NOVICE DEBATE
Mr. Thompson
2014 – 2015
Blue Valley North
Mustang Debate
Resolved: that the United States federal government should
substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or
development of the Earth’s oceans.
ELEMENTARY TERMS
-AFFIRMATIVE – The team in the debate who
supports the resolution.
-Supports an increase in exploration and/or
development of the ocean(s).
-Several areas in which this might happen: fisheries,
offshore drilling, trade, protection/conservation,
etc.
ELEMENTARY TERMS
-NEGATIVE – the team in the debate who opposes the
resolution
-On this topic –the negative team will be the team who opposes
exploration and/or development increases.
-2 ways to do this
-The resolution is bad (generic) – exploration/dvlpmnt is bad
-The affirmative PLAN is bad (specific) – the specific endeavor or
mechanism the affirmative advocates is not worth pursuing.
-The negative will defend the STATUS QUO
STRUCTURE OF THE DEBATE
STANDARD CROSS-EX SCHEDULE
1A is cross-exed by 2N
1N is cross-exed by 1A
2A is cross-exed by 1N
2N is cross-exed by 2A
PREP TIME – Each team gets some time to prepare for speeches. The
standard amount is 5 minutes per team, per debate.
NEGATIVE BLOCK –
the 13 minutes of speech time that is 2NC and 1NR
THE STOCK
ISSUES
THE STOCK ISSUES
- The four primary burdens which the affirmative
team must meet in order to win the debate
- Presentation order (generally)
1)
2)
3)
4)
Inherency
Harms/Significance/Advantages
Solvency
Topicality
THE STOCK ISSUES
• Either the affirmative will meet these burdens,
or it will not
– A) If it does – PRIMA FACIE – “merit at first glance”
– the affirmative has met their burden of proof
• Aff wins, if they prove the plan is comparatively
advantageous
– B) If it does not – PRESUMPTION – the status quo
is innocent until proven guilty
• Negative wins!
THE STOCK ISSUES
• INHERENCY – what is it that is stopping the plan
from being implemented?
– (Generic to Specific) Embargos, political will, money, etc.
– STRUCTURAL – a legal barrier or statute.
• EX – EPA laws
– ATTITUDINAL – Politicians or Public (or both!) do not
want the plan to happen
-EX – GOP opposes new spending
– EXISTENTIAL – Just because…
• EX – They haven’t talked about it yet in Congress
THE STOCK ISSUES
• HARMS/SIGNIFICANCE
– Also called “ADVANTAGES”
– The problem, or bad thing, that happens as a result
of the status quo.
– Can also be the good thing that happens as a result of
passing the affirmative plan.
– 2 Parts of Harms:
• MAGNITUDE – How BIG the problem is….
– It could effect 1 country (the US, maybe), or it could effect every country
• IMPACT – How BAD the problem is….
– It could make people live uncomfortably, or it could cause a lot of
people to die
THE STOCK ISSUES
• ADVANTAGES – The bad thing that the affirmative
prevents, or, the good thing that happens as a
result of the plan.
• The affirmative, regardless of how they do it, has a
burden to prove that there is some benefit
(advantage) to adopting the affirmative plan (idea)
• The judge asks themself: will it be better to adopt
the affirmative plan, or stick with the status quo?
• Typically structured as:
• A) LINK – What is happening in the status quo
• B) IMPACT – Why that something is bad, and/or how bad it is
• C) SOLVENCY – How the affirmative plan prevents that bad thing from
happening
THE STOCK ISSUES
• Example of an advantage:
– A) If we continue not import oil, prices will
continue to go up
– B) If we drill in our waters offshores, we can
increase oil production and thus, decrease prices
– C) If prices get to high, we all die
THE STOCK ISSUES
• SOLVENCY –
– The proof that the affirmative has an idea that will
solve for the Harms which they have presented.
– Should also prove that whatever technology or
idea they have is actually feasible
– There are 2 parts to the solvency debate:
– A) What the affirmative does
– B) How the affirmative does it, and how it works
THE STOCK ISSUES
A) The PLAN – what the affirmative team does (or
advocates being done.
-EX – Due to the harms caused by the status quo’s lack of
inaction, the United States federal government should
substantially increase its development of the Earth’s
oceans by substantially increasing domestic offshore oil
production in the United States. The plan will be
implemented through normal means. The affirmative
reserves the right to fiat and to clarify intent.
THE AFFIRMATIVE
• PLAN – what the affirmative is going to do
– Separated in to two parts
A) