debating the case n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Debating the case PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Debating the case

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 28

Debating the case - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Debating the case. Section 1 – set up. 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. 1AC. Structure Inherency Harms/Advantages

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

Debating the case

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
on the affirmative
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
  • Structure
  • Inherency
  • Harms/Advantages
  • Solvency
a inherency
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
b harms advantages
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
c solvency
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
on the negative
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
  • 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
1 case uniqueness
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
2 impact defense
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
3 alternate causalities
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.
4 solvency take outs
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
5 case turns
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?
6 case turns external
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
negative block
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
  • • Start with uniqueness
  • • Don’t overextend yourself on offense
  • • Cover your bases
  • • Pre-empt the 2AR
affirmative preparation
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
how to extend arguments
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
how to extend arguments1
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
how to extend arguments2
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
  • • 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
  • 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
the method
The Method