING ON FAMILIAR GROUND
HELPS YOU ALLOCATE THE TIME
4IME ALLOCATION 4HE LAST THING YOU DO BE
FORE YOUR DELIVERY OF THE !2 IS TO COUNT THE
NUMBER OF ISSUES YOU WILL BE COVERING 4HIS
WILL GIVE YOU A SENSE OF HOW MUCH TIME YOU
CAN SPEND ON EACH ARGUMENT
%XPLOIT NEGATIVE CONTRADICTIONS ,OOK FOR
SOME OF THESE POPULAR CONTRADICTIONS
! )NHERENCY$ISAD )F NEGATIVE SAYS THE
STATUS QUO IS WORKING THEN WHY HAVENT
THE DISADS HAPPENED
" 3OLVENCY$ISAD 9OU MAY BE ABLE TO
GRANT A NEGATIVE SOLVENCY ARGUMENT IN
ORDER TO EVADE THE LINK TO A DISAD
# $ISAD$ISAD .EGATIVES OFTEN RUN DISADS
WITH CONTRADICTORY THESES 9OU CAN GRANT
ONE DISAD TO PREVENT ANOTHER #AUTION
DO NOT GRANT NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS THAT
COULD BEAT YOU &OR EXAMPLE IF YOU ARE
GOING TO GRANT OUT ONE SOLVENCY ARGU
MENTS TO EVADE A DISAD MAKE SURE YOU
HAVE ANOTHER SOLVENCY MECHANISM LEFT
TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE
6IQIQFIVXLI%6LEWXS
WTIEOUYMGOP]ERHYWIKSSH
[SVHIGSRSQ]FIGEYWIXLI%6
LEWSRP]EJI[QMRYXIWXSER
W[IVXLIIRXMVIRIKEXMZIFPSGO
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
8LI7IGSRH2IKEXMZI6IFYXXEP
2S[MWXLIXMQIXSTYXEPPSJ]SYV
IKKWMRSRIFEWOIX
(IGH )MPACT $ISADS 7IN A DISAD WITH AN
IMPACT THAT OUTWEIGHS THE CASE ADVANTAGES
4HE NEGATIVE SEARCH FOR TRUTH ENDS IN THE
.2 7INNING REQUIRES THE .2 TO CHOOSE THE
ISSUES AND APPROACH TO CREATE A PERSUASIVE BOT
TOM LINE NEGATIVE POSITION 4HE .2 CANNOT
PURSUE EVERYTHING IN THE DEBATE BECAUSE THE
JUDGE MUST BE TOLD WHICH ARGUMENTS TO CON
SIDER )F NOT GIVEN A RATIONALE OR hBOTTOM LINEv
POSITION THE JUDGE WILL NOT KNOW WHY TO VOTE
NEGATIVE ! WINNING .2 WRITES THE BALLOT FOR
THE JUDGE
4OPICALITY !RGUE THAT TOPICALITY IS AN AB
SOLUTE VOTING ISSUE )N OTHER WORDS THE JUDGE
SHOULD DECIDE TOPICALITY BEFORE EVALUATING THE
4HERE ARE TWO WAYS TO WIN IN THE .2 h7IN
THE $ROPv OR h7IN THE 0OSITIONv
s 7IN THE $ROP -ANY DEBATES ARE DE
CIDED BECAUSE THE !2 COULD NOT COVER
THE NEGATIVE BLOCK OR BECAUSE DEBATERS
COULD NOT mOW VERY WELL AND MISSED
RESPONSES 4HE .2S JOB WOULD SIMPLY
BE TO PULL THE DROPPED ARGUMENT AND
EXPLAIN WHY IT IS SUFlCIENT TO VOTE NEGA
TIVE 4HIS ENTAILS WEIGHING THE DROPPED
ARGUMENT AGAINST THE AFlRMATIVE CASE
%XAMPLES INCLUDE DROPPED DISADS TOPI
CALITY OR MAJOR CASE ARGUMENTS
s 7IN THE 0OSITION 4HE .2 MUST PULL
ALL NEGATIVE ISSUES TOGETHER IN A WAY
THAT JETTISONS ALL IRRELEVANT MATERIAL AND
FOCUSES THE DEBATE ON THE SINGLE NEGA
TIVE STRATEGY ,ISTED BELOW ARE SEVERAL
TYPICAL NEGATIVE FRAMEWORKS THAT CAN
BE USED ALONE OR IN COMBINATION WITH
OTHER FRAMEWORKS 2EMEMBER THE IM
PORTANCE OF NARROWING THE DEBATE TO A
SIMPLE BOTTOM LINE POSITION AND DO NOT
EMPLOY TOO MANY FRAMEWORKS AT ONCE
%ITHER WAY YOU WILL STILL NEED TO WIN SPE
CIlC KINDS OF ARGUMENTS IN ORDER TO WIN THE
ROUND (ERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF THE KINDS OF
ARGUMENTS YOU NEED TO WIN IN ORDER TO WIN THE
DEBATE
-XGERFIZIV]HMJßGYPX
XSHIGMHI[LMGLMWWYIW
XSJSGYWSRMRXLI26
REST OF THE DEBATE 4HE .2 MAY COMBINE THE
TOPICALITY FRAMEWORK WITH SOME OTHER FRAME
WORK OR THE .2 MAY WISH TO PURSUE TOPICALITY
EXCLUSIVELY
0RIMA &ACIE )SSUE 4HE .2 MAY SUCCEED
IN TOTALLY BEATING THE AFlRMATIVE ON THEIR OWN
GROUND WITH ONE OF THE CASE REQUIREMENTS 4HE
ONLY PROBLEM WITH THIS IS THAT WITHOUT A GOOD
DISAD THE AFlRMATIVE CAN ALWAYS ARGUE THAT THE
JUDGE HAS NOTHING TO LOSE BY VOTING AFlRMATIVE
SINCE AT WORST NOTHING BAD WILL HAPPENˆWE
MIGHT AS WELL TRY TO IMPROVE THE STATUS QUO 4HIS
IS WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO MAKE ARGUMENTS THAT
TURN THE CASEˆARGUMENTS THAT THE PLAN ACTUALLY
MAKES THE PROBLEMS IDENTIlED BY THE CASE WORSE
THAN THEY ARE IN THE STATUS QUO
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
4HE #OUNTERPLAN 0OSITION 4HE .2 MAY
CHOOSE TO FOCUS EXCLUSIVELY ON THE COUNTERPLAN
POSITIONESPECIALLY IF IT COMPETES WITH THE AF
lRMATIVES ADVANTAGES AND THE NEGATIVES ARE
UNIQUE TO THE AFlRMATIVE SOLVENCY
s h4HEY MAY BE WINNING A LITTLE ADVANTAGE
BUT THE DISADVANTAGE WILL OUTWEIGHv
8MTWJSVXLI26
s h%VEN IF THEY ARE WINNING A RISK OF A TURN
ON THIS DISADVANTAGE THE COUNTERPLAN
WILL SOLVE THE TURNv
0REEMPT THE !2 #LICHES INCLUDE
s .O NEW ARGUMENTS IN THE !2
s .O NEW CROSSAPPLICATIONS IN THE !2
s )F YOU CANT TRACE IT BACK TO THE !2
IGNORE IT
$O NOT GO FOR EVERYTHING 9OU MUST WIN A
POSITION OR A DROPPED ARGUMENT .OW IS THE
TIME TO CONSIDER PUTTING ALL OF YOUR EGGS IN
ONE BASKET
%XTEND YOUR NEGATIVE BLOCK ARGUMENTS
$ONT JUST SUMMARIZE 4HERE ARE TWO PARTS
TO EXTENDING AN ARGUMENT $ENY THE TRUTH
RELEVANCE OF THE OPPOSITION ARGUMENT AND
EXPLAIN WHY YOURS IS BETTER -ANY .2S FALL
INTO THE hNO CLASH TRAPv 9OU MUST DRAW THE
CONNECTION BETWEEN YOUR ARGUMENTS AND
THEIRS #LICHES INCLUDE
s h4HEY HAVE GOOD EVIDENCE HERE BUT OURS
ANSWERS ITv
s h7E POSTDATE THEIR UNIQUENESS EVI
DENCEv
s h/N TOPICALITY THEY DO NOT EXTEND THEIR
OWN DElNITION OUR DElNITION IS THE ONLY
ONE IN THE DEBATEv
%ACH OF THESE CLICHES CONSIDERS THE OPPO
NENTS ARGUMENT AND ATTEMPTS TO ANSWER IT
3EQUENCE 'O TO YOUR BEST ARGUMENTS lRST
3PEND A SIGNIlCANT AMOUNT OF TIME ON THE
ARGUMENT YOU WANT THE JUDGE TO VOTE ON
#OMPARE ARGUMENTS &REQUENTLY DEBATERS
ASSUME THAT IF THEY EXTEND THEIR ARGUMENTS
THE JUDGE WILL SIMPLY KNOW THAT THEIR AR
GUMENTS ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THEIR
OPPONENTS $O NOT BE SO TRUSTING #LICHES
INCLUDE
s h4HEY HAVE A GOOD DElNITION BUT IT UN
FAIRLY EXPANDS THE GROUNDS OF THE TOPIC
SO IT IS NOT GOOD FOR DEBATEv
4AKE ALL OF YOUR PREP TIME 5SE ALL OF YOUR
PREP TIME TO WRITE OUT RESPONSES TO THE ISSUES
YOU HAVE NARROWED DOWN 4AKE A MOMENT
TO LOOK OVER THE mOW AND BE CERTAIN YOU ARE
NOT GOING TO MISS AN IMPORTANT AFlRMATIVE
RESPONSE #HECK WITH YOUR PARTNER TO SEE
WHAT ISSUES HE OR SHE MIGHT THINK ARE IM
PORTANT
6IQIQFIVXLI26ERHXLI
%6VITVIWIRXIEGLXIEQ³W
*-2%034436892-8=
XSI\TPEMRMXWTSMRXSJZMI[
XSXLINYHKI
-J]SYLEZIER]XLMRKMQTSV
XERXXSWE]23;-78,)
8-1)837%=-8%VKY
MRK[MXLXLINYHKIEJXIVXLI
VSYRHMWSZIVQMKLXQEOI
]SYJIIPFIXXIVFYXMX[SR³X
GLERKIXLISYXGSQISJXLI
HIFEXIERHMX[MPPTVSFEFP]
QEOIXLINYHKILEXI]SY
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
8LI7IGSRH%JÞVQEXMZI6IFYXXEP
8LI%JßVQEXMZIKIXWXLIPEWXWTIIGL
MRXLIHIFEXIERHXLI]RIIHXSXEOI
JYPPEHZERXEKISJMX
4HE GENERAL STRATEGY OF THE !2 IS TO REESTABLISH
CASE ADVANTAGES AND TO MINIMIZE OR TAKE OUT
THE IMPACTS OF THE NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS )N ORDER
TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THE NEGATIVE ARGU
MENTS GO TO THE BEST ISSUE IN THE MIDDLE OF YOUR
SPEECH 4HIS TRICK TENDS TO DEEMPHASIZE THE
ARGUMENTS THAT THE .2 CLAIMED WERE CRITICAL
IN THE DEBATE )N ORDER TO REESTABLISH YOUR CASE
ADVANTAGE BEGIN YOUR SPEECH WITH YOUR OWN
AGENDA OR OVERVIEW THAT PUTS FORTH THE MOST
COMPELLING REASON TO VOTE AFlRMATIVE &OR EX
AMPLE YOUR CASE STRATEGY MAY HAVE BEEN TO RUN
A LOW IMPACT HIGH PROBABILITY ADVANTAGE THAT
EVADES ALL DISAD LINKS )N THAT CASE YOU WOULD
lRST GO BACK TO YOUR ADVANTAGE AND CLAIM IT TO
BE ABSOLUTE THEN COVER THE DISAD ARGUING ZERO
RISK ON EACH
LOST A FEW ISSUES )F YOU ARE UNABLE TO BEAT AN
ARGUMENT THEN SAY SOMETHING LIKE hEVEN
IF YOU GRANT THE NEGATIVE A PARTIAL SOLVENCY
ARGUMENT THEN YOU STILL VOTE AFlRMATIVE ON
THE CHANCE THE PLAN WILL SOLVEv /R hEVEN
WITH ONLY SOLVENCY YOU SHOULD STILL VOTE
AFlRMATIVE SINCE IT IS COMPARATIVELY BETTER
THEN THE STATUS QUOv
8LIVSYXMRI
!##ASE AND PLAN
8MTWJSVXLI%6
.#4OPICALITY DISADS
COUNTERPLAN OR CASE
%XTEND $ONT JUST REPEAT OR SUMMARIZE YOUR
ARGUMENTS
!#!NSWER .# AND
EXTEND CASE
'ROUP 3ELECT THE STRONGEST !2 RESPONSES
TO GO FOR
.##ASE AND ANSWER
!#LEAVE CASE ARGU
MENTS FOR .2
3EQUENCE 3ET YOUR AGENDA #OVER THE .2
%ND WITH A SHORT EXPLANATION OF WHY YOU
HAVE WON THE ROUND
2ETELL THE STORY %VERY AFlRMATIVE HAS A
NARRATIVE BEHIND IT %MPHASIZE HOW YOUR
STORY IS MORE PLAUSIBLE OR MORE COMPELLING
OR MORE ANYTHING THAN THEIRS IS
!LLOCATE TIME LIKE THE .2 3PEND TIME ON
THE ISSUES THAT THE .2 SPENT TIME ON )T WILL
DO NO GOOD TO REEXPLAIN CASE FOR MINUTES
IF THE .2 SPENT MINUTES ON A DISAD A
COUNTERPLAN AND A TOPICALITY VIOLATION
.2!NSWER REST OF
!#
!2!NSWER .# AND
.2
.2)SOLATE THE VOTING
ISSUES
!2)SOLATE THE VOTING
ISSUES
7RAP UP THE DEBATE %XPLAIN WHY YOU
SHOULD STILL WIN THE ROUND EVEN IF YOU HAVE
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
7XVEXIKMG'SRWMHIVEXMSRWJSV6IFYXXEPW
26*MVWX2IKEXMZI6IFYXXEP
3ELECT ISSUES NOT COVERED BY YOUR PARTNER
.%6%2 %6%2 2%#/6%2 4(%)2 !2'5
-%.43 AND EXTEND THEM AS COMPREHEN
SIVELY AS POSSIBLE TO BE WINNING ISSUES AND
TO PUT PRESSURE ON THE !2
&INISH EXTENDING ISSUES THAT YOUR PARTNER
DIDNT lNISH
-AKE SURE THAT THE MAJOR IMPACTS CLAIMED
BY THE OTHER TEAM ARE MINIMIZED
4AKE ./ PREPARATION TIME FOR YOUR SPEECH
AS YOU WILL HAVE THE .# AND CROSSEX WHICH
IS A MINIMUM OF MINUTES
2EAD EXTENSION EVIDENCE TO MAKE SURE THAT
YOUR POSITIONS ARE WELL EXPLAINED AND EVI
DENCED
$O NOT GO FOR ALL YOUR ARGUMENTS 0ICK THE
STRONGEST AND MOST WINNABLE AND BLOW THEM
UP
4RY TO GROUP AND CONSOLIDATE ARGUMENTS
AS WELL AS CUTTING BACK THE NUMBER OF CARDS
READ TO MAXIMIZE YOUR EFlCIENCY
267IGSRH2IKEXMZI6IFYXXEP
$ONT GO FOR EVERYTHING )T IS FAR BETTER TO
MAKE STRATEGIC CHOICES AND GO FOR A FEW
THINGS WELL THIS WILL ALSO PROBABLY ENTAIL
READING &%7 CARDS
!SSESS IMPACTS TO TRY AND GET INTO THE MEN
TALITY OF THE JUDGE AND DETERMINE WHAT THEY
WILL lND THE MOST COMPELLING
#LOSE THE DOOR ON LIKELY !2 ARGUMENTS
AND THE THINGS THAT THEYRE WINNING THE
MOST CLEARLY AS WELL AS CLOSING THE DOOR ON
NEW ARGUMENTS
$ONT GO FOR 4OPICALITY UNLESS YOU CAN WIN
IT IN A MINUTE OR YOU INTEND TO GO FOR IT EX
CLUSIVELY
"E CAREFUL TO NOT EXTEND ARGUMENTS THAT
CONTRADICT YOUR PARTNERS
3PEND SUFlCIENT TIME ON YOU PARTNERS ARGU
MENTS AND TRY TO ORDER WHAT YOU CAN GO FOR
IN TERMS OF IMPORTANCE
%6*MVWX%JßVQEXMZI6IFYXXEP
7HEN KICKING OUT A DISADVANTAGE MAKE SURE
THAT YOU LEAVE NO ROOM FOR A TURNAROUND
%XTEND SEVERAL WINNING ARGUMENTS AGAINST
EACH NEGATIVE POSITION EXTENDED IN THE BLOCK
TO GIVE YOUR PARTNER mEXIBILITY IN THE !2
$ONT GET BOGGED DOWN IN EXPLANATIONˆ
THERES TOO MUCH TO COVER TO TRY AND EXPLAIN
EVERYTHING
4AKE AS LITTLE PREP TIME AS POSSIBLE TRY TO mOW
YOUR ANSWERS TO THE .# DURING THE CROSSEX
OF THE .#
7HEN EXTENDING DISADS MAKE SURE TO EXTEND
THE ARGUMENTS DROPPED BY THE !2 AND ASSESS
IMPACTS AS COMPARED TO THE AFlRMATIVE CASE
%67IGSRH%JßVQEXMZI6IFYXXEP
"E SELECTIVE IN THE ANSWERS YOU GO FOR AND
2%!,,9 EXPLAIN THEM
!SSESS IMPACTS WELL AND COMPARE THE CASE
TO THE DISADS THAT THE NEGATIVE MIGHT WIN
(AVE YOUR PARTNER LOOK FOR EVIDENCE FOR
YOU SO YOU CAN CONCENTRATE ON YOUR mOWING
ANSWERS TO ARGUMENTS
2EORDER FROM THE .2 ADDRESS THE ISSUES
THAT YOURE WINNING lRST AND THEN DEAL WITH
THE REST OF THE ISSUES IN THE DEBATE
/RDER YOUR ARGUMENTS AND COVER THEM IN
ORDER OF IMPORTANCE THE lRST BEING THE MOST
IMPORTANT AND MAKE SURE TO ANSWER NEW
BLOCK ARGUMENTS lRST
4HESE SUGGESTIONS APPEAR AS EXPLAINED BY $AVID
#HESHIER IN HIS hREBUTTAL SKILLSv LECTURE AT THE
%MORY .ATIONAL $EBATE )NSTITUTE
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
'LIGOPMWXJSV;MRRMRKERH0SWMRK
,ISTED BELOW ARE SOME BRIEF GUIDELINES ON WHAT
THE AFlRMATIVE MUST DO IN ORDER TO WIN THE DE
BATE BASED ON DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS 2EMEMBER
THE PRESUMPTION FALLS ON THE NEGATIVE AND THE
AFlRMATIVE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE
AFlRMATIVE POLICY IS DESIRABLE )F THE NEGATIVE
CAN WIN JUST ONE OF MANY ISSUES THAT MAY BE
ENOUGH FOR A NEGATIVE WIN
-AKE SURE YOU REVIEW THE SECTION OF DISAD
VANTAGES
4OPICALITY 4HE AFlRMATIVE DOES NOT INI
TIATE THE TOPICALITY ARGUMENT )F IT IS NOT
PRESENTED BY THE NEGATIVE THEN IT WILL NOT BE
AN ISSUE IN THE DEBATE )F IT IS PRESENTED BY
THE NEGATIVE TEAM THEN YOU MUST REMEMBER
TO DO SEVERAL THINGS
E !NTICIPATE WHAT THE DISADS WILL BE AND
HAVE BRIEFS READY TO RESPOND TO THESE
ARGUMENTS
A !NSWER THE STANDARDS -AKE SURE YOU
HAVE REASONS WHY THEIR STANDARDS ARE
UNREASONABLE
B !RGUE EACH VIOLATION -AKE SURE THAT
YOU HAVE EXTENSION BRIEFS ON THE DEl
NITIONS THAT YOU THINK WILL BE DEBATED
-AKE THE NEGATIVE PROVE WHY THEIR DEl
NITIONS ARE BETTER THAN YOURS
C !SK FOR THEIR 4OPICALITY BRIEFS IN #8
AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE COVERED
ALL OF THE VIOLATIONS )F TIME PERMITS
EXAMINE THE DElNITIONS THAT THEY READ
AND LOOK FOR INCONSISTENCIES WITHIN THE
EVIDENCE
D !RGUE THAT 4OPICALITY IS NOT A VOTING IS
SUE -AKE SURE YOU HAVE BRIEFS ON THIS
RESPONSE
E .EVER DROP TOPICALITY IN REBUTTALSFOR
MOST JUDGES THAT BECOMES AN ABSOLUTE
VOTING ISSUE AND AN EASY WAY TO DECIDE
THE DEBATE $ONT LET ANY JUDGES HAVE
THIS LUXURY OF DECISION
$ISADVANTAGES .EXT TO TOPICALITY THE DISAD
VANTAGES ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES IN THE
ROUND *UDGES ARE LOOKING FOR COMPARISONS
AFTER THE ROUNDAFlRMATIVE ADVANTAGES IN
COMPETITION WITH NEGATIVE DISADVANTAGES
A !TTACK THE LINKS
B $ISPROVE OR TURN THE IMPACTS
C !RG UE THRESHHOLD OR BRINK IS NOT
UNIQUE
D 0ROVE DISADS WONT HAPPEN
!FlRMATIVE #ASE )SSUES 0ROBABLY THE MOST
IMPORTANT CASE ISSUE WILL BE SOLVENCY (OW
EVER THERE ARE SOME OTHER ISSUES YOU NEED
TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND
A )NHERENCY 4HE NEGATIVE WILL ARGUE THAT
THE PLAN IS ALREADY BEING DONE OR WILL
BE DONE IN THE STATUS QUO 3OMETIMES
THE NEGATIVE WILL PRESS THAT THE AFlRMA
TIVE MUST SHOW WHAT THE hCORE MOTIVEv
IS BEHIND THE INHERENCY BARRIER 4HE
BOTTOM LINE IS THAT OVER THE YEARS INHER
ENCY HAS BECOME A SOMEWHAT MEDIOCRE
ARGUMENT !S LONG AS THE AFlRMATIVE
KEEPS EXTENDING THE EVIDENCE THAT THE
31 CANNOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM WITHOUT THE
AFlRMATIVE PLAN AND THAT THE AFlRMATIVE
PLAN WILL NOT BE PASSED IN THE STATUS QUO
THE AFlRMATIVE SHOULD BE ABLE TO WIN THAT
THERE IS SOME UNIQUE ADVANTAGE TO BE
GAINED BY VOTING FOR THE AFlRMATIVE
%VEN IF THE STATUS QUO IS LIKELY TO SOLVE
LARGE PORTIONS OF THE AFlRMATIVE HARM
WITHOUT A DISADVANTAGE THE AFlRMATIVE
PLAN IS STILL DESIRABLE
B 3IGNIlCANCE )F ANY AFlRMATIVE LOSES ON
THE QUESTION OF SIGNIlCANCE THEN THE
AFlRMATIVE WAS NEVER REALLY PREPARED TO
DEBATE ANYWAY .EGATIVE TEAMS RARELY
GET BY ARGUING THAT THE QUANTIFIABLE
HARM SELECTED BY THE AFlRMATIVE IS NOT
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
SIGNIlCANT )F AN AFlRMATIVE ARGUES THAT
HOMELESS PEOPLE DIED OF !)$3
HOW CAN THE NEGATIVE DETERMINE THAT
NUMBER HAS TO BE IN ORDER TO
BE SIGNIlCANT !LL AN AFlRMATIVE HAS
TO DO IS ARGUE THAT THE CASE IS COMPARA
TIVELY ADVANTAGEOUS COMPARED TO THE
STATUS QUO )F THERE IS MORE ADVANTAGE
WITH THE AFlRMATIVE POSITION THAN THE
NEGATIVE POSITION THEN THE AFlRMATIVE
SHOULD WIN SIGNIlCANCE
C 3OLVENCY 2EALLY THIS ISSUE IS THE STARTING
POINT FOR COMPARING ADVANTAGES TO DIS
ADVANTAGES 4HE NEGATIVE MIGHT ATTACK
SOLVENCY THREE WAYS
&IRST THEY MIGHT SIMPLY INDICT THE AF
lRMATIVE EVIDENCE 0UT GOOD SOLVENCY
CARDS IN THE !# 0REPARE TO EXTEND WITH
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE "E ABLE TO EXTEND
THE QUALIlCATIONS OF YOUR SOURCES "E
PREPARED TO READ EVIDENCE INDICATING
OTHERS BELIEVE THE PLAN WILL SOLVE
3ECOND THEY MIGHT ARGUE PLANMEET
NEEDS 0-.S 0-.S INDICATE THAT
STRUCTURAL INADEQUACIES PREVENT SOLVING
EVEN IF THE PLAN IS A GOOD IDEA 0ERHAPS
THE PERSONNEL EQUIPMENT EXPERTISE AND
OTHER RESOURCES VITAL TO SOLVING THE PROB
LEM ARE NOT AVAILABLE 4HUS THE AFlRM
ATIVE MUST NOT ONLY SHOW THE PLAN IS A
GOOD IDEA BUT THAT THE PLAN IS SUFlCIENTLY
EFFECTIVE TO ATTAIN SOME ADVANTAGE
#OUNTERPLANS 3OMETIMES THE BEST WAY TO
BEAT A COUNTERPLAN IS TO THROW IT BACK TO THE
NEGATIVE )N ORDER FOR THE COUNTERPLAN TO
WIN IT MUST MEET THREE CRITERIA )T SHOULD
BE NONTOPICAL IT MUST BE COMPETITIVE AND
IT MUST HAVE AN ADVANTAGE WHICH IS GREATER
THAN THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN 4HE AFlRMATIVE
CAN RESPOND SEVERAL WAYS &IRST YOU CAN
PREPARE SOLVENCY ARGUMENTS AGAINST THAT
PARTICULAR COUNTERPLAN 3ECOND YOU CAN
ARGUE THAT THE COUNTERPLAN DOES NOT COM
PETEˆTHAT YOU CAN DO THEM BOTH AT THE
SAME TIME 4HIRD YOU CAN ARGUE THAT YOUR
ADVANTAGES ARE SUPERIOR TO THE COUNTERPLAN
ADVANTAGES &OR MORE DISCUSSION ON THE IS
SUE OF COUNTERPLANS REVIEW THAT SECTION OF
THE MANUAL
-OST BEGINNING DEBATERS WILL LOSE THE DEBATE
BY DROPPING OR NOT RESPONDING TO ARGUMENTS
$ONT BE AFRAID TO OFFER ANSWERS TO ARGUMENTS
YOU ARE UNPREPARED FOR 4HAT WILL COST YOU THE
DEBATE *UST THINK CLEARLY AND YOU WILL COME UP
WITH ANSWERS
4HIRD THEY MIGHT ARGUE CIRCUMVENTION
!CTORS OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF CONTROL OF
THE AFlRMATIVE MIGHT ACT TO BLOCK THE
PLAN &REQUENTLY IDENTIFYING WHO OP
POSES THE PLAN AND WHY WILL PROVIDE THE
NEGATIVE WITH ARGUMENTS FOR INDIVIDUALS
WHO WILL OBSTRUCT THE OUTCOME OF THE
PLAN 4HESE ARE USUALLY INDIVIDUALS
WHO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN KEEPING
THE STATUS QUO 4HE AFFIRMATIVE CAN
