Scroll to the bottom of the page to post a question in the comment field about debate and we’ll respond with helpful advice.
Note that the most recent questions and answers are at the bottom of the page, the earliest questions are at the top.
NEW! Check out the CDC’s Space Exploration Topic Research Links on Twitter, updated regularly with the latest topic news!
Questions answered so far:
- Most Recent (2011/2012 school year)
- Is reading off-case positions like Disadvantages in the 2NC allowed? Is it strategic?
- Can the Affirmative read the plan in the 2AC? Can it change the Affirmative case in the 2AC?
- Can debaters use prep time before cross-examination?
- Why are standards important in Topicality debates?
- Can the 1NR and 1AR read evidence or is this not allowed in the rebuttals? (Also: why it’s a great idea to make offensive arguments in the 1AR)
- Coaches’ Corner
- General Debate Theory and Topicality
- Kritiks
- Policy Debate Format, Rules, and Practice
- Is reading off-case positions like Disadvantages in the 2NC allowed? Is it strategic?
- Can the Affirmative read the plan in the 2AC? Can it change the Affirmative case in the 2AC?
- Do teams have to share evidence they read in their speech with their opponents?
- How do I read the results packet and what are the tiebreakers for who makes it to elimination rounds?
- What happens if a team forgets to read their plan in the 1AC? And should cross-examination factor into a judge’s decision?
- A note about competitive decorum and respecting your opponent
- Which speech determines the numbering and structure of the flow on-Case and off-Case?
- [High School] Can we run/research a Preview Affirmative another team has submitted? How do judges get paid for tournaments?
- [Middle School] What are the differences between the Middle School and High School formats?
- Does flowing matter? Can I succeed and win at debate without flowing?
- Can the 1NR and 1AR read evidence or is this not allowed in the rebuttals? (Also: why it’s a great idea to make offensive arguments in the 1AR)
- Can debaters use prep time before cross-examination?
- Research, Strategy and Previewing
- General League and Administrative Questions
- Where can I find the dates of tournaments?
- Where do I go if I have a question or need help at a tournament?
- How do I qualify to judge at CDL tournaments?
- [High School] Can we reconfigure our team pairings for the Chicago Debate Championship using our “At Large” students?
- [High School] Can parents come and observe at the Chicago Debate Championship?
- [High School] How do teams qualify for the Urban Debate Nationals?
Get the Chicago Debate Chronicle e-newsletter
Hi David! I’m Shanisha from Prosser Career Academy, and I have a question about kritiks in debate. With the new resolution in mind, my partner and I had to run negative against S. Korea. We chose to run the military readiness DA, security Kritik, Reduce Topicality, and the off case arguments. Is it a good idea to run disads with kritiks? Because the judge told us that it’s a bad idea because we linked to the DA! I’m asking so that we will have more knowledge on what to run for our future debates.
Thank You,
Shanisha Tillman.
Shanisha,
Good question.
Sound strategy always depends upon adapting successfully to the judge*, but some teams will argue it’s a contradiction – that needs to be debated out. The one situation where I think that might be very persuasive for the affirmative is when the affirmative doesn’t make security threats but the negative disadvantages do. Let’s say the affirmative reads a “critical” or philosophical affirmative and the negative presents security-based disadvantages and then reads a security kritik – if the negative’s arguments link MORE to the disadvantages than the 1AC, the affirmative would be smart to call that a “double turn.” A related example you might remember from last year’s topic would have been if the affirmative ran a case like Katrina with a racism advantage about how capitalism ignores the poor and the negative read the Politics DA with financial markets as the impact along with the Capitalism Kritik.
Negative debaters will usually argue that the affirmative presented security threats first and the negative should have the opportunity to test the 1AC on multiple levels, including the discourse/language they use and philosophical assumptions they make, as well as attempting to answer with a competitive policy strategy. This argument that the negative needs flexibility and multiple strategic options in order to gain education from debate is often called “negation theory.”
A second argument that negative debaters often make is that kritiks are a “gateway issue,” much like a procedural argument like Topicality. The affirmative presented language and philosophical assumptions about security which need to be addressed before we can evaluate the outcome of the plan – only once the affirmative has done that can we look at the DAs vs. case.
*In terms of how different judges would look at this question of contradiction between the kritik and disadvantage, a more recent debater with National Circuit experience would probably be very tolerant of seeming contradictions between the thesis of a kritik and the policy strategy in the 1NC. On the other hand, a judge who’s a teacher with a strong background in literary theory or philosophy might find it unthinkable to argue against describing other nations as threatening and warlike but then read a China war impact to your primacy disadvantage – intellectual consistency might be more important than strategic flexibility in that situation since they’d be more interested in one connected overall theme from the negative team to respond to the affirmative.
One additional recommendation: Regardless of the judge’s background and experience, the best negative strategies do have multiple parts that work together well and form an overall story – some teams effectively use kritiks as net benefits to counterplans, for example, rather than as issues entirely separate from the rest of the debate. Of course, it’s important to have flexibility in choosing which parts of that strategic plan you can focus on as the debate develops and which you can “kick out” of or not spend time on if you’re not ahead on those issues. Kritiks are the hardest arguments to fit into an overall policy strategy, but they’re a very useful weapon for a Varsity debater since once you learn the language and concepts – and they’re not always easy – they can be applied successfully to a variety of affirmatives, including ones you’re largely unfamiliar with.
Doesn’t the burden of proof always fall on the affirmative? I think there’s some confusion by some people who think that the Neg has to prove a plan, instead of disproving the Aff’s plan.
The affirmative presents a plan and advantages and has the burden of proof (presumption) to prove change is necessary from the status quo. You’re right that this is the fundamental burden of proof every debate (and 1AC) starts with, proving a case for change.
For high school debaters and coaches:
The negative does not have to present a counterplan, but if it DOES present a counterplan, it has the burden of proving the counterplan is competitive and net beneficial, that the counterplan avoids disadvantages that the affirmative plan incurs and is thus a better policy option than the plan or the permutation of the plan and the counterplan together. If both teams are arguing a plan for change, the negative has to prove there is a reason to prefer the negative’s (counter)plan over the affirmative plan and that they can’t be done together successfully, that there is an opportunity cost to doing the affirmative plan as a matter of policy – we forgo the opportunity to do a better plan instead that would solve the affirmative’s Harms while avoiding causing the bigger problems identified by the disadvantages.
Sometimes this becomes an issue of discussion in a debate, whether presumption (the burden of proof) “shifts” to the negative team if they propose a counterplan. I generally agree that this is true and most experienced debate folks think so as well, but it’s up to the teams in the debate to argue about it if it comes down to this question.
An example: what happens in a debate where the counterplan solves the case equally well as the affirmative but links just as much to all the negative disadvantages, meaning there’s no net benefit? A smart 2AR would say, “presumption shifts to the negative because they’re defending a counterplan rather than the status quo in the 2NR, they haven’t proven a net benefit that’s a reason to prefer the counterplan, therefore you should vote affirmative because they don’t get both the counterplan and the status quo.” This also sometimes becomes an issue in debates where the counterplan gets rejected on theory – “reject the argument, not the team” – and neither team resolves what happens if the counterplan isn’t in the debate. Does the negative have a disadvantage and the status quo to weigh against the affirmative case?
For this reason, in a counterplan debate that’s close, our most advanced Varsity debaters will probably want to have SOME brief argument in the 2NR/2AR about what happens if the CP and plan are essentially a tie (if this seems possible, it rarely happens that way), if there’s an argument about the net benefit disadvantage linking to the counterplan, or if the judge might choose to throw out the counterplan (based on a theory argument) from a debate that’s almost entirely about the counterplan in the final speeches.
David,
Just wondering…
Is there an official stand or protocol to sharing/not sharing cards in a debate round (at the AA, JV level)? (By that I mean, one team declaring “we don’t share cards” at the beginning of a round and thereby not showing cards to the opposing team.) Some of my debaters were in round where the opposing team did not want to share evidence cards and the judges okay-ed it. I don’t have a problem with it since it seems like most of the cards came from the Core files (and if my debaters were flowing properly, they should have access to the same information), but it seems to me that debaters should be able to request to see a card (or cards) from the opposing team.
Thoughts? Guidance?
Mark
[Question previously addressed on CDL listserv, in March 2010]
The logic of the CDL policy here is pretty straightforward. All teams have access to their opponent’s evidence/briefs during their own speeches, cross-ex, and prep time. But they are not obligated to give up their own evidence/briefs during their own speeches, cross-ex, and prep time.
Here’s what the Guidelines say on this issue:
“4.5 In-Round Evidence Sharing
Teams are required to “share” with their opponents any evidence that is read, upon request – i.e., they must provide their opponents a copy of the evidence. Debaters can hold an opponent’s evidence during their own speech and prep time, but must return the evidence when it is their opponent’s speech and prep time.”
Here’s how this should play out:
* Students ARE required to share their evidence read in a debate immediately following the conclusion of the speech in which it was read. This is an important part of the academic trust of the activity, to allow your opponent to evaluate your evidence for an argument and have the ability to challenge it or respond to its warrants.
* The opposing team should NOT interrupt a speaker or hover over the shoulder a speaking debater in order to obtain evidence, particularly when asked not to by the debater giving the speech. Debaters who do this after being asked not to should have their speaker points penalized and be warned by the judge.
* The opposing team may either ask the debater speaking, prior to the speech, if they would flip the evidence they’re done reading onto the table so it can be looked at after it’s read (optional) or ask for evidence read during the speech immediately following it (required). Either of these would be acceptable and respectful protocol.
* Evidence must be returned upon request for the opponent’s prep time for their next speech.
*If evidence is read off a computer, the team reading it should have a computer available to view the evidence off of for their opponents – the same rules apply to electronic evidence sharing as paper evidence.
Hi David,
We’re confused as to how the quarterfinal teams are picked. We seemed to have a lot of wins or students who went 4-1 with no advancement. Can you explain how it works or direct me to the location that explains it?
Thanks,
Liz
Thanks, Liz.
I’ve had at least one other question from a coach about how to read their result packets, so this is a very timely (and good) question. This may be a bit detailed and longer than other Ask David posts, but I hope helpful to coaches who are interested – scroll past this post if it’s more information than you need to know.
Team rankings (and seeds) for quarterfinals were based on the following at Tournament Two, in descending order – it ranks them and goes to the next tiebreaker only if they’re tied in the previous one:
1. Prelim wins (WINS)
2. High/Low Speaker Points (H/L) – as a team, not as individuals, so dropping a team’s collective best and worst effort out of the five rounds and counting the middle three
3. Total Speaker Points (PTS) – the sum of all 5 debates as a team
4. Total Team Ranks (RKS) – adding up ranks (1-4) for all 5 debates for both debaters
5. High/Low Speaker Points Plus Opponent Wins (H/L + Op) – it takes the number explained above and adds the total number of wins the 5 opponents your team faced had during the tournament – think of this as kind of strength-of-schedule adjustment
6. Double High/Low Speaker Points (D H/L) – again as a team, not as individuals, so dropping a team’s two best and worst rounds out of 5 and keeping only the median (middle) round of the 5
7. Opponent Wins (OppWn) – explained above
8. Random Number Generated (RND) – although I’ve never seen a tournament yet in over a decade where a team was tied through the first seven tiebreakers (the furthest I’ve seen is maybe fifth tiebreaker), it’s theoretically possible, so the computer tabulation software generates a random number to ensure everyone can be ranked in order
Let’s take a look at the packet from T2 at Kelvyn Park:
You’ll see that Mather was very successful in JV and had two 4-1 teams. Congratulations.
Mather PS was maverick on Saturday, which means they were ineligible to break to elimination rounds even if Sidra had won her lost debate and finished 5-0. According to the Guidelines, any team that has a debater miss two debates in prelims is ineligible to break to elims. If you see an asterisk in your team’s code on the pairing or in the results packet, this reflects that a debater on that team missed more than one round and helps our tournament directors keep track of who can’t break to elimination rounds as a rule. In this case, Sidra lost her final debate and you’ll see that maverick teams have lower points as well, since they only have half the points that a team would have two partners, which is why she was ranked lowest of the 4-1 teams despite an impressive individual performance (25th ranked overall JV speaker).
Mather KO was also 4-1 and ranked 11th after prelims, but in fact was the 9th non-maverick team in order and just missed the Top 8 that did break since Northtown FR and Chicago Ag MN (note asterisks) were ineligible to break despite being 5-0 due to not having the same two partners intact for both days. Very close!
Their points would be calculated as follows: the first tie-breaker after wins is H/L (Team High-Low Points), so the computer drops their best and worst round and counts the middle three. In this case, KO had two debates where they had a total of 55 points, so the computer would drop one of them, let’s say Round 4 (29 + 26 = 55). It would also drop their lowest-speaking round, in this case one of the 3 rounds where they had 53 total points, let’s say Round 1 (28 + 25 = 53). The remaining three debates are as follows: Round 2 = 53 (27 + 26), Round 3 = 55 (28 + 27), Round 5 = 53 (28 + 25). The sum of those three middle debates is 161, which is what you see in smaller numbers in the far-right hand upper corner next to the 4-1 record. Below that is their total overall points (the second tie-breaker), 269 points.
While we’re at it, let’s take a look at what the T2 tiebreakers are in order of priority for speaker awards. Note that since speaker points and awards reflect individual accomplishment, all of these are for each individual, not for both members of team:
1. High-Low Individual Speaker Points (H/L) – once again, drop the highest and lowest, keep the middle three
2. Total Individual Speaker Points (PTS) – all five debates summed up
3. Ranks (RKS) – rank (1-4) in all fives debates summed up
4. Double High-Low Individual Speaker Points (D H/L) – once again, drop the two highest and the two lowest, keep only the median (middle) round
5. Judge Variance (J VAR) – this one gets a bit more geeky (if that’s possible), but it’s a statistical calculation of how much better than average your debater was than the average debater that each of their judges judged during the tournament. Zero would be entirely average, negative numbers mean below average, the higher the positive number, the more your debater stood out to the judges they had compared to the average of the debaters they judged during their debates.
6. High-Low Ranks (Rk H/L) – this drops the highest-rank in a round and lowest rank in a round and keeps the three ranks from middle rounds. So for example, it might drop a “1″ from the best round where your student was top out of the 4 debaters and would drop a “4″ from the worst round where your student was the least impressive of the 4 debaters.
7. Opponent Speaker Points (OppPt) – this adds up the points for all the teams your debater was up against during the tournament. It gives a good indication of how tough your debater’s competition was and also provides a small statistical control on how high your debater’s points were relative to their opponents.
8. Random Number Generator (RND) – explained above
If you look at the results packet for each individual team, you’ll see two numbers at the furthest right in the row corresponding with each debater’s name. The first number is their High-Low Individual Speaker Points (H/L), the first tiebreaker. In the case of Kevin Luu, he had 84 points in his middle three debates, taking away his best and worst debate – not too bad, an average of 28 points per debate in those three debates. For Odontuya Sumiyatsooj, that H/L total was 77 points in his middle three debates, an average of about 25.7 in those three debates. The next number to the right of the H/L points for each student is their total points during the entire tournament, the second tie-breaker. Luu had 140 and Sumiyatsooj had 129.
Hope that helps – please let me know if anyone has any additional questions about how to read your results packets and tournament tabulation.
Thanks – David
Thorough response! Thank you, David, even I learned a thing or two!
– Les
Pingback: Tournament Three Previewing for DePaul Mid-Season Classic (Conference “A” and “AA”) | The Chicago Debate League
Question from a debate I judged at Tournament Two:
The affirmative team didn’t have time to read to read their plan in the 1AC. The negative did ask about whether there was a plan in cross-examination of the 1AC, where the affirmative explained what the plan would be. The negative briefly referred later in the debate about why not having a plan meant they couldn’t solve effectively, but didn’t make this a focus of the debate with Topicality.
Does the explanation of the plan in cross-examination count? Should the affirmative automatically lose if they don’t read their plan in the first speech?
Zoe,
Good question, a very interesting situation to be in as a judge.
First, one broad recommendation for any coaches reading this: if you coach JV debaters who are struggling with reading through the entire 1AC, even with the shorter 1ACs like Afghanistan, I’d recommend moving the plan up in the speech after Inherency. Obviously, the best solution would be to edit down the speech and read fewer cards in each Contention – Inherency, Harms, and Solvency, but one solution to make sure your team never runs out of time to read the plan is to move it before the Harms. Having to clarify/read your plan in the 2AC is never going to look good to the judge, even if it’s necessary due to not having it in the 1AC – the negative may also (reasonably) claim they get to make new arguments since the plan wasn’t in the 1AC and it sets the stage for the entire debate.
The best argument the negative could make when a team forgets to read their plan is a Topicality argument. You can’t prove you’re within the topic when you don’t present a specific policy example of the topic.
Judges and coaches have asked me on occasion how they should treat arguments made in cross-examination. I think CX is very valuable and establishes a lot of the ethos in a debate, gives the judge a good sense of who’s controlling the debate and how knowledgeable and confident each debater is in the evidence for their arguments. There’s no doubt that performance in CX has a large effect upon speaker points and can cast doubt about the credibility of arguments early on in the debate or expose weaknesses in a strategy that can be exploited successfully in later speeches. That being said, arguments should only really receive strong consideration in your mind as a judge in terms of making a decision on who wins and loses if they’re made in a speech. Arguments touched upon in cross-examination don’t really make it into the “record” of a speech, often quite literally, since most judges do not take notes during CX and no judges flow CX.
Now to answer your last question, assuming debaters are conducting themselves properly by the CDL Guidelines and giving their speeches in order within standard speech times, there’s no reason for a judge automatically to vote against a team. It’s up to the negative team to argue why the lack of a plan is a bad idea – for example, the solvency argument you mentioned. Now it won’t be very difficult to convince the judge that the lack of a plan is a problem for the affirmative team, but the judge shouldn’t decide on their own that one team has lost without the question being debated out.
For coaches of Varsity debaters, one related discussion: this is rare, but there are some experienced “critical” or “performance” debaters who choose (intentionally) not to read a plan. They typically have a reason not to do so, often because they want to “critique” the rules of debate and instead focus on the issues they think are ignored by the topic, or some theme related to the topic that has more important personal and social relevance than abstract discussions of public policy consequences. Lane Tech and Northside College Prep argued these sort of affirmatives on last year’s topic at one point in the year, focusing on issues of how we talk about the poor and minorities.
In this situation, the negative will frequently argue Topicality or “framework” – that the affirmative must defend a predictable policy action to have an educational debate with ground for negative disadvantages and counterplans. I personally prefer these debates to be about Topicality rather than “policy education good, critical education unpredictable” interpretations of framework because Topicality helps to determine whether the negative has the ability to debate (using literature, research, and preparation) things like kritik links and strategies that would offer more competitive critical education as well as the policy arguments that most debaters argue are good in framework rounds. Topicality debates also focus on a clearer interpretation of what should and shouldn’t be debated since they’re grounded in definitions, evidence, and language and not just attacks upon one model of political discussion vs. another. My experience as a coach and judge has been that Topicality debates are frequently much cleaner and less ideologically subjective for the judge than framework.
Here are my Top Ten ideas for recruiting that teams should look at implementing to recruit new students for T3 – feel free to share additional ideas in the comment sections:
First, talk to colleagues and department heads about identifying promising students (based on class placement or testing) who should be on your team. Once you have those names, create an envelope with a printed-out invitation – this can be fancy or relatively inexpensive, just make sure it conveys the idea – saying they’ve been selected to join or try out for an elite group of students in the school and listing the next meeting time/place. Have this envelope delivered to them by a teacher who knows them well and can help sell their involvement in debate.
Second, have some of your more experienced debaters join you in addressing classes. Take 5 minutes to pitch not only the academic benefits of debate, but also how much fun it is, how competitive the tournaments are, how students from all over the city make new friends and compete for awards using their ideas and their point of view.
Third, have recruiting fliers that target students coming off of other activities. Yes, I hear from coaches all the time that they lost a student to football or some other fall sport. What I’ve found successful as a coach is having fliers that target athletes and students looking for an activity that balances out their activities – have them say something like “Join Debate’s Winter Season Now – Keep Your Mind Warm” or “Fall Sports Over? Join Our Championship Team for Debate’s Winter Season – Compete With YOUR IDEAS” or something less corny but similar. I’d do the same thing again for the “Spring Season” – students don’t know that debate is a year-long activity and they can certainly do well joining after the second tournament and get caught up pretty quickly in JV. Some of my best debaters, including a starter on a Varsity baseball IHSA state runner-up team, were athletes who joined halfway through the year – I found that what they had to catch up on in terms of debate content was more than balanced out by their competitiveness and ability to work within a team and stick to a regular schedule of practice and preparation.
Fourth, if you haven’t already done so, borrow great ideas from coaches like Dave Hayes from King and have a parent info night where you invite students and their parents (this could mean mailing a nice packet of materials home and requesting they RSVP). Order some pizza, have some food related to the countries in the topic, or have a screening of the Great Debaters with popcorn – the specific idea of what would appeal to your students and their families is yours, but make sure it’s engaging and appealing. I’ve never coached at a school with a budget of more than $4,000, so I’ve learned you can be creative here about resources, involving parents – some restaurants will donate food or will donate a portion of their proceeds and throw in meals for your group if you help pass out advertisements or get people to come out for one weekday evening when business is typically slow, a fun potential fundraiser. Getting parents on board as volunteers is critical not only to getting students committed, but also to helping get support for the team within the school. Have a sign-up sheet and available positions such as Parent Judge, Debate Parent Volunteer Organizer, School Support Leader, Community Visibility Leader – these aren’t just decorative titles, having active parents can be a great asset to any team. To single out one example, Michele Brock helped found the King College Prep debate team and is now actively involved with supporting Lindblom and Urban Prep through her efforts in the community.
Fifth, this may work at some schools more than others, but make sure debate has a presence at any activity fairs or meetings open to a large number of students. One year, we had students deliver short debates in the hallway using a PA setup on controversial, but entertaining topics, with a sign-in sheet. That got a lot of buzz going and got us some new debaters. Another year, we had two students walk around with a sign reading “Think You Can Out-Debate Me? Pick a Topic” and they’d have a brief discussion with any student who stopped them, as well as a hat with some slips of paper listing fun topics if students couldn’t think of an issue to debate about. These debate jousters would graciously concede after some give-and-take if the challenger had a good point, with a reward for anyone who out-debated them (and magically, most did) – we gave them pencils we had engraved with our debate team’s slogan on it and meeting time/location and also a candy bar with a note inviting them to a pizza party; a large prize isn’t needed to be memorable.
Sixth, for your students who are committed and show leadership skills, give them each responsibility for bringing more people into the team. I would typically assign my Varsity and committed JV to bring in 2 friends and 1 student from their classes they’re not friends with but whom they respect as being smart and think would be good at debate. Not all students will succeed at this (although some will bring in more than three) and not all the students they bring in are keepers, but you’ll find that the best recruiters are often your own debaters, particularly if they’re well-regarded and outgoing. The most dedicated groups of debaters often come in as friends, and they’re more likely to stick with it if they like the company. Reward dedicated, hard-working, consistent Varsity debaters with titles and positions of responsibility within the team, like Sophomore/Junior/Senior Recruiting Leader or JV Captain or JV Mentor – they’ll take the task more seriously and it’ll help them feel more connected to the team, increasing their commitment. Most kids who love debate are dying to help teach it to others and they can earn the right to help you reach younger debaters through their own hard work and contributions to the team. If you’re a first-year school or have almost all JV debaters, reward the ones who show initial success and dedication with titles like JV Captain or JV Recruiting Leader so they are invested in helping the team to grow and succeed the rest of the year.
Seventh, make sure that debaters are recognized by the school and the administration. Any accomplishments at recent tournaments should be announced widely, not just over the PA in the morning when everyone’s half asleep. Have students wear speaker award medals to school the Monday after a tournament – display any plaques you win in the main office. Have the Principal or AP recognize the students in public during an assembly or even during lunch periods to let other students know the school takes debate seriously and is behind having new students join a winning effort. Even if your team is new and hasn’t won much, recognize the students who have competed anyway – they deserve the reinforcement and it will help build the sort of healthy, thriving team that will lead to success.
Eighth, keep recruiting. Recruiting isn’t a once-a-year thing where you give up if your first push doesn’t succeed – even the best debate teams keep less than half of the students who show up at the first informational meeting, I can tell you this is probably more like 1/3 that actually become reliable competitors from my personal experience. But the difference is that successful teams keep casting the net out there and don’t give up and conclude that “students don’t want to debate at this school,” which is ultimately a cop-out, regardless of whatever sociology is used to explain this claim. Winter season, spring season, recruit for next year before the end of the school year. Bob Edwards from Phoenix Military Academy got most of his current JV debaters this year during Freshman Connection and summer school. Football coaches always keep an eye out for athletic talent – debate coaches have a wider pool to choose from (we’re lucky we don’t have to recruit genetic giants or kids who run the 40-yard dash in under 4.6) and should look for students who might have something to say, a desire to compete, and some ideas they could express effectively with your help. Put your colleagues on notice too.
Ninth, don’t be afraid to challenge students from the start. There are many activities which are minor commitments or casual trifles – debate isn’t one of them, as you already know, and to quote the late Scott Deatherage of the NAUDL and Northwestern University’s dynastic debate team, “nothing in life worth having comes easy.” Give students a vision of what you’re looking for and be upfront. My first informational meetings would tell students what kind of team we would be – for a while, our motto was something about 3 I’s (Integrity, Intelligence, Innovation), one year it was “Believe – We Change the Game,” but yours might be Competitive, Cooperative, Critical or whatever your motto is (“Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can’t Lose!” might be a bit much), just make sure you have some message for what the team believes in. I would then say that not all the students in the room are going to be debaters or fit this approach, that anyone who wants to compete and has something to say that means something to someone is welcome to be a part of the team but that the goal is to be one of the best TEAMS (with all that implies) anywhere and that requires a special kind of student and teamwork where students are responsible not only to you as their coach but to each other. Talk about the benefits of debate for college admissions and scholarships, for future success in business, for future success in law, and for their academics – that debate stands out because colleges know you’re going somewhere and can read, write, speak and are aware of important issues – but reinforce that a merely practical resume choice isn’t going to be enough, that they have to want to compete and prove themselves against students from all over the city to succeed on your team. Not all good students are meant to be good debaters, and not all good debaters start as good students, but debate will undoubtedly make students better and challenge them to improve like no other activity can. If you can sell this, students will know they’re expected to commit from the outset and will have the right expected attitude and some guiding philosophy they can potentially adopt as their own, a rare and valuable thing in the academic life of any high school student.
Tenth: your enthusiasm is what gets students interested at the start and gets them out to that first tournament where they can get hooked on the activity, there’s no other way to explain it. Students want to be a part of something that’s energizing and challenging, they don’t want to be a part of an activity where the impression they get is ambivalence or indifference. Not everyone’s a Vince Lombardi or a Scott Deatherage, but your leadership is the most important driver to whether kids benefit and grow from debate. One additional reason to recruit beyond any talk of numbers or incentives is that the best debate teams have a vibrant energy, a spirit of intellectual discovery and open dialogue that pushes students to improve. That’s sorely lacking at some of our schools, and it may seem overly optimistic to some of you, but that same spark exists in any school – there are students who could be great debaters in just about every group of students I’ve ever met. If your debate team is a place where several students are eager to come and test ideas and work off each other and find intellectual sparring enjoyable, you’re likely to see both competitive success and student commitment and participation. Get the sort of students you’d be excited about working with and who other bright students potentially headed somewhere beyond high school would want to be around. Not only will you find meeting the participation standard and getting attendance at tournaments much easier, you’ll enjoy leading a community of young critical thinkers and your leadership will be recognized for creating something different within the school, even if not everyone fully understands what debate is and offers to our students. The greatest enjoyment I got out of coaching and the reason I’m still in debate is because it’s rewarding to guide young people who are undoubtedly going to be smarter than you are and witness their growth as they discover new ideas and find a voice. We’re literally asking them to learn about and engage the world and its ideas this year – I hope that’s seen as an opportunity that stands out among the narrow, provincial interests and concerns of most teenagers in our city. Our coaches do amazing work and touch the lives of amazing students – we hope that impact grows this year.
Pingback: Recruiting and Building Your Team Going Into T3 | The Chicago Debate League
David, i have been seeing a lot of Kritiks being run.
can u tell me a good history on them?
also, can u explain the security Kritik for me? I have a hard time understanding it and refuting it.
Sam,
Great question.
I’ll start small with your specific question about the Security Kritik and then go a bit broader for the general history of the kritik, which is a subject I’m always happy to discuss for those interested in reading further.
Part I: Security Kritik Introduction (Page 413-416 of Core Files)
First, let’s start with what a kritik is and does. A kritik is a philosophical argument the negative presents that questions the assumptions, language, and ideas behind the affirmative case. There are some similarities to other debate arguments – like a disadvantage, a kritik requires a link (how does the affirmative make the wrong assumptions, use questionable language, or rely upon the wrong ideas about other nations in our foreign policy) and an impact (how does this flawed, aggressive way of looking at foreign policy produce more conflict or make war inevitable).
One trick to understanding kritiks is to be able to pick through some of the language and jargon and get the concepts behind what can be pretty complex theory. I’ve usually presented kritiks to my debaters as being about two general stories told by any affirmative:
1) In the 1AC, how are we (the US government, the American people, Western military power) described? Who are the good guys, the saviors, and who is being saved? Who solves the problems? What is our role (policeman, force of moral persuasion, democratic example, life-and-death combatant in a war of civilizations) and how do we understand our identity in this role?
2) In the 1AC, who are the bad guys, the villians? Who are we likely to have conflict with, who is said to challenge us, who causes us to have nuclear wars? Who causes the problems in the world? What are the motivations for these actions (aggression, proliferation, arms sales, terrorism), as described by the 1AC?
Specifically, here’s the tag for the link in the Core Files version of the Security Kritik: “The affirmative‘s foreign policy and military strategy creates a violent sense of national identity that cannot be questioned and aims toward acting to prevent wars that are seen as a natural outcome in the realist view of the world that views technology and people‘s lives as means to that strategic end. Only questioning this view of the world allows for real global peace.”
This is a slightly more sophisticated way of challenging the two general stories told by the 1AC that I posed earlier. The argument is that the affirmative’s version of what we should do in the world describes war as inevitable and sets the ultimate aim at using our military power and technology to manage future violence. As the argument goes, the problem with this foreign policy “realism” is that it focuses only on power politics and the continued ability to use our military to coerce other nations into accepting our will, which is not a foundation for genuine peace.
The tag for the impact card in the Core Files is as follows: “An unquestioning political reliance on security destroys all value to life and makes the human extinction it seeks to avoid more likely.” The argument made here is that security starts with violence as the assumption about human nature and that relying upon our might and balancing power between competing states makes violence more likely even if the affirmative claims to solve for a specific conflict – the affirmative endorses a paranoid, fearful point of view that makes it impossible to engage other cultures successfully.
The structure of the kritik also has an “alternative,” which proposes a different action than doing the plan – there are some similarities to a counterplan, but the action taken is often a bit more abstract. Sometimes it will be to “do nothing” or “rethink our foreign policy” or “resist capitalism,” in the case of the Security Kritik from the Core Files, “The alternative is to de-securitize our politics. Recognizing, identifying, and rejecting the use of security discourse is necessary to create a global community that rejects the use of security rhetoric in its political ethic.”
That’s a lot of words, but to unpack what they mean isn’t too hard to do. Instead of doing the plan, the negative argues, we should identify and reject the use of “security discourse” that views other nations as threats and aggressors in favor of a global political ethic that is not based in hostile security mindsets.
Finally, kritik debates will usually have a discussion of “framework” by both teams, basically a debate about which type of arguments matter most: the affirmative weighing its case and offering education about the outcomes/consequences of policy actions or the philosophical questions raised by the negative. The Core Files 1NC for the Security Kritik includes a framework card with the following tag: “Representations must precede policy discussion – if the negative effects of the way the affirmative describes the world outweigh the positive ones, you vote negative.” This argues that the way we represent and talk about other nations in the world is more important than discussion of policies which affect those parts of the world and that it’s necessary to examine how we think about those parts of the world prior to acting.
Part II: Answering the Security Kritik (Page 437-440 of Core Files)
First, as in almost any debate, the affirmative should always weigh their case. Often, as in the Core Files 2AC, there is a framework argument about why it is most educational for the affirmative to be able to weigh their case in a kritik debate. Affirmatives will want to argue that they have specific solvency and internal links for a specific scenario for conflict based on the evidence of foreign policy experts rather than the fear-mongering claimed by the negative.
Second, the Core Files 2AC offers a permutation. Much like a counterplan debate, the affirmative will argue that the plan can be done in conjunction with the alternative to the kritik – the permutation tests the link to the kritik and forces the negative to prove the action of the plan is incompatible with rethinking security in order to win the kritik debate. On this topic, where the affirmative is withdrawing our military – in many cases, in parts of the world where we are seen as imperialist or heavy-handed – the affirmative should be able to argue persuasively in many debates that the plan and affirmative advantages based on diplomacy and respecting the wishes of other nations are compatible with the kritik.
Third, the affirmative will want to defend some moral framework or some justification for action. In the Core Files, the Cummisky evidence presents a philosophical argument for why saving lives is a primary concern.
Fourth, the affirmative will often make a uniqueness or inevitability argument, that security rhetoric and mindsets are inevitable. The Core Files uses a card from realist scholar Bradley Thayer which argues that competition between nations is an inevitable product of our evolutionary biology, not something the affirmative plan uniquely causes and something that the alternative to the kritik can never change in our human (and animal) nature.
The fifth argument in the Core Files 2AC is that focusing on local power instead of global power makes it easier for global corporations to dominate other nations, an impact turn to the alternative’s call for a global community free from American imperial power. If it’s not the US controlling the world, greedy corporations and conservative interests will fill the void and exploit people around the globe.
The final argument in the Core Files 2AC paraphrases the philosophy of German legal theorist Carl Schmitt to argue that it is paramount that we are willing to make exclusions and distinctions between our friends and enemies in order to understand what makes the politics of a state possible. This would also be explained as an impact turn to the kritik alternative, which would stop us from identifying other nations posing real threats as enemies, something we must do in order to protect our friends and allies from terrorism or nuclear proliferation.
Part III: Basic Introductory Kritik Philosophy
While post-modern philosophy and critical theory is of course far more complex (as teachers with a literary theory background could tell you), for debate purposes, what’s most important to take away as introductory concepts are a few key points:
1. Reality is socially constructed and language creates reality. This is a concept found in sociology and linguistics, as well as philosophy, but the argument is that “discourse” (the language we use to describe the world, and specifically, the way we talk about individual issues and problems in politics and society) shapes all social interaction and is the only way we understand, navigate, and respond to the world. What we understand to be true about society and the people in it is shaped primarily through language and the way we talk about these issues in activities like debate, language which has a real effect in the world and how we engage it as students, teachers, members of society.
2. There are no universal truths, only multiple histories competing to be authorized as the truth by power (which is everywhere and in all of our ideas, politics, and language). Most people have heard the quote “Knowledge is Power” (usually attributed as a a paraphrase of Francis Bacon’s philosophy). One (perhaps too) commonly-used summary of critical theory is that philosophers like Michel Foucault turned that bumpersticker slogan on its head to read as “Power is Knowledge.” You’ve probably heard some version of this before: the winners write history. If you were a student 35 years ago, your American history textbook would have a very different description of the civil rights movement or Cold War than you might read today; the way we described and thought about Native Americans in the history of our country would also have read very differently a century ago. Foucault draws from Nietzsche in viewing history not as a neat progression of a grand story woven through time leading to the current day but as a disconnected fabric of torn cloth and loose threads, at contest in the battle for power in politics and society and constantly re-patched to favor the victors. Foucault uses terms like “genealogy” and “archaeology” as a method of digging up (he uses the term “disinterring” knowledge) the stories that have been hidden and ignored by the powerful and examining the “incessant, disorderly buzzing of discourse” at the margins of society, outside the “official” discourses of power. This method of “historicism,” using history as a tool against the history of the powerful, has had a lasting impact in reviving interest in methods like “social history” that you may already know from your studies. For Marxist kritiks, a large part of the argument is that the ideas, politics, art, and institutions of society are created by the bourgeoisie, the ruling class under capitalism, in order to maintain its ability to exploit workers and keep them alienated from their fruits of their labor. There is a strong streak of relativism in the intellectual tradition here (both moral and cultural), a rejection of traditional systems of morality, and the influence of what has been called the “hermeneutics of suspicion,” a fancy way of saying that philosophers like Marx, Freud, and Nietzsche and their heirs have a healthy suspicion of society and the meaning it attaches to ideas, words, and institutions.
3. All claims of “essential” identity (and identity politics based on these ideas) should be treated with suspicion. Originating in existentialist philosophy, the idea here is that “essentialism,” the idea that our genes, our race, our gender, our sexuality, our biology, create a predictable, “immutable” core of who we are and must be, is less a scientific truth than a political claim. Instead, we should value “difference” and resist attempts by the government and institutions of power to assign an “essential” identity as a basis for organizing society. Related to this is a suspicion of the social sciences (for Foucault, the “Science of Man,”), which are themselves a relatively new historical and intellectual phenomenon. The idea that we can apply scientific prediction and control to people and their behavior is just the latest connection of truth and power, called “biopower”, enforced through discipline, so that these norms become internalized and people self-regulate based on what they believe to be scientifically true and the knowledge that they are being observed by power, examined and regulated based on these norms.
4. We define ourselves by who we are not (inclusion involves exclusion/identity involves negation). This tends to be true with many debate arguments, but when we describe who we are as a nation or people, we often do so against some external threat or enemy “out there,” depending upon the era we live in (terrorists, Communists, etc.). Another recent example of this in historical scholarship is in critical “whiteness” studies, which analyzes racism through the lens of how over the last two centuries, the definition of who is “white” in America has been more defined by who is not white than an ability to define what being “white” really means culturally or sociologically or ethnically, a definition that has changed to exclude and then include various immigrant groups (Irish, Italians, Jews) and how that definition has changed politically in response to things like immigration from Latin America and Asia and the civil rights movement and Black Power.
Part IV: History of the Kritik as Debate Argument
While here too there are multiple histories and political claims (of course), most debaters agree that kritiks have their origin in “value debate,” philosophical arguments made by college debate teams in an earlier era. The first real modern use of these philosophical objections to the resolution and the policy debate topic was in the early 1990s by the University of Texas-Austin, coached by kritik pioneer and infamous gadfly Bill Shanahan and debated by Ryan Goodman (now a Professor of Law at NYU, formerly Harvard), Derek Jinks (now a Professor of Law at Texas) and Brian McBride (still an active debate coach at University of Southern California). Among the first pioneers of the argument in high school in the mid-1990s were high school teammates of mine, George Kouros and Armands Revelins, who were the first high school team to win a national championship, the Tournament of Champions, on a kritik – they argued on an immigration topic that we used borders, citizenship and immigration regulation to construct a national identity against those we try to keep out or deem worthy of coming in. Kouros went on to be a pioneer of critical debate in college as well at Emory University, arguing an influential kritik based on the work of literature professor William Spanos which used Vietnam as an example of how our problem-solving approach in creating hegemony in foreign policy relied upon viewing war and violence as technical calculations as well as other kritik arguments based on existentialism and the social construction of gender (Judith Butler). There have been several influential college kritik debaters since who have introduced arguments like kritiks of globalization, psychoanalytic Marxism (Slavoj Zizek), and kritiks of technology (Heidegger), notably Jairus Grove and Kirk Evans of Texas, Geoff Garen and Tristan Morales of Northwestern, Ricky Gorelick and Nate Garner of NYU, Gabe Murillo of Wayne State, Conor Cleary and Blake Johnson of Oklahoma, and the advent of performance debate in the early 2000s at Louisville (represented in our own league by U of L alums and coaches Stephanie Mitchell and Ebony Rose, of School of the Arts and Phillips, respectively), Cal State Fullerton, Dartmouth, Fort Hays, and Towson State.
With the limited time we have, what is the best way to prepare my team against the new preview cases?
Stephanie,
A few suggestions:
1. As a general rule, this isn’t that broad a topic and there aren’t that many ideas out there, certainly not many ideas that don’t link to the bread-and-butter disadvantage debates about military deterrence, primacy, allied proliferation, foreign relations, etc.
2. Use online resources to find out more about the affirmative previews in question, or citations for negative strategies other teams have used against the case:
I’d start with the searchable National Debate Coaches’ Association wiki, enter in search terms related to the preview case.
Then, if you need files and evidence for that preview case, head to the Open Evidence Project (also from the NDCA). It’s searchable as well, but you might just start by clicking “Case Negatives” and seeing if you can find something related to the country (and plan) that was previewed.
3. Make sure there’s work done on Topicality violations, they can be especially effective against cases you don’t have a lot of evidence for. An example would be the Topicality violation “military presence = troops” (a version of which is in Core Files to answer the Turkey TNWs affirmative) – doing some work on this would help you to debate the Marshall Depleted Uranium Bullets and Military contractors affirmatives.
The other reason Topicality is always a good negative weapon is that it helps ensure you get links to your disadvantages, for example, the Military Readiness Disadvantage in the Core Files, based on the way you define the topic with your interpretation. If the affirmative tries to evade those disadvantages with “no link” arguments, you can argue it proves you lose ground and that there’s in-round abuse in the debate as an impact to Topicality.
4. Have good solvency evidence on generics like Consult NATO or Politics links to withdrawal that can be applied to new affirmatives. For example, evidence that NATO is really concerned about our military deployments and expects consultation on any major change in military policy would help establish solvency against a variety of cases – even better would be some evidence saying NATO expects us to solicit their input for specific regions of the world, e.g., a card or two about Asia, the Middle East, Europe. Having six countries in the topic makes your job somewhat easier.
A good general rule for negative strategy in 2010-2011 is to start with the country first, and figure out what your best generic strategies would be: then you can look into how strong the Politics links are to why it’d be unpopular (or popular) to pull back our military from those countries, or how NATO would feel about those countries, or how important those countries are to our deterrence/primacy, or to prevent proliferation, etc. Reacting to the many small details that plans could do differently is a secondary task and makes the research/preparation seem more impossible on this topic.
One fruitful task might be to find good generic foreign relations disadvantages. One suggestion that comes to mind is Israel – how do you think Israel would feel about a military withdrawal in Turkey, Kuwait, Iraq, or Afghanistan? If they felt abandoned and that they were on their own, the negative might argue this would lead to unilateral pre-emptive strikes on nations like Iran, which could ignite a war in the Middle East that might lead to Israel using its nuclear weapons.
Find another nation in Asia or perhaps even an influential organization like APEC that might be affected by reducing our military commitment to Japan and South Korea.
5. Introduce the security kritik to your team’s arsenal.
6. Impact turn advantages. Yes, there are a number of ways affirmatives could increase hegemony, in all six countries. If you have reasons why increasing hegemony is bad and leads to war (be careful not to run the primacy disadvantage with this argument, though, since it too argues hegemony is good), you focus the debate on your terms. Arguing proliferation is good may seem counter-intuitive to some, but is an argument teams may not be prepared or comfortable to debate. Impact turn debates can be a lot of fun and an interesting way to orient research – you can argue the opposite of anything and it can make otherwise confident opponents struggle to defend something they take for granted, the direction of their impact. Have reasons why improved relations with a particular country is bad for our economic and security interests or alienates another country, which is a much worse problem.
If that seems a bit too bold, have good “impact defense” for the harms you hear all the time. Why is the risk of nuclear terrorism overstated? Why is proliferation not going to cause extinction? Why is a decline in biodiversity not going to end the world? Affirmatives make the same exaggerations, it’s up to your team to be able to debate about the impact and argue you have more credibly evidenced, logical conclusions.
7. Look into creative counterplans. The Kuwait, Japan, and Iraq previews at T3 all call for total withdrawal, so a plan-inclusive counterplan (PIC) to withdrawal all but troops related to humanitarian efforts or some non-combat purpose might be worth a little research. Any time an affirmative withdraws “ALL” its military, it invites you to look for that small exception they’re not ready to debate.
Advantage counterplans (actions different from the plan that can solve the affirmative advantages) can allow you to solve for things like hegemony or relations in Asia or proliferation without withdrawing our military. Look into treaties, legislation, diplomatic approaches, other policies related to issues that might fix our strained relationships in the world without making us weaker in our deployments.
Another area worth exploring is what’s called “international fiat” counterplans – while they don’t solve for American hegemony (leadership in the world), having another nation step in to solve harms like Iranian proliferation or North Korean relations can solve a good part of the affirmative while avoiding common disadvantages – perhaps you’re even impact turning American hegemony as part of this overall strategy as another net benefit to the counterplan. There’s certainly the potential for a theory debate about why it’s unfair to have China or Japan or Russia do a policy, but I’ve always told debaters that counterplans are always justified until proven unfair in a debate and most debaters are reluctant to debate theory for some reason – negatives should use that to their advantage and use as strategic a counterplan as they can.
8. Bottom line, even if time is limited and you can’t do much for a particular preview case, have your debaters use what they know. That’s perhaps the most important skill in debate, using what you already know and have prepared to what seems like an unfamiliar context successfully. On this topic, I think there’s not much reason to freak out about something that sounds new but probably relies upon the same impacts as cases you already know (terrorism, Asian relations, prolif, hegemony), probably is perceived the same way as cases you already know (by allies, by Congress, by NATO), and can be solved in many of the same ways as cases you already know.
Is there a phone number I call if I need something or if there’s a problem at a tournament?
Short answer: coaches can call/text me at 8 4 7 – 9 5 1 – 9 6 6 2, but you should talk to judge table and tournament director on-site.
Short-ish answer: All problems should first be reported to the judge table, who will bring it to the attention of the tournament director, whose cell phone number will be announced prior to each tournament and is available from the judge table as well. Students needing help should go to judge table to seek assistance – if it’s an urgent issue, they’ll likely look for the school’s coach.
Any problems needing immediate attention will be responded to by the tournament director on-site and will be reported to the CDC administration, if serious enough to merit league concern.
I was wondering if you can elaborate more for me on why the 1NC creates the structure for the debate–I feel like I know in practice, but am still unsure of the big “why” in theory.
Megan,
Great question, particularly important in helping teach your students how to flow.
The reason the rest of the debate refers to the 1NC structure and numbering is because on-case (Harms, Inherency, Solvency), the 1NC is not expected to respond to each piece of evidence in the 1AC on-point due to time and conventions of debate. Since this is the expectation, the 1NC will number and present the on-case arguments they do wish to make, which the 2AC is expected to respond to all of.
With the off-case positions (Disadvantages, Topicality, Counterplans, Kritiks), they’re of course presented for the first time in the 1NC and the 2AC is expected to respond to all of those – with subsequent speeches on off-case positions, starting with the negative block (2NC/1NR), both teams will refer to and respond to the 2AC arguments by number. Again, there is not an expectation that the 2AC will be able to respond to every piece of evidence read for each disadvantage, the 2AC will choose which arguments it wishes to make against the disadvantage and that will determine the structure of the flow for the rest of the debate on off-case positions.
Hey I’m in the A conference and i have a question with the judging. What is the policy on it and do you have to take a class to be considered a judge?
Andrienna,
Welcome!
Adult judges can be qualified one of two ways:
1) If you’re a former debater, please e-mail me (davidsong@urbandebate.org) and let me know your background, when you debated. If it was a while ago or the format was a little different than the style of debate we do in the CDL (two-person policy debate), I’ll likely suggest the following:
2) Judges can attend a 2-hour training where they learn the basics of judging and the policy debate format. We currently have one scheduled for the evening of February 15th, and can schedule trainings on-site for 3 or more judges at a school. Parent volunteer extraordinaire Michele Brock is planning an upcoming training at Urban Prep Charter Academy for Young Men Englewood Campus, that will be announced once the location and date are confirmed.
Either way, please contact me and we’ll discuss further. This is true for anyone else interested in judging as well. We’re eager to get more judges involved in the Chicago Debate League to help give feedback and learning opportunities to our students. Thanks!
Pingback: T4 Runnable Caselist and Accepted Preview Cases/Plan Text Changes | The Chicago Debate League
Mr David Song,
I have two questions:
1st: are we allowed to run AFFs previewd from other schools? I would assume that we would need to conduct our own research for the Inherency, Harms, and for Solvency.
2nd: when and how are the judges compensated for their services during past tournaments?
Thank You,
Mr. Sanchez
Mr. Sanchez,
The answer to the first question is yes, but you are limited to using the exact Plan text, Solvency mechanisms, and Harms that another school has written using the citations they’ve previewed – you can’t research your own version or own different take on their Affirmative, that would need to be a separate Preview since teams did not have the chance to prepare to respond to that evidence and those arguments. The research you do to write the previously previewed case has to be using the citations previously listed by the previewing school, along with the same Plan text and Solvency mechanisms and you’re limited to the Harms previewed. You don’t have to use every Advantage/Harm they use – you can use some, not all – but you can’t add additional Harms or Solvency mechanisms or change the Plan text. The other thing to note is that you can only run a Preview case that’s been accepted for your Conference (“A” or “AA”) in the division it would be used (JV or Varsity) – the Runnable Caselist is the easiest way to keep track of who’s previewed what during the year.
If you are a judge who is not paid by a school as an official coach, you should fill out a W9 Form at each tournament and you’ll be mailed a check following the tournament you’ve judged at. The CDC can only mail checks to those who fill out these W9 Forms – if you need help with past tournaments you’ve judged, please contact me by e-mail.
You’re welcome! Best – David
Hey David,
My old grammar/elementary school teacher, was interested in starting debate at her school (I’ve already had her contact you about it). She says that she used to debate but doesn’t really remember a lot of it so I’ll likely be the one to really start the team along in coaching them until she knows enough to do so.
The problem is, I never actually debated in middle school so what are the fundamental differences between HS and MS if there are any?
What I really need to know:
- The flow of the debate: is it the same? (1AC, Cross-x, 1NC, Cross-x, 2AC, etc…) and then even if so are the times the same? (8 min for a constructive, 3 for a cross-x, 5 for a rebuttle)
-What arguments are they open to making? Is it strictly on-topic are can they use Ts, DAs, CPs, and Kritiks?
- Spreading? Would they need to know it? I know that, as a JV debater, you don’t see a lot of great spreading at the JV level so I’d imagine it wouldn’t even be used at all at the MS level.
- Are their core files the same or are they far more simplified? If they were the same I’d be able to teach them as I learn them for next season. However, if their different I’d be responsible for learning the pros and cons of two separate sets of files and I’d rather not.
-I know a lot of teams at the HS level don’t flow. Would a MS team need do it? Or would it just be beneficial to them?
Michael,
Here’s a summary of the Middle School format and how it compares to the High School format you’ve been using in your first year at Chicago Ag:
First, the Middle School Tournament Documents Folder has a Format Primer and Judging Instructions sheet which explain the differences in speech time. The speeches happen in the same order, but constructives are 5 minutes, rebuttals are 3, cross-examinations are 90 seconds, and prep time is 5 minutes per team.
Second, Middle School debaters don’t use Counterplans or Kritiks, they do debate Disadvantages at all levels and Topicality as JV and Varsity and at the end of their Novice year. The Format Primer will help you with this.
Third, “spreading” (or talking fast) isn’t common at all at the Middle School level, nor is it necessary or something worth teaching Middle School debaters.
Fourth, different, modified version drawn from the High School Core Files – you’d be familiar with the arguments if you knew the High School Core Files, but there would also be many arguments that aren’t used in the Middle School Core Files so it wouldn’t be possible to help your former teacher prepare them without taking a look at the Middle School version. Take a look at this year’s version and how it’s structured in the Middle School Core Files Folder, you can compare for yourself to the High School Core Files.
I don’t know that I agree that “lots of high school students don’t flow,” certainly I’d expect this isn’t true on your team at Chicago Ag and I would guarantee this isn’t true for the teams you see in elimination rounds and contending for tournament awards at this point in the year. Flowing isn’t optional for any debater and flowing is the most important skill any young debater can work on to improve. Sure, it’s not easy to do and takes a lot of effort and discipline to train your ear to listen for the arguments and organize them in a way you can use visually to help make your arguments. It is impossible to answer your opponent’s arguments or make a consistent argument throughout the entire debate for your side of the argument without flowing – it’s like playing bingo without keeping track of what’s been called or not taking any notes during a lecture in class and hoping you’ll remember everything in your head for the test. This translates to real life too, by the way – debaters who can flow become masterful note-takers in fast-moving college and law school lectures.
One of my cardinal rules as a coach was that all students had to keep all flows from every debate for me to check over and to use as the basis for re-doing rebuttal speeches – if you don’t flow, you have no record of the debate and no basis for improving your speeches and in-round choices to win debates you’ve lost the next time or improve upon your mistakes during your weekly practices with your coaches and your more experienced teammates. Not only do you learn less during the debate because you’re not listening as attentively to the debate, you learn less after tournaments and between tournaments, which means you lose the chance to improve faster and win the next time out because you’ll make the same mistakes over and over and won’t be able to get the same quality help from your coaches about those mistakes.
On top of that, if you don’t flow, you have no idea what mistakes your opponent has made. Seeing and capitalizing on the “dropped” arguments your opponent has missed makes many debates much easier and clearer to win.
Perhaps most importantly, judges flow. They prefer debaters to direct them to which/where arguments are made on the flow – debaters that don’t flow and are not following the debate the same way the judge is will find it hard to persuade them and even harder not to confuse them. Do your judges ever look lost during speeches or take pause from writing down arguments or say after the debate or on their written ballots that neither team did a very good job of listening to their opponent and that too many arguments were “dropped”? Flowing is the answer to all of the above.
Those debaters who think they can succeed without flowing at the JV level in high school quickly find out that their success does not continue when they become Varsity debaters. I want to put this simply: debaters who don’t work on their flowing just don’t improve in their second year (or even the second half of their first year) at the same level as debaters who do improve their flowing. Clash is what wins close debates with more arguments and good evidence and analysis from both teams, which is what distinguishes Varsity competition from JV competition. You’ve had a very good JV year and are a very promising debater – the fastest way to improve and have a good showing at the Conference Championships and Chicago Debate Championship is to work on your flowing and line-by-line refutation, which is the biggest skill differentiation in intermediate debate.
Middle School coaches have done training activities this year on teaching their students to flow and this is going to be an increasingly big area of emphasis for teaching their students. It’s already the norm that Middle Schools expect their students to flow. Successful Middle School (and High School) debaters absolutely do flow and succeed because they are actively listening to the debate and organizing arguments in a way that can be used to help judges follow the debate the way you need them to in order to win debates.
Thanks – David
Hey David,
I have a quick question about how we might use our at-large bid at the Chicago Debate Championship.
Here’s our scenario: Team AB has qualified and Team CD has not qualified. This past tournament, we reconfigured Team AB and Team CD into Teams AC and BD, such that each team had one member who has qualified, and one who hasn’t. We’d like to keep these partnerships for the Chicago Debate Championship, but we aren’t sure whether team members qualify as individuals or as teams. Would it be possible to send Teams AC and BD to the City Championships, or would we have to keep Team AB together and use our at-large bid to send Team CD?
Thanks!
Bill,
Yes, that configuration would work.
For the Chicago Debate Championship Eligibility Roster, debaters qualify as individuals to the Chicago Debate Championship, not as teams. Coaches may then configure teams starting with the list of qualified students, but you only get to add the number of at-large students you’re allowed to have (for example, one at-large entry per school = 2 additional students that could be configured). Teams that qualify an uneven number of students are allowed to “even up” and add one to get an even number because we don’t allow mavericks at the Chicago Debate Championship.
The usual caveat: Varsity debaters (those who have competed in 10 or more rounds in any year previous to 2010-2011) aren’t allowed to debate JV.
Thanks – David
Dear Mr. Song,
Can are parents attend the championships as well?
CJ,
Of course, they’re welcome to come and observe. Please refer them to our
Parent Resources page for more information on the tournament.
Are “aa” JV teams allowed to debate in nationals at New York?, and if so how would one know that they qualify for nationals. If not could you please explain why?
Isaac,
Our selection process was to invite one Varsity team from each of the four RCC schools and the two Varsity finalists each from the LCC, Conference “A,” and Conference “AA” at their Conference Championships (T5). Those teams will compete this Saturday at Mayer Brown in two pods of five teams each and the top team in each pod will qualify for the Nationals in New York. You can read more about the event on the Mayer Brown Urban Debate Nationals Qualifier page of this blog. Best – David
What are framework arguments? Is it like an attempt to change the criteria for judging from the traditional “stock issues” to something else? How do you respond to them so it isn’t considered to be dropped?
Hakeem,
Good question. Framework is a term often used and misunderstood in debate, partly because it is used in a couple of different contexts.
First, you’ll most often hear framework used as a term for a procedural argument about what type of arguments we should debate and learn about. This is similar to the sort of impact you’d hear in a Topicality debate, but framework debates will often not use a defined word in the topic as a starting point – or will use a word like “Resolved” and define as a “definite course of action,” claiming that an affirmative cannot be “resolved” without defending a specific policy action. Most typically, framework is argued against critical affirmatives or against kritiks – the argument is that only policy arguments based on the consequences of a plan action should be debated and that all other arguments about discourse, language, or philosophical advocacy are unpredictable and infinite in their potential scope (there are countless philosophies/ers), hurting our education. There will sometimes be evidence read about “role-playing,” saying that debate only has value if it trains debaters to become future policymakers who debate about policy rather than philosophy and also frequently evidence saying that activism through debate philosophy fails as a political strategy in producing real-world change.
I wouldn’t characterize framework as a way to move away from the stock issues, it’s just another sort of procedural argument about what type of arguments should and should not be debated about in a policy debate.
You want to respond to this argument and not “drop” it because your opponent can, much like with a Topicality argument, argue that no matter how persuasive and well-argued your critical position, it cannot and should not be evaluated because it is outside their interpretation of policy debate education.
To respond to this sort of framework argument, you could take a few approaches. First, many kritik debaters will argue that this definition of what policy debate is and why it’s the only educational form of debate links to the kritik itself and is a form of policing language and activism to maintain the status quo. Second, kritik debaters will offer a counter-interpretation that includes kritik debates that are about the substance of the topic, a plan action, and the language used to describe advantages to that Topical plan action. The argument is that debating about philosophy increases education more than an arbitrary framework excluding one type of idea in favor of another and we gain depth on the way we talk about issues and the perspectives of those who are marginalized in our foreign policy, for example. A lot of these debates can get bogged down in “theory,” I think often unnecessarily so – using specific examples of what education is gained or lost in a world of only plan-based policy consequences and in a world where we allow critical arguments is going to be more helpful than abstract reasons on how including/excluding them fits into the various technical and tactical challenges both the affirmative and negative face. Third, kritik debaters will read evidence as to why talking about philosophy in debate (say America’s role in imperialism in Iraq) is uniquely valuable to develop critical awareness in students and make them more active politically.
The second context in which you hear the term “framework” used – a description of how debate language can sometimes be less than perfectly precise – is in talking about impact calculus. Judges will sometimes say, for example, that the affirmative’s evidence that women’s rights and human rights come first determine the framework for evaluating the negative’s disadvantages and that rights outweigh war in this impact calculus. Or, they may say that the negative’s utilitarianism evidence establishes that what matters most is the greatest good for the greatest number and saving the most lives in a nuclear war is the best-argued framework for deciding whether rights or the consequences of a war with China matter most. Certainly, this sort of impact comparison is where most debates are decided, so it’s also a bad idea to “drop” arguments that “frame” the way the judge decides which impacts matter the most at the end of the debate.
Great question. Thanks – David
Hi, Dave I was wondering how can I effectively go against two counter-plans and topicality that is ran in the same debate.
Vernon,
Good question. As you might have already seen in your most competitive JV debates at the Chicago Debate Championship, one thing to get used to as a Varsity debater is that you’ll have more arguments to contend with in the 1NC.
There are a few ways to deal with this. First, group arguments that are repetitive, particularly on-case where you’re extending the same 1AC cards to answer multiple 1NC arguments. Secondly, allocate time where it’s needed based on how strategically dangerous each 1NC position is to you. For example, if you’re running the Turkey TNWs affirmative and someone reads the Military Readiness Disadvantage from the Core Files – with a link based on bringing a massive number of troops home, thereby disrupting force training and regeneration – you don’t need to spend a lot of time answering that position since there’s no credible link to it. Win yourself time tradeoffs on the weaker positions argued in the 1NC if there are a lot of flows to respond to in the 2AC. Third, read less arguments per position but choose your best arguments and make them offensive. Focus on turns to disadvantages to make it difficult for the negative to narrow down the debate in the negative block and to force them to answer “offensive” arguments on their weakest positions and take time away from developing their strongest positions in the 2NC/1NR.
There’s no shortcut or special situation to answering 2 Topicality violations vs. 1 or 3 or 4. You have to answer all of them substantively, because an unanswered procedural argument like Topicality becomes a reason you lose the entire debate even if you win every other issue in the round. That being said, my experience has been that the more Topicality violations read in one debate, the less thought-out and developed each individual one was. This can play into a smart 2AC’s favor – you can definitely make the argument that a 15 or 20 second Topicality argument with no analysis of why its interpretation sets a more predictable limit or what specific ground is lost in the 1NC is barely an argument and that any new analysis about these issues in the 2NC or 1NR justifies new 1AR answers. Judges will find that credible and agree with you – there’s nothing judges hate more than blippy, poorly thought-out theory arguments. That being said, make a “we meet (why you meet their definition),” counter-interpretation (your definition), and counter-standards (why their definition is bad for debate and why yours is way better) no matter how short your 2AC on a Topicality violation. You can save time across multiple Topicality violations by cross-applying arguments you’d make the same way on each of them, such as “Reasonability – the judge should vote affirmative if our interpretation is reasonably limiting,” “No voter on potential abuse,” and “Overlimiting bad – small topics limit education and get stale.”
When there are multiple Topicality violations, one very good cross-examination question would be to ask the negative to name five cases which met every one of their violations – the more definitions they read, the harder this will be and the more it will feed the perception that they are setting arbitrary, overly-defined limits on the entire topic rather than allowing for a fair number of affirmatives at the core of topic education. Also, look for contradictions between definitions and standards they read – most Topicality violations are written entirely separately of other Topicality violations that could be read and rarely do debaters think about whether they’ve read two entirely different definitions of the same word in the topic, etc.
Now let’s take the example of two counterplans read against you in the debate. One initial question in cross-examination would be what the “status” of those counterplans is – whether they’re conditional (the negative can drop them at any time), dispositional (when the negative can drop them unless they are straight-turned with offensive answers), or unconditional (the CP must be in the 2NR unless it’s a Topicality/procedural debate). This is always the first question to ask of the 1NC in CX when there’s a counterplan in the debate since it determines the negative’s argumentative responsibility for adhering to it (or not). Generally, the strongest arguments against any counterplan are: 1) a solvency deficit – why doesn’t the CP solve the affirmative advantages?; 2) turns or “offensive” arguments against the net benefit to the counterplan – if you can prove you solve the problem the CP avoids (link turn) or that the supposed problem the CP avoids is actually a good thing (impact turn), affirmative wins the cost-benefit analysis of plan vs. CP; 3) disadvantages to the CP – just like you can read disadvantages to a plan, you can read them to a CP; 4) permutations – reasons why the plan and parts of the counterplan or the entire counterplan would avoid the net benefit disadvantage and thus the counterplan isn’t competitive; and 5) theory – why is the CP unfair or uneducational in testing whether the affirmative is a good policy idea?
With two counterplans, a theory argument is absolutely a good starting point, particularly if the counterplans are conditional (can be kicked by the negative at any time). While conditionality debates can sound like a whine to some judges, having two counterplans, the status quo, possibly a kritik as well, creates multiple different worlds the affirmative has to address and respond to in the 2AC and limits the affirmative’s ability to have a coherent offensive strategy – it can only hope to make as many answers as it can on each possible world the negative can advocate and try to keep up after the negative block in the 1AR. The affirmative will say that this creates a time skew, creating an unfair time tradeoff for the negative the affirmative can’t recover from, and a strategy skew, limiting the affirmative’s ability to have offensive arguments that apply to multiple positions in the debate in making strategic choices in the 2AC. This is a uniquely damaging form of conditionality that severely limits the strategic utility of the 2AC in the debate and puts the affirmative behind in anticipating which of these options the negative might choose to defend as the world against which the plan is debated.
Focus on making offensive arguments to the counterplans if possible with the 2AC time you do have – read disadvantages to the counterplans or turns to the net benefit. Teams are often ready to debate counterplan solvency and read links to the permutation but less prepared to defend against offense to their positions. As always, make a solvency deficit argument (even if analytic) and permutations [at the very least, "1) Perm - Do Both," "2) Perm - Do the CP, substantiated by our theory arguments"] to each counterplan as well. You’ll have limited time, so make a clear, succinct argument for each of these points, along with your theory arguments, so that the 1AR can invest time on the best of these arguments and offer more depth of analysis or read more evidence on why the counterplan doesn’t solve or read more evidence on disads to the counterplan, etc.
Hi Mr Song!
What are the Date’s and times for the past tournaments?
Thanks,
CJ
CJ,
Apologies on the delayed response – you caught me while I was visiting relatives in Korea last week!
You can find the dates for all our tournaments on our Events page, which has a link to our Season Calendar, which has all past tournament dates.
If you need something more specific (you mention tournament times), have Mr. Robinson contact me for detailed tournament schedules for individual competitions.
Thanks – David
Hello.
I am a student at the University of Chicago Charter School Woodlawn, My debate partner Issac Brown and I were accepted to the Georgetown debate seminar and we would like to know if the CDL is still offering the scholarship for debate programs for this summer.
Thankyou
Mikhal Randall
U of C charter Woodlawn
Mikhal,
The announced deadlines for the CPS Summer Quest and Vince Binder Urban Debate Scholars Fund have now passed.
Georgetown does offer a 50% discount on tuition for CDL students, a reduced rate of $1500 – more info on this and other possibly affordable camps (some with scholarship applications still open) on our Summer Institutes page.
Ask David readers – have any questions about particular summer university camps? Want advice on where to go to camp? Feel free to post here.
Thanks – David
Hey David!
I was just wondering if the CDL could post a link to our website and follow us on twitter!
Thanks,
CJ Colon
Amundsen HS Debate Captain
Very cool that you a debate team website, Amundsen! Great way to communicate between and among your debaters and coaches!
CJ,
Amundsen’s team website has already been linked to our Schools page, along with other schools that have blogs or team websites. Anyone else interested in having their school’s page linked should contact me and we’ll link your page.
We’re now following AHS Debate Twitter from the CDL Twitter.
Thanks – David
hey david i am 12 and my coach asked me to find your veiws on topicaliny standards
please help
Hi, Desperate Debater.
Forgive the late reply – saw your comment late as I get the Ask David section of the CDL programming site back in the swing of things for the new 2011-2012 season.
Topicality standards are very important because they the reasons we should prefer one idea of what should be debated about over another.
It is important to have standards for your violation – otherwise we don’t know why it’s important to set a limit on the topic and what priorities we should set for the way we debate the topic.
Both the negative and affirmative debate standards (and counter-standards for the affirmative) as reasons for their definition in a Topicality debate.
You’ll hear various terms used as standards in Topicality debates:
Limits – which team sets a better limit on the topic?
Ground – what strategies does the Negative have under the definition of the topic?
Predictability/research burden – how well can the Negative predict what the affirmative will say and how many affirmatives does it potentially have to research?
Fairness – why is it unfair to the Negative
Precision – why is the Negative’s definition most precise in its meaning?
Grammar – why is the Negative’s definition more grammatically correct in the context of the resolution?
Best context for definition/topic – why is the Negative’s definition more contextual to other terms in the resolution or to the academic literature on the space topic?
Education – what definition provides the best education?
There are probably a few terms I’m forgetting that you could hear.
All of these points in the list above are a way of talking about why one definition of a topic is more educational and better for debate than another. I have increasingly come to believe that the most important discussion for Topicality is a reason why what we’d debate under one definition (using examples of cases and negative strategies available) would be better than under another definition. This matters more than which label you choose to describe these reasons.
Arguments about why a definition is better can be a bit more specific – such as the “Better context” or grammar or precision arguments – and are thus slightly different, but ultimately get debated as reasons why this better quality of language produces more predictable debates that teach us better about what the topic is and should mean.
