Debating the case

DEBATING TH

E CASE

SECTION 1 – S

ET UP

ON THE AFFIRMATIVEGoal 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

1ACStructurea) Inherencyb) Harms/Advantagesc) Solvency

A) INHERENCYDefinition – an affirmative is inherent if they prove the plan has

not been done yet

Inherency is important because:1) Debating non-inherent policies doesn’t make sense2) It becomes impossible to be negative

B) HARMS/ADVANTAGESDefinition – why the affirmative is desirable

1) There is a problem in the status quo that has not been addressed

2) Failure to address this problem will cause something terrible

C) SOLVENCYDefinition – 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 NEGATIVEGoal 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 1ACAdvantages 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

SECTIO

N 2 – ANSWERING

THE CASE

1) CASE UNIQUENESSAdvantages 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 DEFENSEAre 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 CAUSALITIESIs the affirmative the only policy needed to prevent a certain impact?Most useful against affs that claim to solve huge impactsUse their evidence to find theseExample: 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-OUTSDoes 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 TURNSOffensive argument that the affirmative plan actually causes the

impacts they are trying to stopExample:• 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 thingsWhat makes it different than a disadvantage?1) Uniqueness – often not read in 1NC, less of an issue/important question2) Smaller impact3) Won’t change/develop much because of few link/impact storiesUtility1) Often undercovered by the 2AC2) Can be hidden in a larger case debate3) 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

SECTIO

N 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 ARGUMENTSArgument, 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 nameExample: 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 ARGUMENTSDevelop 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 ARGUMENTSWhen 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

2ARStart with uniqueness – control the inevitability of what is

going to occur nowPaint the picture of the status quo/world in which the judge

doesn’t vote affYou don’t need a lot of advantages/argumentsChoose one impact:1) Go deep on the explanation2) Compare it to the rest of the debate/their offense3) Win it cleanlyRecognize the arguments that don’t really matter

SECTION 4 – T

HE FIVE

PART METH

OD

INTRO

THE METHOD1.REFER

2.EXPLAIN

3.EVALUATE

4.ANSWER

5.IMPACT