ANSWER THIS ARGUMENT BY PROVING THAT
THESE INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS DO NOT HAVE
AN INTEREST IN BLOCKING THE PLAN OR THAT
THEY ARE UNABLE TO DO SO
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
(IFEXI6ET7LIIX
-X³W'SSPXS/RS[XLI0MRKS
ADVANTAGE
THE COOL THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN
BECAUSE OF YOUR PLAN
AFlRMATIVE
THE TEAM THAT SUPPORT THE RESOLUTION
BRIEF
NO ˆ WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT UNDERWEAR
4HIS IS AN OUTLINE OF THE ARGUMENTS YOU ARE
GOING TO MAKE IN A DEBATE !LSO REFERRED TO
AS A hBLOCKv
CASE SIDE
ALSO hON CASEv ARGUMENTS THAT DIRECTLY AP
PLY TO ADVANTAGES OF THE CASE 4HIS MEANS
SIGNIFICANCEHARMS INHERENCY AND SOL
VENCY
CITE CITATION
WHERE YOU GET YOUR EVIDENCE FROM
CLASH
TO ARGUE SPECIlCALLY AGAINST WHAT THE OTHER
TEAM SAYS
CONSTRUCTIVE
THE lRST FOUR SPEECHES IN A DEBATE
CONTENTIONS
A WAY TO NUMBER THE AFlRMATIVE ARGUMENTS
EG #ONTENTION ) #ONTENTION )) ETC
CROSSEXAMINATION
CROSSEX THE QUESTIONING PERIOD FOLLOWING
EACH OF THE lRST FOUR SPEECHES IN A DEBATE
DISADVANTAGE
DISAD OR DA THE BAD THING THAT WILL HAPPEN
IF THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN IS ADOPTED
EVIDENCE
EV OR CARD QUOTATIONS WHICH SUPPORT YOUR
ARGUMENTS
mOW
TO TAKE NOTES OF THE DEBATE AS IT PROGRESS
ES
mOWSHEET
THE PAPER YOU USE TO TAKE NOTES DURING THE
DEBATE
IMPACT
THE BAD OR GOOD THINGS THAT HAPPEN AS A
RESULT OF THE PLAN OR THE COUNTERPLAN OR
THE DISADVANTAGE
INHERENCY
THE REASON WHY SOMEONE IS NOT DOING SOME
THING ABOUT YOUR PLAN RIGHT THIS MINUTE THE
BARRIER IN THE STATUS QUO THAT PREVENTS THE
PRESENT SYSTEM FROM SOLVING THINGS WITHOUT
THE HELP OF THE PLAN
LINK
HOW THE DISADVANTAGE IS CAUSED BY THE
PLAN OR HOW THE ADVANTAGE IS CAUSED BY THE
PLAN
PREP TIME
TIME GIVEN TO EACH TEAM DURING THE ROUND
TO PREPARE SPEECHES
PRIMAFACIE
THE AFlRMATIVE CASE HAS EVERYTHING IN IT THAT
IS EXPECTED TO BE THERE 4HE PHRASE LITERALLY
MEANS hON FACEv
REBUTTAL
THE LAST FOUR SPEECHES IN A DEBATEˆARGUMENTS
ARE TO BE EXPLAINED AND EXTENDED IN THESE
SPEECHES /H YEAH AND YOURE SUPPOSED TO
WIN THE DEBATE ROUND DURING THESE SPEECHES
TOO
RESOLUTION
THE BIG TOPIC YOU ARE DEBATING )T ALWAYS
STARTS WITH THE WORD h2ESOLVEDv AND THEN
INCLUDES A hSHOULDv STATEMENT ADVOCATING A
GENERAL KIND OF ACTION
SCENARIO
A PICTURE OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOUR PLAN
OR DISADVANTAGE WERE TO HAPPEN
SIGNIlCANCE
HOW BIG THIS PROBLEM IS HOW SIGNIlCANT
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
SOLVENCY
CAN THE PLAN WORK TO lX
THE PROBLEM
SPREAD
TO MAKE A WHOLE
BUNCH OF ARGUMENTS
VERY QUICKLY DURING A
DEBATE
STANDARDS
A SET OF RULES
WHICH ALLOWS THE
JUDGE TO DECIDE
WHICH ARGUMENT
IS BETTER USUALLY
IN TOPICALITY
STATUS QUO
THE WAY THINGS ARE NOW
STOCK ISSUES
THOSE ISSUES THAT THE AFlRMATIVE TEAM MUST
INCLUDE IN PLAN SIGNIlCANCE HARMS INHER
ENCY TOPICALITY SOLVENCY
SUBPOINTS
SUPPORTING POINTS OF YOUR ARGUMENTS
THRESHHOLD
HOW MUCH WOULD IT TAKE FOR SOMETHING TO
HAPPEN EG IF ) WERE TO PINCH YOU HOW
HARD WOULD ) HAVE TO PINCH YOU BEFORE YOU
SCREAMED
TIME FRAME
THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT WOULD TAKE FOR THE
IMPACT TO HAPPEN
TOPICALITY
SOMETIMES CALLED SIMPLY h4v AN ARGUMENT
ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE PLAN MEETS THE
RESOLUTION
TURN
TO MAKE AN OPPONENTS ARGUMENT AN ARGU
MENT FOR YOU EG YOU SOLVE PROBLEMS YOUR
OPPONENT SAYS YOU WILL CAUSE OR WHAT YOUR
OPPONENT SAYS IS GOOD IS ACTUALLY BAD
UNIQUENESS
THE PART OF A DISAD WHICH PROVES THAT THE
PLAN AND /.,9 THE PLAN WOULD CAUSE BAD
THINGS TO HAPPEN
*HQHULF$EEUHYLDWLRQV
)RU6RXUFHV)RU*RYHUQPHQW$JHQFLHV
1<71HZ<RUN7LPHV ++6+HDOWKDQG+XPDQ6HU
YLFHV
:6-:DOO6WUHHW-RXUQDO 6&6XSUHPH&RXUW
861861HZV:RUOG5HSRUW *$2*HQHUDO$FFRXQWLQJ2IILFH
1:1HZVZHHN'2-'HSDUWPHQWRI-XVWLFH
:3:DVKLQJWRQ3RVW (;%5([HFXWLYH%UDQFK
&5&RQJUHVVLRQDO5HFRUG %&-%XUHDXRI&ULPLQDO-XVWLFH
&4:&RQJUHVVLRQDO4XDUWHUO\'2('HSDUWPHQWRI(GXFDWLRQ
:HHNO\5HSRUWV ,16,PPLJUDWLRQDQG
615SW6HQDWH5HSRUW 1DWXUDOL]DWLRQ6HUYLFH
$&/8$PHULFDQ&LYLO&'&&HQWHUIRU'LVHDVH&RQ
WURO
/LEHUWLHV8QLRQ'26'HSDUWPHQWRI6WDWH
+5SW+RXVH5HSRUW
&9/%59:&LYLO/LEHUWLHV5HYLHZ
$3$VVRFLDWHG3UHVV
83,8QLWHG3UHVV,QWHUQDWLRQDO
6&5SW6XSUHPH&RXUW5HSRUWHU
/1/H[LV1H[LV )RU)ORZVKHHWV
646WDWXV4XR LPSWLPSRUWDQW IHGIHGHUDO
ORFORFDO HIIHIILFLHQWDGDGHTXDWH
SUESUREOHP UWVULJKWV 05PLQRUUHSDLU
DGYDGYDQWDJHFRRUGFRRUGLQDWLRQZRZLWKRXW
ZLQZLWKLQ;7H[WUDWRSLFDO 301SODQPHHWQHHG
GHIGHILQLWLRQHGHGXFDWLRQ,LQKHUHQF\
0PLOOLRQ %ELOOLRQFLUFPFLUFXPYHQWLRQ
KPIOKDUPIXODPQGWDPHQGPHQW 0;PXWXDOH[FOXVLYLW\
VLJVLJQLILFDQFHQDWOQDWLRQDOVWVWDWH
JRYWJRYHUQPHQWLQHIILQHIILFLHQW LQDGLQDGHTXDWH
VRFVRFLHW\VRFLDO MVWMXVWLILFDWLRQ'$GLVDGYDQWDJH
PRQH\IXQGLQJZZLWK EZEHWZHHQ
7WRSLFDOLW\ 2%REVHUYDWLRQ 30$SODQPHHWDGY
FPSWFRPSHWLWLYH FSFRXQWHUSODQ32SODQREMHFWLRQ
7+WKRXVDQG+KXQGUHG 6OYF\VROYHQF\
WULDQJOHFKDQJH
$&VW$IILUPDWLYH&RQVWUXFWLYH
$5VW$IILUPDWLYH5HEXWWDODQGVRRQ
DUURZWRWKHULJKWOHDGVWR DUURZWRWKHOHIWUHVXOWRI
DUURZSRLQWLQJXSLQFUHDVH DUURZSRLQWLQJGRZQGHFUHDVH
127(7KHVHDUHMXVWVXJJHVWLRQVWRIDPLOLDUL]H\RXZLWKWKH
FRQFHSWRIDEEUHYLDWLRQVIRUIORZVKHHWV<RXDUHHQFRXUDJHGWRDGG
\RXURZQ
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
'YXXMRK'EVHWERH'MXMRK)ZMHIRGI
7MQTPI+YMHIPMRIWJSV)ZMHIRGI'MXEXMSR
'YXXMRK'EVHW
4HERE ARE SEVERAL MAIN THINGS TO REMEMBER AS
YOU BEGIN THE PROCESS OF RESEARCH
4RY TO CUT ONLY CARDS THAT MAKE ARGUMENTS
4HERE IS DElNITELY A PLACE FOR INFORMATIONAL
CARDS BUT THEY SHOULD BE LABELED AS SUCH
SO THEYRE NOT USED INAPPROPRIATELY IN
ROUNDS
.EVER %VER CUT ONE SENTENCE CARDS
#ARDS SHOULD BE COMPLETE THOUGHTS AND THIS
WILL ALWAYS MEAN COMPLETE SENTENCES CARDS
SHOULD BEGIN WITH A CAPITAL LETTER AND END
WITH A PUNCTUATION MARK
4RY TO CUT AT LEAST A PARAGRAPH FOR EACH CARD
SO THERE IS A CONTEXT FOR THE AUTHORS IDEAS
$ONT EVER CUT CARDS THAT ARENT WHAT THE
AUTHOR ADVOCATES 4HIS INCLUDES CARDS WHERE
THE WORD AFTER THE CARD IS "54
%VIDENCE SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE FULL AND COM
PLETE CITATIONS *UST AS ARTICLES SHOULD FOOT
NOTE THEIR SOURCES DEBATERS SHOULD MAKE
IT POSSIBLE FOR OTHERS TO IDENTIFY WHERE
EVIDENCE COMES FROM 4HIS INCLUDES THE
FOLLOWING
A 4HE AUTHOR
B 4HE AUTHORS QUA L
IlCATIONS
C 4HE PUBLICATION
D 4HE DATE OF THE PUBLI
CATION
E 4HE PAGE NUMBER OF
THE ORIGINA L QUOTA
TION
!LL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE CLEARLY CITED ON A
BRIEF #ITE LISTS WHICH CAN BE CODED ARE AC
CEPTABLE BUT "%&/2% 4(% "2)%& )3 2%
02/$5#%$ &/2 /4(%23 THE CITATION OF
EVERY CARD SHOULD BE CLEARLY IDENTIlED
8QDFFHSWDEOH $FFHSWDEOH
:DGH :DGH$GMXQFW(GXFDWLRQ3URIHVVRU(PRU\8
)DOO0HOLVVD-RXUQDORI'HEDWH/RYHS
.UMBER CODED CITATION SHEETS ARE ACCEPT
ABLE "54 $/ ./4 &!), 4/ 054 4(%
#/-0,%4% #)4!4)/. /. 4(% "2)%&
7(%. )4 )3 #/-0,%4%$
4HE RULES FOR CITATION DONT CHANGE WHEN
CITING THE WORLD WIDE WEB 4HERE STILL MUST
BE AN AUTHOR QUALIlCATION PUBLICATION
DATE AND A &5,, 7%" 3)4% !$$2%33
3AYING WWW OR INTERNET AS A SOURCE IS ./4
ACCEPTABLE )F YOU CANT lND THE &5,, CITE
FOR A SOURCE FROM THE WEB $/.4 53% 4(%
%6)$%.#%
!N EXAMPLE WEB SITE IS HTTP
WWWEMORYUDLHTML
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
+YMHIPMRIWJSV&VMIÞRK
4ITLES AND 4AGGING "RIEFSˆITS IMPORTANT THAT
THE TITLES AND TAGS ON BRIEFS REmECT THE TRUE
QUALITY OF THE EVIDENCE )T IS ALSO CRUCIAL TO
OTHER DEBATERS THAT THE BRIEFS MUST BE LEG
IBLE AND EASY TO USE FOR PEOPLE WHO WILL BE
IN TIMECONSTRAINED POSITIONS
! ,ABELS FOR )NDIVIDUAL #ARDS
)MPORTANT NOT TO OVERSTATE THE EVI
DENCE OR CLAIM THAT IT SAYS THINGS THAT
IT DOESNT
)MPORTANT TO NOT SIMPLY RESTATE THE
CARD BUT TO TURN IT INTO A DEBATE
ARGUMENT FOR EXAMPLE h(IGH COST
PREVENTS RENEWABLE USEv IS BETTER THAN
hCANT SOLVEv
$ONT CURSE ON THE BLOCKS OR THE
TAGS
.O SYMBOLS ON THE BRIEFS LOTS OF
PEOPLE MIGHT NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT
YOUR SYMBOLS ARE AND IT COULD HURT
THEM IN A DEBATE
4RY TO WRITE NEATLY )T WILL HELP OTHER
PEOPLE OUT A LOT IF THEY CAN READ YOUR
TAGS
" &ORMAT OF "RIEFS
0UT THE SCHOOL NAME OR INSTITUTE
NAME AND YOUR NAME IN THE UPPER
LEFT CORNER OF THE PAGE
5NDER THESE LABELS PUT THE GENERAL
ARGUMENT AREA FOR EX 3PENDING
$ISAD
0LACE THE PAGE NUMBER OF THE BRIEF
IN THE RIGHT CORNER IF YOU HAVE THREE
PAGES SAYING #LINTON WOULD BE UN
POPULAR WITH THE PLAN THERE IS A PAGE
OF OF OR OF ETC
$ONT PUT NUMBERS BY CARDS UNLESS
ITS THE .# FRONTLINE SO NUMBERS CAN
BE ADDED IN DURING A DEBATE ROUND
"Y THE TAG OF EACH CARD PUT A ??