Bad, jargony Topicality debaters use a bunch of silly Disadvantage language to argue whether “X is the internal link to Y” among the terms listed above – this sort of analysis (along with other cliches like “race to the bottom”) mean nothing to judges and don’t help them to understand Topicality debates any better.
The one thing we can borrow from our knowledge of Disadvantages is that bad impact debates focus only on the one word that represents the terminal (ultimate) impact without any further description. Good impact debates don’t just talk about the impact (“nuclear war” or “ground”) but make that impact compelling in a specific context that incorporates the internal link – how do we know this impact comes about – and specific impact calculus – what exactly happens? For Topicality debates, why does the affirmative’s definition deny the negative critical Disadvantage ground and what Disadvantages should the Negative be able to debate and why would they be educational and key to negative strategy on the topic?
As typically debated, Fairness is the weakest Topicality standard because it ends up sounding like whining about some abstract thing called “Fairness” that may or may not exist in debate to begin with, sometimes with discussion of why students will quit debating if debate is unfair. That’s not that persuasive. What is more persuasive is analysis for why the Negative needs to be able to use research and strategy in order to learn from debates and compete and examples of what the Negative COULD learn under the Negative’s definition that would be better.
Here’s what can make Topicality debaters cleaner: argue a reason your definition creates a better vision for what gets debated. Use terms like “education” not just as one-word impacts but talk about WHY we learn better about the topic with specific examples of the arguments we’d debate under each team’s definition. Make fairness debates as specific as possible to arguments you’ve identified as the most educational and strategic for each side, affirmative and negative.
Topicality is a great weapon for the Negative, but some judges hate the way Topicality gets debated. Debate it without relying upon jargon and use specific examples of what we discuss and learn about and you’ll stand out for having thought a little harder about Topicality and find that judges will buy into it.
Best – David
I noticed in our 2NC/1NR files that there are evidence cards. Should the 1NR still read those new cards? Is there a hard and fast rule? Is the 1NR really like a 3NC? Where is Chicago Debate on this one? On the same note, how much can the 1AR read in response to the new evidence cards?
Thanks,
Liz
Liz,
Great question!
The 1NR, while a rebuttal, is a part of the “Negative Block” – the two speeches in a row that the negative has that are meant to split up the issues in the debate and respond to everything the 2AC said using evidence and prepared responses. A big part of many team’s strategic approach to the negative block is to make multiple arguments and develop their positions with such depth that it makes it difficult for the 1AR to respond to all of the evidence and analysis presented by the 2NC and 1NR.
What the 1NR shouldn’t do is bring up entirely new positions to the debate that weren’t in the 1NC – this means that a new Disadvantage, Topicality violation, Counterplan, Kritik, or even brand-new case arguments never heard before in the debate would be easily answered by the 1AR by saying they’re new arguments presented too late in the debate to allow a fair, in-depth debate.
That being said, err on the side of reading more evidence and making more offensive arguments in both the negative block speeches – read specific responses to anything the 2AC has said. The negative can’t introduce entirely new positions but can make any responses it wants to and needs to in the negative block to respond to the 2AC: that means reading a frontline block to answer an add-on advantage in the 2AC; or reading more impact, link, and uniqueness extensions to a disadvantage; or reading evidence to answer a 2AC impact turn on an advantage; or even reading an entirely new impact as an extension to a Politics disadvantage read in the 1NC. The 1NR should be considered no different than the 2NC in how you approach it, other than not introducing entirely new negative positions into the debate for the first time. But in general, it’s bad practice to introduce new positions for the first time in the 2NC as well, since they don’t get developed in any depth during the debate. So for most teams, the 2NC and 1NR should be viewed as essentially similar speeches in your preparation – just split up the off-case and on-case positions and answer the 2AC.
The 1AR has two simple but difficult goals: to extend the best arguments from the 2AC and to respond to all the arguments developed in the Negative Block (2NC/1NR). The 1AR can absolutely read more evidence to accomplish these two tasks and will likely want to read some evidence in most debates, but keep in mind that the 1AR is perhaps the most time-pressured speech in debate and evidence should be read judiciously and highlighted so that it is short and makes only the main point you need it to in the speech.
The 1AR shouldn’t read a new add-on advantage or read new solvency mechanisms for the plan – that’s not what happens in a rebuttal and the 2NR would have any easy time of telling the judge to ignore those arguments as being abusive and unfair to introduce that late into the debate, changing the entire negative strategy as a result halfway through the debate.
Note for Middle School debaters and coaches: the CMSDL Core Files intentionally leave out evidence for the 1AR to facilitate more analysis and explanation starting with that speech, so it would be wiser to focus on the arguments that have already been made and evidence already read for the rebuttal strategy. The following paragraphs apply only to High School format, particularly Varsity debaters:
The 1AR should, again, err on the side of being offensive and strategic against any evidence read in the Negative Block – the 1AR can absolutely read evidence to answer new impact, link, and uniqueness arguments in the Negative Block. If the Negative reads new links in the 2NC or 1NR on Politics, the 1AR gets to read link turns to answer them. If the Negative reads new Uniqueness extensions in the 1NR, the 1AR can read evidence to answer them. If the Negative reads a new impact extension in the 2NC that says the economy is key to hegemony (US military supremacy), the 1AR can read either defensive answers (“economy not key to US military”) or offensive answers (impact turn saying “US hegemony is bad, causes more conflict and war”).
Generally, the 2NR and 2AR should be about analysis rather than evidence. There have been some infamous high school Varsity national circuit debates in recent memory where teams continued reading evidence through the 2NR and 2AR in big impact turn debates about global warming (good or bad?) or hegemony (good or bad?). While some more recent college debaters and national circuit judges have more tolerance for reading evidence in the 2NR and 2AR, this won’t be acceptable to most judges and teams are better off focusing on explaining the evidence that was already read earlier in the debate to end the round. Relying upon the judge to decide when it’s unfair to continue reading evidence in the debate leaves too much uncertainty over what the debaters can control. The only exception I could think of where the negative might try to read a card or two in the 2NR is where the 2NC or 1NR read a new impact to an existing Disadvantage and the 1AR read impact turns (offensive arguments) against it – obviously, if the 2NR doesn’t read any evidence, their analysis will likely be insufficient to win the debate and they’ll probably lose. So it might be good in that instance to read one or two short cards on the issue while focusing on the overall story of developing why the negative won the debate based on its overall strategy developed throughout the round – just know that most judges won’t have patience for the 2NR reading much evidence.
As a final note, the above example is a great idea of why it’s good to make or extend offensive arguments (link turns or impact turns) in the 1AR when possible – it forces the 2NR to have to explain a complicated comparison and puts time pressure on the speech that can detract from the 2NR’s ability to tell the overall story of why the negative strategy wins the debate. It also gives the affirmative a fighting chance to use the offense against any Disadvantage or Kritik or Counterplan, along with weighing the affirmative case, to win in the 2AR. 1ARs that are primarily defensive (“no link, no impact, non-unique”) don’t make the 2NR nearly as nervous or change their strategic choices going into the Negative’s final speech.
Best – David
David,
I’ve been allowing prep time whenever requested because that’s what it says in the coaching document: “Each team can use a cumulative total of 8 minutes of preparation time at any time during the debate and in any number of individual periods.” I’ve been told that some judges don’t allow prep time for cross-ex. Which is it?
Mr. Robinson,
Judges should allow debaters to use prep time before their cross-examinations or their speeches, so you’ve been doing the correct thing. It’s infrequent that debaters will need to take prep time before cross-ex, but it is allowed.
Thanks – David
Can the NEG bring up new on- or off-case arguments in the 2NC if the 1NC didn’t bring them up?
Great question – an answer in two versions, one short(ish) and one long(ish)
Short(ish) Answer
The answer is yes. Unequivocally and simply yes. The 2NC is a constructive speech, and new issues are allowed to be raised in the constructives.
However, if an affirmative team thinks that the negative is being extreme in the number of arguments it is making and is “abusing” the rule here in order to overwhelm the 1AR with multiple new issues, that the negative is trying to win the debate solely by forcing the 1AR to drop an argument and is interested in avoiding using refutation and evidence to try to win the debate, the 1AR can make and develop the argument that these new issues should be thrown out by the judge. It is then up to the judge to determine, based on the arguments made by both sides, whether the negative has been extreme and abusive, and if so what the consequence should be. This scenario is unlikely in the CMSDL — in most instances, new arguments in the 2NC will simply need to be answered in the 1AR.
Long(ish) Answer
Let’s start by answering one of the most common questions we’ve been hearing lately, especially from Middle School coaches:
Big Question Number One: Is new off-case in the 2NC allowed?
Yes, and sometimes this will happen simply because the 1NC ran out of time to make the basic arguments needed to have a Negative strategy, BUT the affirmative can (and likely will) make two objections to this debate practice:
a) saving all off-case positions for the 2NC is uneducational, since arguments can’t get developed through the 2AC and negative block if they are introduced for the first time in the 2NC, and
(b) it’s abusive, since the negative is attempting to use the imbalance between the time in the negative block and the 1AR to win the debate, rather than relying on the strength of its arguments, analysis, and evidence to win the debate
The judge will decide, based on how these arguments are debated, whether or not to consider the Disadvantages or reject them as abusive. Some coaches may feel less comfortable with leaving this determination of whether running off-case positions in the 2NC is abusive or not in the hands of the judge, where the focus is fairness and abuse rather than the substance of the Disadvantages. There’s no question you CAN use this strategy and save your Disadvantages for the 2NC – the question of whether you should and whether it’s better or worse for education and competitive fairness between the two teams is up for debate and the judge’s decision about these arguments.
Big Question Number Two: Why would the Negative want to consider running off-case in the 2NC?
This has become a tactical question among some Middle School coaches. The short-term strategic benefit might be that 1AR’s are scared, confused, time-pressured and unable to answer sufficiently the new Disadvantages as a result, leading to dropped arguments and some easy Negative wins. Debate coaches are smart and debate strategy is a lot like evolution – intelligence finds something that works or creates an imbalance that can be profitable, until people evolve their responses to make a competitive strategy for survival obsolete or counter-productive.
Big Question Number Three: How SHOULD the Affirmative answer new 2NC off-case positions in the 1AR to avoid being prey?
The first point I would make is that the 1AR’s main job is to ANSWER the 2NC and 1NR. If the Affirmative needs to make arguments or feels behind in a debate, it MUST make them in the 1AR to catch up. It’s always possible to justify arguments you think are slightly new based on what happens in a debate, but you can never make up for having NO responses to a position.
So let’s look at why some 1ARs have been deer stuck in the headlights after hearing a new DA or two in the 2NC. A young 1AR might think, “well, it’s a rebuttal, I can’t read evidence and I’m only supposed to read the 2AC responses to Space Debris DA in the 2AC.” It’s an understandable reaction, but it misses the main purpose of the 1AR – to ANSWER the 2NC and 1NR.
One common misconception among young debaters is that the 1AR can’t read evidence or can’t make any argument beyond the 2AC or 1AC. Not true. Good Varsity 1ARs often read evidence to extend their original points from the 2AC and read NEW evidence to answer any NEW arguments from the 2NC or 1NR. If the Negative reads a new Impact extension to Space Militarization, the 1AR can read defense (impact takeouts) or offense (impact turns) to it. If the Negative reads a new Link extension to Politics, the Affirmative can read defense (link takeouts or non-uniques) or offense (link turns) to it. If the Negative reads new solvency evidence for its Counterplan in the 2NC or 1NR, the 1AR should respond with analysis and evidence to dispute it.
