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 Solvency

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 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 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 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

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

Section 2 – answering the case

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 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 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 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 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) 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 • 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

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

Section 3 – defending the case

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 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 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 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

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

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

Section 4 – the five part method

Intro

The Method REFER EXPLAIN EVALUATE ANSWER IMPACT