FOR THE TEAM IN THE ROUND TO INSERT A
NUMBER
3TRATEGIC #ONSIDERATIONSˆ OR HOW TO MAKE
YOUR WORK MORE USEFUL
! &OR BIG ARGUMENTS THAT WILL BE USED BY
THE WHOLE LAB WE SUGGEST USING AN INDEX
SHEET TO EXPLAIN THE ARGUMENT AND HOW
TO USE THE EVIDENCE IN THE lLE
" &OR THE MOST PART TRY AND PUT THE BEST
ARGUMENTS IN THE FRONT OF THE lLE AND THE
BEST CARDS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BRIEFS
SO THAT IF SOMEONE NEEDS TO lND THE BEST
CARDS AND ARGUMENTS THEY ARE EASILY AC
CESSIBLE UNDER THE TIME CONSTRAINTS OF
THE ROUND
# 4RY TO MIX ANALYTICAL ARGUMENTS AS WELL
AS CARDS ON THE BRIEFS 4HE IS &!2 MORE
EFFECTIVE THAN JUST READING LOTS OF CARDS
BECAUSE IT FOCUSES THE ARGUMENTATION ON
CRUCIAL KEY POINTS
$ "E AWARE THAT THERE MIGHT BE CON
TRADICTIONS OR INTERACTIONS WITH OTHER
CARDS ON THE BRIEFS
% $O NOT CUT CARDS IN HALF AND CONTINUE
THEM ON THE NEXT PAGE 4HIS WILL ONLY
SERVE TO CONFUSE OTHERS TRYING TO USE YOUR
EVIDENCE AND MIGHT CONFUSE YOU IN THE
PRESSURE OF A DEBATE
4APING "RIEFS
! 4APE ALL OF THE CORNERS OF THE CARDS
DOWN
" 4HIS INCLUDES THE CITATION THAT SHOULD BE
TAPED TO THE CARD AND THEN TAPED TO THE
PAGE ON BOTH CORNERS
# 5SE ONLY CLEAR TAPE NO GLUE STICKS OR ANY
ALTERNATE METHOD OF STICKING
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
%7EQTPI&VMIJ
0EFIP ]SYV FVMIJW [MXL ]SYV
XIEQ ERH WGLSSP WS ]SY GER
MHIRXMJ] XLIQ MJ XLI] EVI PSWX
SVQMWTPEGIH=SYQE]EPWSPMWX
SXLIV MRJSVQEXMSR WYGL EW%JJ
SV2IKSVIZIR[LMGLGEWIXLI]
(,
%MORY
1EOI WYVI XLI XMXPI SJ XLI
EVKYQIRX MW [VMXXIR MR PEVKI
HEVOGPIEVTVMRX7SQISRIIPWI
QE]LEZIXSVIEHXLMWWS[VMXI
RIEXP]=SY WLSYPH FI EFPI XS
MHIRXMJ]XLMWFVMIJEXEKPERGI
1EOI WYVI XS MRGPYHI TEKI RYQFIVW
SR]SYVFVMIJW8LIRYQFIVXSXLIPIJX
SJ XLI WPEWL MW XLI TEKI SJ XLMW FVMIJ
8LIRYQFIVXSXLIVMKLXSJXLIWPEWL
MRHMGEXIWXLIXSXEPRYQFIVSJTEKIWSJ
8,-74%68-'90%6OMRHSJFVMIJ
#OURTS #OUNTERPLAN !NSWERS
0ERMUTE DO THE PLAN AND THE COUNTERPLAN AT THE SAME TIME 4HIS SOLVES
THE CASE AND AVOIDS THE DISADVANTAGES
8LMW FVMIJ MW [VMXXIR
JSV E ZIV] WTIGMJMG
EVKYQIRX WSMXYWIW
RYQFIVW JSV XLI
EVKYQIRXW;LIR
[VMXMRKQSVIKIRIVMG
FVMIJW PIEZI WTEGIW
QEVOIH F] TEVIR
XLIWIW WS JYXYVI
HIFEXIVW GER ½PP MR
XLIMVS[RRYQFIVW
#0 lATS OVER FUTURE COURT DECISIONS )TS A VOTING ISSUE
A )T lATS ATTITUDES AND SOLVENCY WHICH AVOIDS THE CRITICISMS OF THE LIT
ERATURE AND MEANS THE AFlRMATIVE COULD NEVER WIN A $! TO THE #0
CRUSHING OUR ABILITY TO DEBATE
B .# STRATEGY CHOICES SKEW !# TIME AND ARGUMENT CHOICE 4HE ABUSE HAS
ALREADY OCCURRED 4HIS MEANS YOU REJECT THE NEGATIVE NOT JUST THE #0
4URN #0 MUST EXTEND THE (ILL PRECEDENT WHICH DOESNT SOLVE AND WATERS
DOWN 4ITLE 6))
2OBIN 2OGERS *$ #ANDIDATE
9WI FSXL EREP]XMGEP
EVKYQIRXW ERH IZM
HIRGIH EVKYQIRXW
SR XLI WEQI FVMIJ
EPXIVREXMRK FIX[IIR
XLIX[S8LMWQEOIWMX
HMJ½GYPXJSVXLISXLIV
XIEQ XS KVSYT ]SYV
EVKYQIRXW
5# "ERKELEY #ALIFORNIA ,2 N %VEN IF 4ITLE 6)) AS PRESENTLY FORMULATED WERE HELD TO APPLY TO UNIFORMED
MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY THE USE OF THE STATUTE FOR CLAIMS OF DISCRIMINATION IN
THE MILITARY WOULD STILL BE PROBLEMATIC 4HE COURTS WOULD PROBABLY CONTINUE
TO DEFER TO MILITARY POLICY WHEN CONSIDERING CLAIMS BROUGHT UNDER THE STATUTE
4HE (ILL OPINION CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THIS CONCLUDING THAT THE TEST FOR POLICY
DECISIONS IS hWHETHER THE MILITARY WAS CLEARLY ARBITRARY AND ERRONEOUS WITH A
HARMFUL EFFECT PRESENT AT THE TIME THE DISPUTE REACHES THE COURT !PPLICATION
OF THIS TEST IN NUMEROUS MILITARY CASES COULD THREATEN TO SPILL OVER INTO CIVILIAN
4ITLE 6)) LITIGATION AND SERIOUSLY WEAKEN THE ESTABLISHED STANDARDS
.O EVIDENCE THAT A CASE EXISTS FOR THE 3UPREME #OURT TO CALL 0ROVES NO
MECHANISM FOR COUNTERPLAN SOLVENCY
/VERTURNING THE COMBAT EXCLUSION IN THE #OURTS WONT BE ENFORCED
0AMELA 2 *ONES -ANAGING %DITOR OF THE #ORNELL ,2 *ANUARY P )F THE COURT DECLARES THE COMBAT EXCLUSION RULES AND POLICIES UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS ARE LIKELY TO EMERGE .EITHER #ONGRESS THE 0RESIDENT
NOR THE !RMED &ORCES SEEM PREPARED TO LIFT THE COMBAT EXCLUSION RULES
COMPLETELY &OR EXAMPLE EVEN 2EPRESENTATIVE "EVERLY "ROWN WHO SUPPORTS
INCREASING OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN IN THE MILITARY REJECTS A hWHOLESALE LIFTING
OF THE COMBAT EXCLUSION RULESv
1ER]HIFEXIVW
YWIFSPHPIXXIVW
SV LMKLPMKLXIVW
XS MRHMGEXI XLI
TEVXWSJXLIGMXI
XLEX EVI QSWX
MQTSV XERX MR
GEWIXMQIMWSJ
XLIIWWIRGI
;LIR GYXXMRK
GEVHW YWI YR
HIVPMRMRK XS MR
HMGEXIXLITEVX
SJXLIGEVHXLEX
WLSYPHFIVIEH
MR XLI VSYRH
8LMW MW E KSSH
[E] XS QEOI
GEVHW WLSVXIV
ERHQSVITS[
IVJYP 2):)6
TL]WMGEPP] VI
QSZI TEVX SJ
E GEVH -J ]SY
LEZI XS FVIEO
SRI GEVH MRXS
WIZIVEPWIGXMSRW
MRWXIEH
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
+PSWWEV]&SVMRK;SVHW=SY2IIHXS/RS[
ADDON N !N ADVANTAGE OF THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN
USUALLY PRESENTED IN THE ND !FlRMATIVE CON
STRUCTION SPEECH AND INDEPENDENT OF WHATEVER
ADVANTAGES WERE PRESENTED IN THE ST AFlRMATIVE
CONSTRUCTIVE
ADVANTAGE N !N ADVANTAGE IS A DESCRIPTION USED
BY THE AFlRMATIVE TO EXPLAIN WHAT BENElCIAL EF
FECTS WILL RESULT FROM ITS PLAN
AFlRMATIVE N 4HE TEAM IN A DEBATE WHICH SUP
PORTS THE RESOLUTION +EY TERMS NEED INHER
ENCY PLAN SOLVENCY AND TOPICALITY
AFlRMATIVE CASES N 4HIS IS GENERALLY USED TO RE
FER TO THE PART OF THE AFlRMATIVE POSITION WHICH
DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR CHANGE
BECAUSE THERE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM NEED WHICH
THE PRESENT SYSTEM CANNOT SOLVE INHERENCY BUT
WHICH IS NONE THE LESS SOLVABLE SOLVENCY
AFlRMATIVE PLAN N 4HE POLICY ACTION ADVO
CATED BY THE AFlRMATIVE AND ANY ONE OF MANY
POSSIBLE WAYS OF SPECIFYING THE RESOLUTION
AGENT OF THE RESOLUTION OR !GENT OF #HANGE
N 4HAT POWER CALLED FOR BY THE RESOLUTION TO
CARRY OUT RESOLUTIONAL ACTION
AGENT COUNTERPLANS N ! COUNTERPLAN WHICH
ARGUES THAT THE PLAN YOU ARE IMPLEMENTING
THROUGH ONE AGENT OF CHANGE SHOULD INSTEAD
BE IMPLEMENTED BY ANOTHER AGENT OF CHANGE
ANARCHY N ! COUNTERPLAN WHICH ARGUES THAT
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DISSOLVE ITSELF RATHER
THAN CARRY ON ANY RESOLUTIONAL ACTION OR OTHER
ACTION 3OME TEAMS ARGUE THIS ACTION CAN BE BY
THE 5NITED 3TATES ALONE AND OTHERS ARGUE THAT
ALL GOVERNMENT SHOULD DISSOLVE
A PRIORI N LITERALLY PRIOR TO 5SUALLY AN AR
GUMENT WHICH INDICATES THAT A PARTICULAR ISSUE
SHOULD BE RESOLVED BEFORE ALL OTHERS &REQUENTLY
USED TO ARGUE THAT PROCEDURAL CONCERNS SUCH
AS TOPICALITY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BEFORE SUB
STANTIVE ISSUES SUCH AS ADVANTAGES
ATTITUDINAL INHERENCY N THIS TYPE OF INHERENCY
IDENTIlES AN UNWILLINGNESS OF THOSE IN POWER IN
THE PRESENT SYSTEM TO TAKE CORRECTIVE MEASURES
TO SOLVE THE HARM CITED BY THE AFlRMATIVE
BEST DElNITION N 4HIS IS USUALLY ARGUED AS A
TOPICALITY STANDARD BY THE NEGATIVE TEAM 4HE
NEGATIVE ARGUES THAT THE JUDGE MUST CHOOSE THE
"%34 DElNITION OFFERED IN THE ROUND IN ORDER
TO DECIDE WHETHER THE PLAN IS TOPICAL !FlRMA
TIVES OFTEN ARGUE THAT THERE IS NO NEED TO CHOOSE
SINCE A DElNITION ONLY NEEDS TO BE REASONABLE
NOT hBEST FOR DEBATE PURPOSES
BIPARTISANSHIP N 4HIS IS A POLITICAL DISAD
VANTAGE WHICH ARGUES THAT THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN
WILL DISRUPT BIPARTISAN WORKING RELATIONS WITHIN
THE #ONGRESS MAKING IT MORE DIFlCULT TO ENACT
OTHER IMPORTANT POLICIES 4HE ARGUMENT COULD
ALSO BE MADE THE OPPOSITE WAY 4HE NEGATIVE
COULD ARGUE THAT THE PLAN WILL SPUR BIPARTISAN
COOPERATION AND THEREFORE CAUSE BAD POLICIES
TO BE ENACTED !LSO h"IPARTvSEE DISADVANTAGES
AND POLITICAL DISADS
BLOWUP N 4HIS DESCRIBES A STRATEGY EMPLOYED
BY THE NEGATIVE IN WHICH THE lRST NEGATIVE STARTS
SEVERAL MAJOR POSITIONS ALLOWING THE SECOND
NEGATIVE TO EXTEND AND EXPAND ANY AND ALL OF
THE POSITIONS IN SECOND NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
BRIEF N !N OUTLINE OF AN ARGUMENT SETTING
FORTH THE MAIN CONTENTIONS WITH SUPPORTING
STATEMENTS AND EVIDENCE OF PROOF
BUDGET DElCITS N ! GENERIC NEGATIVE DISAD
VANTAGE WHICH ARGUES THAT THE SPENDING OF
GOVERNMENT FUNDS ON A NEW PROGRAM WILL
BREAK THE POLITICAL WILL WHICH HOLDS THE BUDGET
FREEZE ON LINE IMPACTING IN MASSIVE ECONOMIC
DISRUPTION
BURDEN OF PROOF N 4HE REQUIREMENT THAT
SUFlCIENT EVIDENCE OR REASONING TO PROVE AN AR
GUMENT BE PRESENTED THE REQUIREMENT THAT
THE AFlRMATIVE PROVE THE STOCK ISSUES
BURDEN OF REBUTTAL OR CLASH N 4HE REQUIREMENT
THAT EACH SPEAKER CONTINUE THE DEBATE BY CALL
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
ING INTO QUESTION OR DISPUTING THE OPPOSITIONS
ARGUMENTS ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
BUSINESS CONlDENCE N A GENERIC DISADVANTAGE
BASED UPON THE CLAIM THAT A CHANGE IN GOVERN
MENT POLICY WILL CAUSE BUSINESS TO CUT BACK
THEIR INVESTMENT THE RESULT BEING AN ECONOMIC
RECESSION OR DEPRESSION
CASE SIDE N 4HE PART OF THE mOW ON WHICH
ARGUMENTS ARE WRITTEN CONCERNING INDICTMENTS
OF THE STATUS QUO AND CONSEQUENT NEED OR AD
VANTAGE AND CONSEQUENT NEED OR ADVANTAGE OF
THE PLAN
CIRCUMVENTION N 4HIS IS A TYPE OF ARGUMENT
WHICH ARGUES THAT CERTAIN ACTORS WILL ATTEMPT TO
AVOID THE MANDATES OF THE PLAN "ECAUSE IT AR
GUES THAT THE PLAN WILL BE AVOIDED IT IS A TYPE OF
SOLVENCY ARGUMENT WHICH IMPLIES THAT THE PLAN
WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM THE CASE
CITES AS THE HARM
CITATION N 3PECIlC INFORMATION ON THE SOURCE
OF EVIDENCE REGARDING PUBLICATION DATE OF
PUBLICATION PAGE EXCERPT AND THE AUTHORS
QUALIlCATION
CLASH VB 4O RESPOND DIRECTLY TO AN OPPONENTS
ARGUMENT
COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE CASE N ! TYPE OF AFlR
MATIVE CASE WHICH ARGUES THE DESIRABLE BENElTS
OF THE PLAN IN CONTRAST TO THE PRESENT SYSTEM
COMPETITIVENESS N 4HE QUALITY OF A POLICY
WHICH MAKES THE POLICY A REASON TO REJECT AN
OTHER POLICY A SITUATION WHERE ONE POLICY
IS MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE WITH ANOTHER POLICY OR IS
MORE PREFERABLE ALONE THAN IN CONJUNCTION WITH
ANOTHER POLICY )T IS TRADITIONALLY EXPECTED THAT A
NEGATIVE PROVE A COUNTERPLAN TO BE A COMPETITIVE
ALTERNATIVE TO THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN
CONDITIONAL ADJ TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY IF CON
TRADICTORY POSITIONS ARE REJECTED ABLE TO BE
DROPPED WITHOUT DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON A TEAMS
OTHER ARGUMENTS OR THEIR POSITION AS A WHOLE
CONDITIONAL COUNTERPLAN N A PLAN TENTATIVELY
PRESENTED BY A NEGATIVE TEAM BUT THAT CAN BE
DROPPED IF UNDESIRABLE WITHOUT FORFEITURE OF
THE DEBATE +EY TERMS CONDITIONAL AND COUN
TERPLAN
CONSTRUCTIVES N 4HE FIRST FOUR INDIVIDUAL
SPEECHES OF THE DEBATE !RGUMENTS ARE INITIATED
IN THESE SPEECHES AND EXTENDED IN REBUTTALS
4HEY CONSIST OF THE lRST AFlRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
!# THE lRST NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE .# THE
SECOND AFlRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE !# AND THE
SECOND NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE .# 4HESE
SPEECHES ARE INTERRUPTED BY CROSSEXAMINATION
PERIODS OF EACH SPEAKER
CONTENTIONS N ! MAJOR POINT ADVANCED OR
MAINTAINED IN A DEBATE A SUBDIVISION OF AN
AFlRMATIVE CASE
CONTEXT N 4HE RELATIONSHIP OF THE EVIDENCE
READ IN THE DATE TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL
)T IS EXPECTED THAT EVIDENCE READ IN A DEBATE WILL
BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MEANING OF THE EVIDENCE
AS IT IS WRITTEN IN THE ORIGINAL SOURCE A STAN
DARD FOR EVALUATING TOPICALITY ARGUMENTS WHICH
IS USED TO DETERMINE IF THE DElNITION OFFERED IN
THE DEBATE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MEANING OF THE
TERM IN RELATIONSHIP TO AUTHORS WHO WRITE ABOUT
THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE TOPIC OR TO DETERMINE IF
THE DElNITION OFFERED IN THE DEBATE IS CONSISTENT
WITH THE MEANING OF THE TERM IN RELATIONSHIP TO
OTHER TERMS IN THE RESOLUTION ADJ CONTEXTUAL
CONTRADICTIONS N 4HIS IS A TYPE OF FALLACY IN
ARGUMENT )T MERELY SAYS THAT THE TWO OR MORE
ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY ONE TEAM CANNOT BE
TRUE BECAUSE THEY DISPROVE EACH OTHER
COOLING SEE GLOBAL COOLING
COOPTION N THE INmUENCE OF OUTSIDE PARTIES
HAMPERING AN AGENCYS EFFORTS TO CARRY OUT ITS
INSTRUCTIONS
COUNTERPLAN N A COUNTERPLAN IS PROPOSED BY
THE NEGATIVE AS AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF SOLV
ING THE SAME PROBLEM CITED BY THE AFlRMATIVE
OR AS AN ALTERNATIVE WHICH GOES BEYOND THE
AFlRMATIVES PLAN )T IS GENERALLY THOUGHT THAT
A COUNTERPLAN SHOULD BE NONTOPICAL AND COM
PETITIVE 4HAT IS THE NEGATIVES hPLANv IF THEY
CHOOSE TO USE THIS STRATEGY MUST NOT BE THE SAME
AS THE RESOLUTION AND IT SHOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE OR
DESIRABLE TO ADOPT BOTH THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN AND
THE NEGATIVES COUNTERPLAN VB TO EMPLOY THE
NEGATIVE STRATEGY OF PRESENTING AND DEFENDING
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
A COMPETITIVE PROGRAM TO SOLVE THE AFlRMATIVE
NEED OR ADVANTAGE +EY TERMS NONTOPICAL AND
COMPETITIVE
COUNTERPLAN ADVANTAGES N BENElTS WHICH RE
SULT FROM THE ADOPTION OF THE COUNTERPLAN
COUNTERPLAN NONTOPICALITY N THE CONDITION OF A
COUNTERPLAN OF BEING OUTSIDE THE RESOLUTION LEST IT
BECOME FURTHER JUSTIlCATION OF THE RESOLUTION
CRITERIA N IN NONPOLICY DEBATE THIS @CRITERIA
REFERS TO THE ARGUMENT BY WHICH THE JUDGE IS
TO COMPARE COMPETING VALUE CLAIMS 4HE AFlR
MATIVE USUALLY MUST ESTABLISH A CRITERIA AT THE
BEGINNING OF THE DEBATE AND THE NEGATIVE MAY
ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH A DIFFERENT CRITERIA SOME
TIMES REFERRED TO AS A COUNTERCRITERIA
CRITERIA CASE N A TYPE OF AFlRMATIVE CASE THAT
POSITS A GOAL THEN OUTLINES THE CRITERIA THAT MUST
BE MET TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL
#RITICAL ,EGAL 3TUDIES #,3 N A lELD OF LEGAL
SCHOLARSHIP WHICH ARGUES THAT THE 5NITED 3TATES
LEGAL SYSTEM WHILE FORMALLY APPEALING WITH ITS
GUARANTEES OF EQUAL RIGHTS AND INDIVDUAL RIGHTS
REMAINS IN FACT A SYSTEM WHICH SERVES THE ELITES
AND DENIES ACCESS TO THE POOR
CRITIQUE ALSO hKRITIKv N AN ARGUMENT THAT
THE ASSUMPTIONS OR LANGUAGE OF AN ISSUE ARE
THE lRST CONSIDERATION OR AN hA PRIORI ISSUEv
IN A DEBATE 4HE EFFECTS OF A POLICY SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED ONLY AFTER ONE HAS DECIDED IF THE
ASSUMPTIONS ANDOR LANGUAGE OF AN ARGUMENT
ARE PHILOSOPHICALLY OR MORALLY ACCEPTABLE &RE
QUENTLY THE CRITIQUE ARGUES THATˆSINCE THE PLAN
IS NOT TRULY ENACTED AS A RESULT OF THE DEBATEˆTHE
IMPACT OF THE LANGUAGE AND PHILOSOPHY USED IN
THE ROUND IS MORE hREALv AND MORE IMPORTANT
THAN ANY OTHER ARGUMENT IN THE ROUND
CROSSEXAMINATION N 4HIS IS A THREE MINUTE
PERIOD WHICH FOLLOWS EACH OF THE CONSTRUCTIVE
SPEECHES IN WHICH A MEMBER OF THE OPPOS
ING TEAM DIRECTLY QUESTIONS THE MOST RECENT
SPEAKER
CUT EVIDENCE VB TO COPY A PORTION OF A BOOK
MAGAZINE OR HEARING ONTO A NOTECARD OR BRIEF
VIA COPYING HANDWRITING OR TYPING
DEBATABILITY STANDARD N A TOPICALITY STANDARD
WHICH ARGUES THAT AS LONG AS THE DElNITION
PROVIDES FAIR GROUNDS FOR DEBATE IT SHOULD BE
ACCEPTED
DISADVANTAGES N ! DISADVANTAGE SOMETIMES
REFERRED TO WITH THE SHORTHAND PHRASES h$!v
OR h$ISADv IS A DELETERIOUS OR UNDESIRABLE EF
FECT OF A PLAN ! NEGATIVE TEAM RUNS A DISAD TO
SHOW THAT ADOPTION OF THE PLAN IS GOING TO LEAD
TO FAR GREATER UNDESIRABLE CONSEQUENCES THAN
DESIRABLE CONSEQUENCES 4HIS WAY THE NEGATIVE
CAN BALANCE THE DESIRABLE EFFECTS OF THE AFlRMA
TIVE PLAN WITH THE UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS AND ARGUE
THAT THE UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS ARE DESIRABLE )N
ORDER TO PROVE A DISADVANTAGE A NEGATIVE TEAM
MUST PROVE SEVERAL THINGS &IRST THEY MUST LINK
IT TO THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN 3ECOND THEY MUST BE
ABLE TO PROVE IT IS UNIQUE TO THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN
AND THIRD THEY MUST PROVE THAT THE IMPACT OF
THE DISADVANTAGE IS SUFlCIENTLY UNDESIRABLE TO
OUTWEIGH THE AFlRMATIVE ADVANTAGES
DISCO ADJ A TERM USED TO DESCRIBE A TYPE OF
DEBATE STRATEGY WHERE A TEAM TAKES ADVANTAGE
OF THE INTERRELATIONSHIP AMONG ARGUMENTS IN
THE DEBATE TO CONCEDE LARGE PORTIONS OF THE
OPPONENTS ARGUMENTS 4HE HOPE IS THAT SUCH A
STRATEGY WILL DISMISS LARGE PORTIONS OF ARGUMENTS
AND ALLOW THE TEAM TO FOCUS THE DEBATE ON ISSUES
FAVORABLE TO THEIR SIDE OF THE QUESTION VB TO
DISCO OUT OF SOME ARGUMENTS
DISCURSIVE IMPACT N $ERIVED FROM THE WORD