If a Disadvantage is read for the first time in the 2NC, the 1AR absolutely can and MUST read evidence and make arguments to answer it. Any of the 2AC Core Files blocks are valid in the 1AR in this specific situation – it’s not the 1AR’s fault the Disadvantage was raised for the first time in the 2NC and no judge would (or should) consider it out of line to respond. There is nothing about the format of debate that restricts the 1AR from defending the Affirmative case against new attacks in a constructive like the 2NC.
Now, keep in mind that the 1AR may feel time-pressured because of the Negative’s choice to save its off-case for the 2NC. The best option is to choose 2-3 of the BEST responses from the 2AC affirmative blocks to each off-case position and read them in the 1AR. Against Disadvantages, one time-honored tactic is to read ONLY offensive arguments like a link turn and a non-unique. This makes it very difficult for the Negative to give a coherent 2NR because it can’t “kick out” of Disadvantages that are “straight turned,” meaning there’s only a chance the Affirmative prevents the Disadvantage or gains a new Advantage based on the turns to the DA. The Affirmative then forces the 2NR to talk about EVERY off-case position it raised in the 2NC, which “spreads out” the 2NR and makes it very difficult to sound persuasive.
In addition, the 1AR would make the abuse arguments outlined above.
The 1AR can also try to strategically “turn the tables” on the negative, by running as many arguments as they can (speaking fast) in order to overwhelm the 2NR, enabling the 2AR to be slower, more selective, more persuasive, in the final speech of the debate.
Big Question Number Four: Do you think, on-balance, the 2NC reading off-case is strategic and a winning tactic?
Overall, not always, unless the 1AR is unprepared to respond and taken by surprise. 1ARs will have to manage their time to avoid dropping positions and choose only their best responses.
The potential problem for the Negative with this strategy is:
1. The judge can decide that the Affirmative’s abuse arguments are persuasive, which can cost you the debate or mean the Disadvantages don’t get considered as a strong reason to vote Negative.
2. The 2NR becomes EVEN MORE DIFFICULT than the 1AR unless the 1AR drops multiple issues. If the 1AR is smart, makes abuse arguments and reads a few strong responses to each 2NC position, the 2NR has a lot of difficulty explaining and persuading the overall story of Disadvantages that have had NO development since the first speech introducing them prior (2NC). The 2NR also just has less evidence in play at this point as well – three cards from the 1NC are difficult to explain to answer specific affirmative responses, particularly offensive ones.
3. Judges will have VERY little tolerance for the 2NR reading evidence to answer the 1AR’s responses. Every judge is different – younger National Circuit judges might be persuaded that this is OK, but most judges will have a very hard time believing that the 2NR gets to read the 2NC/1NR blocks to respond to the 1AR’s evidence when the Negative made a conscious choice to delay using the off-case positions until the 2NC. Without reading evidence in the 2NR, the Negative would almost always lose if the Affirmative reads evidence and makes specific responses in the 1AR. Even if the Negative does choose to push its luck by reading evidence in the 2NR and doesn’t make the Affirmative’s abuse arguments more credible in the mind of the judge by doing so, it wouldn’t have time to develop the overall story or talk about on-case attacks and the 2NR becomes even more time-compressed than the 1AR was.
Great discussion – please post with any follow-up thoughts, disagreements, comments. Best – David and Les
We had some of this discussion last year and certainly my teams are set up to run “new” arguments in 2NC. That probably comes out of my long outdated debate experience — NDT debate in my era was all based on overloading the 1AR and every argument was open to be run in 2NC regardless of what was run in 1NC, they are four constructive speeches was the point.
If there is a prohibition on running “new” arguments in 2NC then the value of the enterprise is weakened IMO. First, the negative block becomes a bloated expansion of the 1NC. Less pressure for strategic decisions face both teams as the 2NC/1NR block allows begatives to expand every arrgument instead of making choices and allows the 1AR 3.5 minutes to answer what was put out in 1NC and presumably answered already by 2AC.
1ARs should be forced to make choices and be pressed by time management, as David points out if they are skillful they end up putting more pressure on 2NR under the expanded arguments than there would b otherwise; after all all speakers from that point have to cover everything still alive in 3.5 minutes. I have never been aware of an argument that a 1AR was barred from responding to arguments with evidence, certianly in my day we were reading evidence to extend arguments through the 2AR.
As for whether it is strategic, every choice a team makes should be strategic. Debate is or should be like a chess game.
Can the AFF bring up new arguments in the 2AC if they were not brought up in the 1AC?
The 2AC is also a constructive, so the 2AC can run additional Harms or Solvency arguments, if it chooses. The 2AC more commonly in upper levels of debate will run an “add-on” – there are a few add-ons in the Core Files. These are additional advantages – Harms solved by the plan – to advantages in the 1AC. They can also be very effective answers to Counterplans that solve the 1AC Harms but not the 2AC add-on advantage or to help outweigh Disadvantages that have a similar Impact to the affirmative Harms.
What the 2AC can’t do is run a new plan — the plan has to be in the 1AC so that the negative has a “fixed target” and the affirmative is consistently advocating the same policy throughout the debate. More generally, the 2AC cannot make the affirmative case a “moving target” — adjusting in any way the plan from the 1AC, or the essence of the affirmative’s advocacy. The negative will have an easy time of convincing the judge that starting a debate about the plan in the 2AC wastes the entire 8 minutes of the 1NC and creates an unfair, unpredictable “moving target” for the debate if it brings up a Topicality or theory/abuse argument.
But finishing the solvency contention because the 1AC couldn’t finish the case in 8 minutes, that’s not a problem. The 2AC can do that although teams should keep in mind that the 2AC also has to answer all the major arguments raised in the 1NC and so is at a disadvantage with less speech time to spend answering the 1NC.
One broad recommendation for any coaches reading this: if you coach JV debaters who are struggling with reading through the entire 1AC, even with the shorter 1ACs like Lunar Mining, we’d recommend moving the plan up in the speech after Inherency – or in the case of Middle School 1ACs, to start the speech, even before the Harms. Obviously, the best solution would be to edit down the speech and read fewer cards in each Contention – Inherency, Harms, and Solvency, but one solution to make sure your team never runs out of time to read the plan is to move it before the Harms. Having to clarify/read your plan in the 2AC is never going to look good to the judge, even if it’s necessary due to not having it in the 1AC – the negative may also (reasonably) claim they get to make new arguments since the plan wasn’t in the 1AC and it sets the stage for the entire debate.
Thanks – David and Les
Hey David,
This is Pragya from Westinghouse College Prep. I wanted to ask you if the JV can preview two cases.
Thank you
Pragya,
Sorry, but each school in Conference “A” and “AA” can preview only ONE new JV affirmative for Tournament Five. Your coaches can find the form for previewing a new affirmative on our Tournament Documents Page – it would have to be submitted to me, as directed on the form, by 6 pm on Monday, February 13th.
Thanks – David
Hey David,
I have two questions:
Is it a good idea to make new arguments in the 2AC? Is it a good strategy?
Also, in T3 (this year), my partner and I ran a counter plan against a previewed case (Asteroid Mining) in the 2NC. Most of the judges said that it is not okay to run a counter plan since it is the negative block; another judge said, it is okay to run a counter plan because it is still a constructive speech.
So, should we run a counter plan in the 2NC?
Pragya,
It depends what the new arguments in the 2AC are. Reading new add-on advantages can be very strategic and the 2AC should absolutely read new answers to any negative positions raised in the 1NC. You can read more of my thoughts about new arguments in the 2AC THIS previous Ask David post.
As for the 2NC question, while the 2NC is absolutely a constructive and you CAN run a Counterplan, it’s not the best time to run one. Counterplans require a debate about solvency – why they can solve the Affirmative Harms – and a net benefit (why the Counterplan avoids Disadvantages the Affirmative links to). Because there are multiple things the Negative needs to do in the 2NR to win a Counterplan debate – mainly, to prove the Counterplan solves; to answer any theory; to extend and impact a Disadvantage that proves the Counterplan is better than the Affirmative plan – it would be very difficult to start a Counterplan in the 2NC and expect to have enough time to analyze and explain both the Counterplan and a Disadvantage unless your opponent dropped the arguments entirely. You can read more of my thoughts about new off-case positions in the 2NC in THIS previous Ask David post.
Hey David,
For each analytical argument that a team makes, should they have to present evidence. I mean sometimes you can just relate things back to history but won’t have evidence to prove it. Can use it as a common sense argument? Will the judges consider it on their flows? Can the opposing side argue about not having evidence?
Thank you
Pragya,
No, the meaning of an analytical argument is that it’s unevidenced and you don’t have a card to support your point. Judges will consider it and will evaluate it based on the quality of the argument. Your opponents can say that analytical arguments should mean less than those with evidence, but the quality of your analysis determines whether the judge will consider it on par with a card or as something that makes a key connection between arguments you DO have evidence for or points out a hole in the negative’s argument.
While it’s true that it’s always better to have a piece of evidence to support a key factual point than to have no evidence, smart debaters make use of analytical arguments all the time beyond mere factual “truth checks.” Not every argument needs a card or could have a card – for example, you could offer analysis that the impacts to a Spending disadvantage are old and don’t assume our current economy and that the impact is non-unique because it assumes downturns that have happened since the card was written. Or you could make an argument about why the Negative Counterplan can’t solve the Affirmative Harms because the European Union acting doesn’t stimulate the American aerospace industry – this would be a smart common sense argument that you wouldn’t expect to read a ton of evidence for.
Anytime you need to make an argument to win a debate, do it even if you don’t have evidence. Use the best reasons you have or refer to other evidence that’s already been read to make it the most credible analysis you can offer. What doesn’t work is making up facts that aren’t true or referring to more obscure factual claims that a judge probably wouldn’t accept at face value without an expert quote to back up.
Great question! Best – David
Hi David,
Just wondering….
How can a school move up to an upper conference?
Pragya,
This is something we’d discuss with your Principal, Dr. Jackson, and your coaches at the school. Mainly, what we look for is:
1) that the school wishes to move up to a more competitive conference based on the best educational interests of their team as a whole – from experienced Varsity to the newest JV who might join the team,
2) that the team is currently competitively successful at a high level in the Conference it’s currently in and could do well in a higher Conference, and
3) that the team is currently meeting our Participation Standard of eight or more debaters at every tournament, meaning the size of the team is consistent and demonstrates a high level of student interest at the school that could sustain a more competitive experience.
Please feel free to have Dr. Jackson or Mr. Johnson contact us to discuss further. Best – David
Hi David!
I participated in Tournament 5 of the Middle School Debates and noticed that the 5th place Varsity Team award went to a Maverick Debator. How is it possible that one person can receive an award intended for two people?
-ACD
ACD,
We have allowed mavericks to win team awards. The one rule limiting mavericks has been that they are ineligible to compete in elimination rounds. In this case, although the 5th place Varsity debater (the maverick you mention) was undefeated in preliminary rounds, he was unable to debate in the championship or runner-up round in Varsity.
Hope this answers your question. Best – David
Hi David,
Does the Chicago Debate League offer debate summer camp for middle school and high school? If so, I am interested joining debate in high school. I would like to join summer camp so I can be prepare.
-Anthony Sung (Ogden School)
Anthony,
We’d love to have you debate in high school. The Chicago Debate Summer Institute is typically two weeks and has some of the best coaches from the city and from other parts of the country. The dates are (tentatively) 7/30 – 8/10, but we will announce the dates and location when approved by the Chicago Public Schools, along with a registration form.
Keep your eye out on the “Summer Institutes” page on this blog for this information, which will be updated there and announced to your coaches.
Thanks – David