Debating the case

1. Debating the case

2. Section 1 – set up

3. On the affirmative • Goal of the affirmative is to prove: • Plan is better than the status quo • Plan is better than a competing policy option • 1AC is your Life • Losing case means you have lost the debate

4. 1AC • Structure • Inherency • Harms/Advantages • Solvency

5. A) Inherency • Definition – an affirmative is inherent if they prove the plan has not been done yet • Inherency is important because: • Debating non-inherent policies doesn’t make sense • It becomes impossible to be negative

6. B) Harms/Advantages • Definition – why the affirmative is desirable • There is a problem in the status quo that has not been addressed • Failure to address this problem will cause something terrible

7. C) Solvency • Definition – what does the affirmative plan do to prevent the harms from occurring • Advantages don’t matter if the plan doesn’t solve them

8. On the negative • Goal of the negative is to prove: • The status quo is preferable to doing the plan • A competing policy option is preferable to doing the plan • Difficult to win debates if you have not talked about the 1AC • Advantages of specific debates and arguments

9. 1NC • Every 1NC on case should be different because every 1AC is different • Focus on attacking harms/advantages and solvency • Mix between offense and defense • Mix between analytical arguments and evidence

10. Section 2 – answering the case

11. 1) Case uniqueness • Advantages have to be unique just like disadvantages have to be unique • • Is there a problem now the affirmative is needed to address? • • Is economic collapse inevitable now? If not, do we need mass transit? • • Is global warming inevitable now? If not, do we have to reduce carbon emissions? • • Most important part of case debate, negative cannot win without case • uniqueness • • Just like disadvantages, dates matter • • Helpful when going for a disadvantage because it puts the credibility of • the 2AR impact calculus in doubt

12. 2) Impact defense • Are the affirmative impacts as bad as they claim them to be? • • Are there other things that will prevent this conflict? • • Why will the conflict not escalate? • • What has happened in the past in similar situations? • Easy research to do, punish teams for reading bad/unqualified • impact evidence

13. 3) Alternate causalities • Is the affirmative the only policy needed to prevent a certain • impact? • Most useful against affs that claim to solve huge impacts • Use their evidence to find these • Example: US economy is affected by stock markets, consumer • spending, investor confidence, employment rate, wages, housing • market, innovation, import/export ratio, immigration, agriculture, • etc.

14. 4) Solvency take-outs • Does the affirmative plan actually solve the harms? • How is the plan implemented? Do people listen to the plan? Is there • enforcement? Is there verification? • How bad the affirmative’s impacts are don’t matter if voting for the • plan doesn’t address those impacts effectively

15. 5) Case turns • Offensive argument that the affirmative plan actually causes the impacts • they are trying to stop • Example: • • 1AC says that building high-speed rail is good because stimulus investment is key to prevent economic collapse by making up for low demand • • 1NC says that stimulus spending COLLAPSES the economy by decreasing market efficiency • Compare – important to make a comparison between the reasons spending • is good for the economy and the reasons it is bad for the economy • • Which is bigger? Which is more important? Which is faster?

16. 6) Case turns (external) • Mini disadvantages on the case about why the affirmative causes other bad • things • What makes it different than a disadvantage? • 1) Uniqueness – often not read in 1NC, less of an issue/important • question • 2) Smaller impact • 3) Won’t change/develop much because of few link/impact stories • Utility • 1) Often undercovered by the 2AC • 2) Can be hidden in a larger case debate • 3) Interacts with other case arguments better

17. Negative block • • Read more evidence • • Keep the debate clean, labeled, and compartmentalized • • Every impact must be answered • • Don’t lose sight of offense • • Pick your best turn and blow it up • • Control terminal uniqueness

18. 2NR • • Start with uniqueness • • Don’t overextend yourself on offense • • Cover your bases • • Pre-empt the 2AR

19. Section 3 – defending the case

20. Affirmative preparation • • Go through 1AC and write out a list of every possible negative • response • • Negative case answers are very predictable and should mostly be • answered by 1AC cards • • 1AC notes list • • Write out the warrants to every single card in the 1AC and keep • that on a separate piece of paper in the first pocket of your • accordion

21. How to extend arguments • Argument, warrant, implication statement, citation • • Argument – claim established in the 1AC • • Warrant – why is this particular argument true • • Implication statement – comparatively, why is your argument superior to the • alternative • • Citation – author name • Example: US-China war will escalate to nuclear use – concerns over national identity • ensure irrational escalation where prestige becomes more important than • economic concerns – this outweighs any new round of small talks that don’t • fundamentally change relations – extend Glaser, he’s a PolSci Prof at George • Washington

22. How to extend arguments • Develop a code system • • 1-3 word reference to critical arguments in the 1AC that will be • used consistently • • Start every extension to an argument with the code system • • Allows you to make new arguments in rebuttals

23. How to extend arguments • When should you read new 2AC cards on case: • • Rarely • • Nexus questions • • If you blow it off, they’ll blow it up • • Evidence-intensive questions • • Arguments you may not be on the side of truth of

24. 1AR • • Don’t give a 2AR • • Code system • • Reference key authors, phrases, and ideas • • Keep the debate in order but start with your best offense • • Nexus question • • Know your evidence cards

25. 2AR • Start with uniqueness – control the inevitability of what is going to occur • now • Paint the picture of the status quo/world in which the judge doesn’t vote aff • You don’t need a lot of advantages/arguments • Choose one impact: • 1) Go deep on the explanation • 2) Compare it to the rest of the debate/their offense • 3) Win it cleanly • Recognize the arguments that don’t really matter

26. Section 4 – the five part method

27. Intro

28. The Method • REFER • EXPLAIN • EVALUATE • ANSWER • IMPACT