DISCOURSE THIS ARGUMENT USUALLY SAYS THAT THE
LANGUAGE USED WITHIN THE DEBATE IS MORE IM
PORTANT THAN THE ISSUES DEBATED $ISCURSIVE
IMPACTS ARE USUALLY CLAIMED BY CRITIQUES
DISPOSITIONAL COUNTERPLAN N ! COUNTER
PLAN WHICH IF PROVEN NONCOMPETITIVE CAN BE
DISMISSED FROM CONSIDERATION $ISPOSITIONAL
COUNTERPLANS ARE OFTEN COMPARED TO hCONDI
TIONALv COUNTERPLANS
DOMESTIC MALTHUS N ! GENERIC DISADVANTAGE
WHICH ARGUES THAT SAVING LIVES IN INDUSTRIAL
COUNTRIES INCREASES THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH
LIMITED RESOURCES 4HE DISAD ARGUES THAT SAVING
LIVES IN THE 53 FOR EXAMPLE CAUSES MORE LIVES
TO BE LOST OVERSEAS OR MORE SCARCE RESOURCES TO
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
BE CONSUMED 4HE LOSS OF LIFE OVERSEAS IS THEN
ARGUED TO OUTWEIGH THE NUMBER OF LIVES SAVED
DOMESTICALLY OR THE LOSS OF SCARCE RESOURCES TO
CONSUMERS WHOSE LIVES ARE PROLONGED INCREASES
THE PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH UNCONTROLLED ECO
NOMIC GROWTH SEE GROWTH DISAD
ENFORCEMENT PLANK N A PART OF THE AFlRMA
TIVE PLAN PROVIDING ASSURANCE THAT THE PLANS
MANDATES WILL BE CARRIED OUT USUALLY THROUGH
A DIRECTIVE THAT A PARTICULAR AGENCY WILL OVERSEE
AND ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE MANDATES
ENVIRONMENTAL ETHIC N A GENERIC DISADVANTAGE
WHICH ARGUES THAT THERE IS A NEW WAVE OF ENVIRON
MENTAL CONSCIOUSNESS ABOUT TO OCCUR AND THAT
ANY POLICY WHICH DELAYS THE TREND TO IT WOULD
BE RISKING ENVIRONMENTAL COLLAPSE OR NUCLEAR
DESTRUCTION
ETHIC SEE ENVIRONMENTAL ETHIC
EXISTENTIAL INHERENCY N 4HIS KIND OF INHERENCY
ARGUES THAT IF THE AFlRMATIVE CAN DEMONSTRATE A
MASSIVE PROBLEM EXISTS THEN THE AFlRMATIVE HAS
MET THE BURDEN OF INHERENCY BY SHOWING THAT
THE PRESENT SYSTEM IS NOT SOLVING IT
EVIDENCE N QUOTATIONS WHICH TEND TO PROVE OR
PROVIDE GROUNDS FOR BELIEF ALSO BROADLY THE
REASONING WHICH TENDS TO PROVE
EXTENSIONS N 4HESE ARE ARGUMENTS WHICH OC
CUR IN RESPONSE TO OPPONENTS ARGUMENTS /NE
PERSON ISSUES AN ARGUMENT ANOTHER PERSON AN
SWERS THAT ARGUMENT %XTENSIONS ARE DIFFERENT
FROM NEW ANSWERS 2EMEMBER NEW ANSWERS
TO OLD ARGUMENTS ARE ILLEGITIMATE IN REBUTTALS
AND WILL BE IGNORED BY JUDGES 4O BE A LEGITI
MATE ANSWER IT MUST EXTEND OFF OF THE ORIGINAL
ARGUMENT
EXTRATOPICAL ADJ DERIVING AS AN AFlRMATIVE
ADVANTAGE FROM ACTION NOT SPECIlCALLY CALLED
FOR BY THE RESOLUTION *UDGES TEND TO DO ONE
OF THREE THINGS WITH EXTRATOPICAL ISSUES 3OME
ALLOW THE AFlRMATIVE TO JUST DISMISS THOSE ELE
MENTS FROM THEIR PLAN AND DO AWAY WITH ANY
ADVANTAGES OR DISADVANTAGES WHICH RESULT FROM
THEM 3OME ALLOW THE !FlRMATIVE TO USE THE
PLAN PLANKS TO PREVENT DISADVANTAGES BUT NOT
CLAIM ADVANTAGES FROM THEM SUCH AS SPECIFYING
WHERE THE FUNDING FOR A PLAN WOULD COME FROM
3OME VOTE AGAINST THE AFlRMATIVE FOR HAVING ANY
EXTRATOPICAL ELEMENTS IN THEIR PLAN )N ADDITION
SOME JUDGES ALLOW THE AFlRMATIVE TO KEEP THE
EXTRATOPICAL ELEMENTS NOT KEEP ANY ADVANTAGES
FROM THEM BUT MAKE THEM DEFEND AGAINST ALL
POSSIBLE DISADVANTAGES TO THEM
FEMINISM N A DISADVANTAGE WHICH SAYS THAT THE
ACTIONS TAKEN BY AN AFlRMATIVE WILL HINDER OR
PREVENT THE GROWTH OF FEMINISM 4HE NEGATIVE
USUALLY IMPACTS THE DISADVANTAGE BY ARGUING
THAT FEMINISM IS NECESSARY FOR WORLD PEACE AND
JUSTICE AND FEMINISM CAN USUALLY BE ARGUED TO
SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT
lELD CONTEXT N A TOPICALITY DElNITION WHICH
IS DERIVED FROM THE WRITINGS OF EXPERTS ON THE
SUBJECT OF THE RESOLUTION
lAT N &IAT IS A TERM USED TO DESCRIBE THE PROCESS
THAT ALLOWS US TO DEBATE AN AFlRMATIVE PLAN AS IF
IT WERE ADOPTED 4HIS FOUR LETTER WORD IS MUCH
DISPUTED IN DEBATE THEORY AS TO WHAT IT ACTUALLY
MEANS WHAT POWERS IT GIVES THE AFlRMATIVE AND
WHAT POWERS THE NEGATIVE HAS TO IMPLEMENT A
COUNTERPLAN &OR A QUICK REFERENCE IT WOULD BE
BEST TO THINK OF IT AS A LITTLE SPARK OF IMAGINATION
WHICH ALLOWS US TO PRETEND A JUDGE COULD ADOPT
THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN AND PERHAPS THE NEGATIVES
COUNTERPLAN IF HESHE CHOOSE VB TO IMPLEMENT
A PLAN OVER ANY OBJECTION ˆ A POWER GRANTED TO
ADVOCATES OF CHANGE
mOATING 0)# 0LAN)NCLUSIVE #OUNTERPLAN N
4HIS IS A COUNTERPLAN THAT IS NOT FORMALLY READ
BY THE NEGATIVE BUT IS MERELY IMPLIED BY THE
NEGATIVE CRITIQUE -ANY CRITICAL ARGUMENTS SEEM
TO IMPLY THAT AN ALTERNATIVE ACTION TO THE PLAN
WOULD BE TAKEN EITHER IMMEDIATELY OR AT SOME
POINT IN THE FUTURE )T IS CALLED hmOATINGv BECAUSE
THE IMPLICIT NATURE OF THE COUNTERPLAN MAKES IT
EASY FOR THE NEGATIVE TO ALTER THE IMPLIED ACTION
MAKING IT A MOVING TARGET
mOW VB TO TAKE NOTES OF THE DEBATE ARGUMENT
BY ARGUMENT IN A LINEAR FASHION N REFERRING
TO A mOW SHEET
mOW JUDGE N AN EXPERIENCED JUDGE WHO TAKES
EXTENSIVE NOTES DURING THE DEBATE
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
mOW SHEET N PAPER USED TO KEEP TRACK OF THE
ARGUMENTS IN A DEBATE
&OUCAULT CRITIQUE N 4HIS CRITIQUE WHICH IS
BASED ON THE WRITINGS OF -ICHAEL &OUCAULT PRO
NOUNCED hFOOKOv USUALLY ADVOCATES INDIVIDUAL
RESISTANCE TO REGULATION AND CRITICIZES THE IDEA
OF GOVERNMENT REFORM &OUCAULT WAS CONCERNED
THAT WHEN SOCIETY REGULATES WHAT IS AND IS NOT
ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR PEOPLE ARE LOCKED INTO PAR
TICULAR WAYS OF THINKING AND ACTING &OR EXAMPLE
LAWS DElNE DEVIANCE AND THUS CREATE GROUPS OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE CONSIDERED hABNORMALv (E
ARGUED AGAINST THE IDEA THAT POWER IS HELD ONLY
BY THOSE AT THE TOP )NSTEAD HE CLAIMED THAT ALL
PEOPLE HAVE POWER
FUNDING PLANK N THE PART OF THE PLAN NAMING
OR LISTING THOSE SOURCES FROM WHICH THE MONEY
THE PLAN REQUIRES WILL BE GARNERED
GAMES THEORY N A PARADIGM FOR DEBATE WHICH
VIEWS THE DEBATE AS ANY GAME REQUIRING FAIR RULES
TO INSURE EACH PARTICIPANT HAS AN EQUAL CHANCE
OF WINNING THE GAME
GENERIC ARGUMENTS N ARGUMENTS USUALLY
NEGATIVE THAT ARE GENERAL AND APPLY TO A WIDE
RANGE OF AFlRMATIVE CASES OR PLANS
GENERIC DISADVANTAGE N ! DISADVANTAGE DE
SIGNED TO LINK TO ALMOST ANY CONCEIVABLE AFlR
MATIVE PLAN
GLOBAL COOLING N AN AFlRMATIVE ADVANTAGE OR A
NEGATIVE DISADVANTAGE WHICH SAYS THAT THE EARTH IS
IN A PERIOD OF GLACIAL COOLING AND IF WE DO NOT DO
SOMETHING SUCH AS PUMP MORE #ARBON $IOXIDE
INTO THE ATMOSPHERE THE PLANET WILL FREEZE
GLOBAL WARMING N AN AFlRMATIVE ADVANTAGE OR A
NEGATIVE DISADVANTAGE WHICH SAYS THAT THE EARTH
IS IN A PERIOD OF GLOBAL WARMING AND IF WE DO
NOT DO SOMETHING SUCH AS DECREASE OR PREVENT
FUTURE INCREASES IN #ARBON $IOXIDE THE PLANET
WILL BEGIN TO SUFFER mOODING DROUGHTS AND LOSS
OF AGRICULTURE AND KEYSTONE SPECIES
GOALS CASE N A TYPE OF AFlRMATIVE CASE THAT
CLAIMS A PARTICULAR GOAL IS SOUGHT BY THE STATUS
QUO AND THAT PROCEEDS TO ARGUE THAT THE PLAN
BETTER MEETS THAT GOAL
WHICH IS DERIVED FROM THE RELATIONSHIP OF WORDS
IN A CONSISTENT GRAMMATICAL FORM WITH OTHER
TERMS IN THE RESOLUTION
GROWTH DISADVANTAGE N A GENERIC DISADVANTAGE
ARGUING THAT THE ECONOMIC GROWTH CAUSED BY THE
AFlRMATIVE PLAN IS BAD )MPACTS INCLUDE ECOLOGI
CAL DESTRUCTION AND NUCLEAR WAR
HASTY GENERALIZATION N THIS IS AN ARGUMENT
RUN PREDOMINANTLY IN VALUE DEBATES BUT HAS ALSO
BEEN RUN IN POLICY DEBATES )T SAYS THAT A JUDGE
CANNOT CONCLUDE THAT THE RESOLUTION IS TRUE
BASED UPON A MINOR OR SMALL EXAMPLE SUCH AS
THAT RUN BY THE AFlRMATIVE
HYPOTHESIS TESTING N 4HIS IS ONE OF MANY
PARADIGMS WHICH ARE USED TO EXPLAIN THE DEBATE
PROCESS !LL IT REALLY MEANS IS THAT THE FOCUS
OF THE DEBATE IS ON TESTING THE RESOLUTION LIKE
WE WOULD A SCIENTIlC HYPOTHESIS +EY TERMS
PARADIGMS PRESUMPTION POLICYMAKING STOCK
ISSUES
HYPOTHETICAL COUNTERPLAN N SEE CONDITIONAL
COUNTERPLAN
IMPACT N THE GOOD OR BAD RESULTS OF AN AF
lRMATIVE CASE COUNTERPLAN OR DISADVANTAGES
SEE SIGNIlCANCE N THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN
ARGUMENT INCLUDING THEORETICAL ARGUMENTS
WHICH MAKE THE ARGUMENT IMPORTANT IN EVALU
ATING THE DEBATE
INDEPENDENT ADVANTAGE N AN ADVANTAGE THAT
CAN JUSTIFY ADOPTION OF A PLAN EVEN IF THE OTHER
ADVANTAGES MAY NOT BE TRUE
INHERENCY N THE CAUSE OF A PROBLEMS EXIS
TENCE THE PROOF THAT THE PROBLEM WILL CONTINUE
AND THE BARRIER PREVENTING CURRENT PROGRAMS
FROM SOLVING A PROBLEM
INTRINSIC ADJ THIS DESCRIBES A SITUATION IN
WHICH A DISADVANTAGE IS A NECESSARY RESULT OF
THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN WHICH CANNOT BE PREVENTED
IN ANOTHER WAY !FlRMATIVE TEAMS FREQUENTLY
ARGUE THAT A DISADVANTAGE MUST BE A NECESSARY
CONSEQUENCE OF THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN IN ORDER TO
BE COMPARED AGAINST AFlRMATIVE SIGNIlCANCE
JURISDICTION N 4HIS IS AN ARGUMENT OFTEN USED
IN TOPICALITY DISCUSSIONS THAT ASSUMES THE RESO
GRAMMATICAL CONTEXT N A TOPICALITY DElNITION
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
LUTION PROVIDES LIMITS ON THE JUDGES POWER 4HIS
ARGUMENT STATES THAT IF THE PLAN IS NOT TOPICAL THE
JUDGE HAS NO POWER TO lAT THE PLAN AND AS SUCH
A NONTOPICAL PLAN COULD NOT BE VOTED FOR BECAUSE
THE PLAN IS OUTSIDE THE JUDGES AUTHORITY
KRITIKS SEE CRITIQUES !LSO KNOWN AS hTHE +v
LEGISLATIVE INTENT N A PROVISION IN A PLAN THAT
FUTURE JUDGMENT OF THE MEANING OF THE PLAN WILL
BE BASED UPON ITS ADVOCATES SPEECHES
LINK N 4HAT COMPONENT OF A DISADVANTAGE
WHICH SHOWS HOW IT IS CAUSED BY THE !FlRMATIVE
PLAN
-ALTHUS DISADVANTAGE N A GENERIC DISAD
VANTAGE BASED UPON THE THEORIES OF EIGHTEENTH
CENTURY THINKER 4HOMAS -ALTHUS 4HE DISAD
VANTAGE ARGUES THAT SAVING STARVING PEOPLE WILL
RESULT IN RAPID POPULATION INCREASES QUICKLY
OUTSTRIPPING THE CAPACITY OF THE EARTH TO SUP
PORT THAT POPULATION 4HE RESULT IS ULTIMATELY
MUCH MORE STARVATION IN FUTURE
MASKING N AN ARGUMENT THAT SAYS THE AF
lRMATIVE PLAN LEADS EVERYONE TO BELIEVE THE
PROBLEM IS BEING SOLVED WHEN IN FACT THE PLAN
WILL FAIL TO SOLVE AND PREVENT OTHER SOLUTIONS
FROM BEING ENACTED &REQUENTLY USED AS PART OF
CRITIQUE ARGUMENTS SUCH AS #,3 SEE #,3 AND
CRITIQUES
MINOR REPAIR N ! NONRESOLUTIONAL CHANGE IN
EXISTING PROGRAMS
MOTIVATIONAL INHERENCY N 4HE REQUIREMENT
THAT AN AFlRMATIVE TEAM EXPLAIN WHY PEOPLE HAVE
ALLOWED A PROBLEM TO EXIST
MUTUAL EXCLUSIVITY N ONE COMPETITIVENESS
STANDARD THAT THE COUNTERPLAN AND THE AFlR
MATIVE PLAN CANNOT COEXIST
NEED N THE PROBLEM THAT THE AFlRMATIVE HOPES
TO SOLVE THE AREA OF AFlRMATIVE SIGNIlCANCE
NEGATIVE BLOCK N THE ND NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
AND THE ST NEGATIVE REBUTTAL THE TWO NEGATIVE
SPEECHES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DEBATE
NET BENElTS N ! COMPETITIVENESS STANDARD
STATING THAT THE COUNTERPLAN ALONE IS A SUPERIOR
POLICY TO ADOPTION OF BOTH THE COUNTERPLAN AND
THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN TOGETHER
NETWIDENING N THIS ARGUMENT SAYS THAT AS THE
GOVERNMENT EXPANDS THE ROLE OF SOCIAL SERVICES
TO BE OFFERED THEY WILL EXPAND THE INTRUSIVENESS
OF THE GOVERNMENT INTO THE LIFE OF THE INDIVIDUAL
AND COMMUNITY BECOMING INCREASINGLY TYRAN
NICAL UNTIL ALL FREEDOM IS LOST
NEW WORLD ORDER N A GENERIC DISADVANTAGE
WHICH CAN BE ARGUED IN TWO DIRECTIONS 4HE
DISAD COULD ARGUE THAT INCREASED 53 STRENGTH
AND CREDIBILITY COULD ENCOURAGE 53 INTERVENTION
IN GLOBAL AFFAIRS RESULTING IN MILITARY CONFRONTA
TIONS /R THE DISAD COULD ARGUE THAT DECREASED
53 STRENGTH AND CREDIBILITY COULD ENCOURAGE
GLOBAL CHAOS BECAUSE A STRONG HEGEMONIC 53
IS NEEDED TO ENCOURAGE GLOBAL STABILITY
.ORTH3OUTH N A GENERIC DISADVANTAGE WHICH
ARGUES THAT INCREASED EXPLOITATION OR DECREASED
INmUENCE IN THE NATIONS OF THE 4HIRD 7ORLD WILL
RESULT IN INCREASING RESENTMENT BETWEEN THE
POOR COUNTRIES IN THE 3OUTHERN HEMISPHERE
AND THE WEALTHY COUNTRIES IN THE .ORTHERN
(EMISPHERE
/BJECTIVISM N BASED ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF
AUTHOR !YN 2AND THE ARGUMENT SAYS INDIVIDUAL
FREEDOM IS THE MOST IMPORTANT VALUE !LL GOV
ERNMENT REGULATIONS INNATELY INFRINGE ON INDI
VIDUALS AND IS THEREFORE EVIL /NLY COMPLETE
FREEDOM FROM GOVERNMENT CONTROLS CAN ALLOW
THE HUMAN RACE TO ACHIEVE ITS FULL POTENTIAL
PATRIARCHY N A GENERIC NEGATIVE ARGUMENT
WHICH SAYS THAT WHATEVER POLICY OR VALUE PRE
SENTED BY THE AFlRMATIVE ENTRENCHES THE hMIND
SETv OF PATRIARCHY 0ATRIARCHY IS A SOCIAL SYSTEM
WHICH RELIES UPON AUTHORITATIVE POWER STRUC
TURES 4HE NEGATIVE ARGUES THAT THIS SYSTEM OF
GOVERNANCE SHOULD BE REJECTED 4HE ARGUMENT
IS FREQUENTLY USED TO PROVE THAT EVEN GRANTING
FEMINISTS POWER IS NOT GOOD IF THE FEMINISTS ALSO
SUPPORT THE PATRIARCHAL SYSTEM
PERMUTATION N A TYPE OF ARGUMENT USED BY
AFlRMATIVES TO ILLUSTRATE NONCOMPETITIVENESS OF
COUNTERPLANS !FlRMATIVES ARGUE THAT DESPITE
THE TEXTS OF THE PLAN AND THE COUNTERPLAN IF IT
IS POSSIBLE TO IMAGINE THE COEXISTENCE OF THE
TWO PLANS THEN THE NEGATIVE HAS NOT ILLUSTRATED
WHY THE RESOLUTION SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED SEE
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
COMPETITIVENESS
PHILOSOPHICAL COMPETITION N A STANDARD OF
COMPETITION FOR COUNTERPLANS WHICH ARGUES THAT
SINCE THE TWO PLANS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE
DIFFERENT PHILOSOPHICAL APPROACHES THEY ARE
EXCLUSIVE OF ONE ANOTHER
0)# SEE hPLANINCLUSIVE COUNTERPLANv
PLAN ATTACK N ARGUMENTS DIRECTED AT AN AFlR
MATIVE POLICY ITSELF EG PLANMETNEED DISAD
VANTAGE WORKABILITY
PLANINCLUSIVE COUNTERPLAN 0)# N ! COUNTER
PLAN THAT SUBSTANTIALLY REPLICATES THE PLAN MAN
DATES WITH ONLY MINOR CHANGES )N THIS SENSE
THE COUNTERPLAN hINCLUDESv OR CONTAINS MOST
OF THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE PLAN
PLAN MANDATES N THE RESOLUTIONAL ACTION SPEC
IlED IN THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN
PLANMEETNEED 0-. N AN ARGUMENT CLAIM
ING THAT A PLAN DOES NOT SOLVE THE NEED 5SUALLY A
SUBDIVIDED AND STRUCTURED ARGUMENT PRESENTED
IN SECOND NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE
PLANSIDE N THAT PART OF THE mOW ON WHICH
ARGUMENTS ARE WRITTEN ABOUT THE PLAN
PLANSPIKE N A PART OF A PLAN DESIGNED TO AID
THE WORKABILITY OF THE PLAN OR DIMINISH ITS DIS
ADVANTAGES
POLICYMAKING N A PHILOSOPHY THAT DEBATE
ROUNDS SHOULD BE EVALUATED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE
OF PSEUDOLEGISLATOR WEIGHING THE ADVANTAGES AND
DISADVANTAGES OF TWO CONmICTING POLICY SYSTEMS
POLITICAL DISADS N SEE DISADVANTAGES THESE
ARE ARGUMENTS WHICH INDICATE THAT THE POLITICAL
CONSEQUENCES OF PASSING THE PLAN WILL LEAD TO
IMPACTS WHICH WILL OUTWEIGH THE CASE
POLITICAL CAPITAL N THE AMOUNT OF GOOD WILL A
POLITICIAN CAN MUSTER TO GET POLICIES ENACTED )N
DEBATE THIS ARGUMENT SAYS PASSING THE PLAN WILL
CONSUME SO MUCH POLITICAL CAPITAL THAT THOSE
ENACTING THE PLAN WILL HAVE TO SACRIlCE OTHER
IMPORTANT ISSUES ON THEIR POLITICAL AGENDA 4HE
CAPITAL EXPENDED PASSING THE PLAN SACRIlCES THE
CAPITAL NECESSARY TO GET OTHER POLICIES PASSED
POLITICAL FOCUS N THE ABILITY OF POLITICAL LEAD
ERS TO CONCENTRATE ON THE PARTICULAR ISSUES )N
DEBATE THE ARGUMENT SAYS THAT PASSING THE AF
lRMATIVE PLAN WILL REQUIRE SO MUCH ENERGY AND
TIME THAT POLICYMAKERS WILL BE UNABLE TO GET
OTHER MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES PASSED
POLITICAL POPULARITY N THE APPROVAL RATING OF
A POLITICIAN )N DEBATE THE ARGUMENT CONSIDERS
THE PUBLIC APPROVAL OF THE PLAN )F THE PLAN IS
UNPOPULAR POLICYMAKERS WILL LOSE CREDIBILITY
MAKING IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PASS OTHER MORE
IMPORTANT PLANS )F THE PLAN IS POPULAR IT MAY
BOOST THE CREDIBILITY OF POLICYMAKERS MAKING IT
EASIER TO GET OTHER LESS DESIRABLE PLANS PASSED
POSTMODERNISM N !LTHOUGH THE VARIOUS PEOPLE
WHO WRITE hPOSTMODERNv THEORY DONT REALLY AGREE
ON WHAT IT MEANS TO BE hPOSTMODERNv THERE ARE A
COUPLE OF COMMON ELEMENTS OF POSTMODERNISM
0OSTMODERN AUTHORS OFTEN CLAIM THAT WE CANNOT
KNOW WHAT IS AND IS NOT TRUE BECAUSE TRUTH IS A
PRODUCT OF CULTURE 4HEY OFTEN INDICT SCIENTIlC
REASONING ESPECIALLY THE ARGUMENT THAT ONLY
SCIENCE CAN TELL US HOW TO VIEW THE WORLD -ANY
POSTMODERN AUTHORS CLAIM THAT POLICYMAKERS FO
CUS TOO MUCH ON SOLUTIONS WHEN THEY OUGHT TO
BE INVESTIGATING THE PHILOSOPHICAL AND LINGUISTIC
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM INSTEAD #RITIQUES BASED
ON POSTMODERN PHILOSOPHY USUALLY POINT OUT THE
WAYS IN WHICH THE AFlRMATIVE RELIES ON FAULTY AS
SUMPTIONS ABOUT TRUTH
POSTHUMANISM N SEE hPOSTMODERNISMv
PREEMPTION OR PREEMPT N AN ARGUMENT DE
SIGNED TO RESPOND TO ANOTHER ARGUMENT THAT HAS
NOT BEEN MADE BUT IS ANTICIPATED
PRESUMPTION N THE ASSUMPTION THAT A
SYSTEM SHOULD BE ADHERED TO UNLESS THERE IS A
CLEAR REASON TO CHANGE IT THE ASSUMPTION
IN HYPOTHESISTESTING THAT THE RESOLUTION IS PRE
SUMED FALSE UNTIL ALTERNATIVES ARE SHOWN TO BE
INFERIOR
PREP TIME N THE TIME ALLOTTED TO EACH TEAM
FOR GETTING READY FOR THEIR SPEECHES ONCE THE
DEBATE HAS BEGUN
PRIMAFACIE N THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE AFlR
MATIVE PRESENT A CASE THAT IS ACCEPTABLE UPON
lRST HEARING
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
PROLIFERATION OR hPROLIFv N THE ACQUISITION
OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS BY AN INCREASING NUMBER
OF COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD 7HEN EITHER TEAM
TALKS ABOUT hPROLIFERATIONv THEY ARE GENERALLY
REFERRING TO THE POSSIBILITY OF ONE OR MORE COUN
TRIES GETTING ACCESS TO NUCLEAR WEAPONS WHO DO
NOT CURRENTLY HAVE NUKES 3OMETIMES hPROLIFv
IS A GENERIC DISADVANTAGE WHICH CLAIMS THAT THE
EXPANSION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS CAPABILITY TO MORE
COUNTRIES IS INCREASED OR DECREASED BY POLICIES
SUPPORTED BY THE AFlRMATIVE 4HE CONSEQUENCES
UNDER EITHER CONDITION ARE INCREASED INSTABILITY
AND TERRORISM THEREBY INCREASING THE RISKS OF
NUCLEAR WAR SLANG PROLIF GOOD OR PROLIF BAD )T
CAN ALSO BE ARGUED THAT PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR
WEAPONS IS GOOD BECAUSE NUKES DETER AGGRESSION
AND INCREASE CAUTION
PUNISHMENT N A TYPE OF ARGUMENT WHICH IN
DICATES THAT THE TEAM HAS CREATED AN UNFAIR OR
UNETHICAL SITUATION AND SHOULD LOSE THE DEBATE
REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF ANY OTHER ISSUE IN
THE ROUND
REASONABILITY N A TOPICALITY STANDARD WHICH
INDICATES THAT THE AFlRMATIVE ONLY NEED OFFER A
DElNITION WHICH IS NOT EXCESSIVELY BROAD AND
WOULD APPEAR LEGITIMATE AT lRST GLANCE
REBUTTAL N !NY OF THE LAST FOUR SPEECHES IN A
DEBATE $URING REBUTTALS NEW ARGUMENTS ARE
USUALLY NOT ALLOWED
REDUNDANCY N THIS STANDARD ARGUES THAT IF THE
COUNTERPLAN CAN ACHIEVE THE AFlRMATIVE ADVAN
TAGE THEN THE AFlRMATIVE HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED
THAT THE ADVANTAGE IS AN INHERENT RESULT OF THE
RESOLUTION
REFUTATION N DIRECT RESPONSE TO AN OPPONENTS
ARGUMENT
RESOLUTION N ! PROPOSITION OF FACT VALUE OR
POLICY WHICH THE AFlRMATIVE IS OBLIGATED TO SUP
PORT TOPIC A STATEMENT WHICH FOCUSES DEBATE BY
DIVIDING ARGUMENT GROUND ON ANY GIVEN ISSUE
REIFY V USING LANGUAGE THAT MAKES hFALSEv OR
hILLUSORYv THINGS SEEM REAL ANDOR LEGITIMATE
3OME CRITICS MIGHT SAY THAT ADVOCATING AID FOR
MINORITIES ACTUALLY MAKES RACISM MORE LEGITI
MATE BECAUSE IT hREIlESv THE IDEA OF RACE 4HESE
CRITICS ARGUE THAT BECAUSE THERE IS NO BIOLOGICAL
BASIS FOR RACE TARGETING PEOPLE OF SPECIlC RACES
FOR HELP SUPPORTS OR hREIlESv THE FALSE NOTION
OF RACE THUS LEGITIMIZING RACISM
RETRENCH V TO REINFORCE THE PRESENT SYSTEM
5SUALLY OCCURRING IN DISCUSSIONS OF CRITIQUES
THE ARGUMENT SAYS THAT THE EFFECT OF A POLICY IS
TO REINFORCE THE PREVAILING ATTITUDES IN THE STATUS
QUO 4HUS THE PROBLEMS WHICH EXIST WONT BE
SOLVED AND MAY WORSEN
RIGHTS MALTHUS N A GENERIC DISADVANTAGE OR
COUNTERPLAN BASED UPON THE WRITINGS OF 7ILLIAM
. /PHULS 4HE ARGUMENT IS BASED ON THE THEORY
THAT THE EXPANSION OF LIBERTARIAN STATES MUST END
BECAUSE LIBERTARIAN IDEALS INCREASE CONSUMPTION
OF LIMITED WORLD RESOURCES 4HE DISADVANTAGE
USUALLY ARGUES THAT LIBERTARIAN IDEAS ARE COM
ING TO AN END AND THAT ANY DELAY IN FORECLOSING
THAT STATE WILL RISK THERMONUCLEAR DESTRUCTION
THROUGH COMPETITIVE RESOURCES WARS
RISK ANALYSIS N THE THEORY AND PROCEDURE OF
CLAIMING THAT ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAINTY IS NOT
NEEDED TO ACT AND THAT THE LEVEL OF CERTAINTY THAT
DOES EXIST IS SUFlCIENT BASIS FOR POLICY DECISIONS
SANDBAG VB TO DELAY IN PRESENTING THE IMPACT
OF AN ARGUMENT UNTIL A LATER SPEECH
SCENARIO N A TERM USED TO DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF
SITUATION WHICH MIGHT EXIST WHEN THE IMPACT TO
AN ADVANTAGE OR DISADVANTAGE WOULD OCCUR
SHIFT VB TO ALTER IN A LATER SPEECH ONES POSITION
ON AN ISSUE
SHOULDWOULD ARGUMENTATION N THE SUGGESTION
THAT A PLAN COUNTERPLAN OR MINOR REPAIR WILL
NOT BE ADOPTED WHEN ALL THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED
IS WHAT SHOULD BE ADOPTED
SIGNIlCANCE N THE MEASURE QUALITATIVE OR
QUANTITATIVE OF THE NEED CLAIMED BY THE AFlR
MATIVE
SOCIAL SPENDING DISADVANTAGE ALSO KNOWN AS
BUDGET CUTS N A GENERIC DISADVANTAGE THAT AR
GUES THAT THE COST OF THE PLAN WILL BE TAKEN FROM
PROGRAMS THAT COULD BETTER USE THE MONEY
SOCIALISM N A GENERIC DISADVANTAGE OR COUNTER
PLAN WHICH ARGUES THAT REFORMING THE GOVERNMENT
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI
;%62-2+
0IEVRMRKXSSQER]
HIFEXIXIVQWGER
SZIVPSEH]SYVJVEKMPI
FVEMRGEYWMRK
LIEHEGLIW
THROUGH EXISTING SYS
TEMS ONLY INCREASES
THE PROBLEMS OF
CAPITALISM AND DELAYS
A TRANSITION TO A SO
CIALIST STATE
SOLVENCY N THE
ABILITY OF THE AFFIR
MATIVE PLAN TO SOLVE
THE PROBLEM MEET
THE NEED REDUCE THE
SIGNIFICANCE THE
ABILITY OF ANY PLAN OR
MINOR REPAIR TO EFFECT REDUCTIONS IN THE PROBLEM
AREAS CITED BY THE AFlRMATIVE
SPECIES N AN AFlRMATIVE ADVANTAGE OR A GENERIC
NEGATIVE DISADVANTAGE WHICH ARGUES THAT DISRUP
TION OF ECOSYSTEMS WILL RESULT IN LOSS OF MAJOR
SPECIES AND SUBSEQUENT LOSS OF THE ECOSYSTEM
SPREAD VB TO INTRODUCE A LARGE NUMBER OF ARGU
MENTS IN TO THE DEBATE USUALLY BY SPEAKING AT A
VERY RAPID RATE N A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESS
OF DELIVERING MANY ARGUMENTS
SQUIRREL CASE N AN AFlRMATIVE APPROACH WHICH
ISOLATES AN OBSCURE AREA OF THE TOPIC TO JUSTIFY
THE RESOLUTION
STANDARDS N A SET OF CRITERIA WHICH ALLOWS THE
JUDGE TO EVALUATE THE SUPERIORITY OF COMPETING
ARGUMENTS CF TOPICALITY STANDARDS OR COM
PETITION STANDARDS
STATUS QUO N THE PRESENT SYSTEM THE WAY THINGS
ARE NOW THE WORLD AS WE KNOW IT EXISTS NOW
STOCK ISSUES N THOSE ISSUES THAT THE AFlRMATIVE
MUST SUBSTANTIATE IE SIGNIlCANCE INHERENCY
SOLVENCY AND TOPICALITY IN ORDER TO WIN A DE
BATE N A PARADIGM OR PERSPECTIVE FOR EVALUATING
ROUNDS BASED ON THE NOTION THAT THE AFlRMATIVE
HAS TO MEET THE BURDENS OF SIGNIlCANCE INHER
ENCY SOLVING AND TOPICALITY
STRUCTURE N THE OUTLINE OF THE ARGUMENTS
SUBPOINTS N A SPECIlC SUPPORTING PART OF AN
ARGUMENTATIVE STRUCTURE
TOPICALITY N THE QUALITY OR CONDITION OF FALLING
UNDER THE RANGE OF THE RESOLUTIONS POSSIBILITIES
AN ARGUMENT SUGGESTING THAT THE AFlRMATIVE
PLAN DOES NOT COME UNDER THE RESOLUTION
TOPICALITY STANDARDS N A SET OF CRITERIA DESIGNED
TO AID THE JUDGE IN EVALUATING THE TOPICALITY
ARGUMENT
TURNAROUND TURN N AN ARGUMENT AGAINST A
DISADVANTAGE CLAIMING THAT THE IMPACT IS SOLVED
BY THE PLAN MORE THAN THE STATUS QUO AKA A
hLINK mIPv OR THAT THE IMPACT IS ACTUALLY GOOD
AKA AN hIMPACT mIPv
UNIQUENESS N THAT COMPONENT OF A DISAD
VANTAGE WHICH ILLUSTRATES THAT THE DISADVANTAGE
IMPACT WHICH THE NEGATIVE CLAIMS RESULTS ONLY
FROM THE ADOPTION OF THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN 4HAT
IS THE DISADVANTAGE IMPACT WOULD NOT OCCUR AB
SENT THE AFlRMATIVE PLAN
VALUE OBJECTION N AN ARGUMENT USED PRIMARILY
IN NONPOLICY DEBATE WHICH ARGUES THAT THERE EX
ISTS A COMPETING VALUE TO THE AFlRMATIVE VALUE
4HE ARGUMENT HAS TO BE PROVEN TO BE MORE
IMPORTANT THAN THE AFlRMATIVE VALUE
VOTING ISSUE N AN ARGUMENT WHICH JUSTIlES VOT
ING FOR THE TEAM THAT INITIATED THE ARGUMENT &OR
EXAMPLE TOPICALITY CRITIQUES AND COUNTERPLAN
COMPETITIVENESS ARE FREQUENTLY CONSIDERED VOT
ING ISSUES
WARMING SEE GLOBAL WARMING
WHOLE RESOLUTION OR WHOLE RES N A GENERIC
NONPOLICY DEBATE ARGUMENT WHICH SAYS THAT THE
RESOLUTION MUST BE DEBATED IN A HOLISTIC MANNER
TO DETERMINE ITS PROBABLE TRUTH 5SUALLY THE
NEGATIVE MUST ESTABLISH SOME FORM OF STANDARD
TO MEASURE WHEN IT IS POSSIBLE TO INDUCE THE
TRUTH OF THE RESOLUTION
WORLD GOVERNMENT OR 7/-0 A GENERIC COUN
TERPLAN DERIVED FROM THE 7ORLD /RDER -ODELS
0ROJECT 7/-0 COMMISSIONED TO STUDY THE
FEASIBILITY OF A WORLD GOVERNMENT 4HE ARGUMENTS
UNDERLYING PREMISE IS THAT EACH ACTION TAKEN BY A
SOVEREIGN STATE AS CALLED FOR BY MANY DEBATE RESO
LUTIONS INCREASES THE IMPEDIMENTS TO ACHIEVING A
NEW WORLD ORDER 4HE NEGATIVE THEREFORE ARGUES
A 7ORLD 'OVERNMENT SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED TO
ACCOMPLISH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE AFlRMATIVE AND
PREVENT WARS BETWEEN NATIONS
&EVOPI]*SVYQ )QSV]2EXMSREP(IFEXI-RWXMXYXI(IFEXI1ERYEP 4EKI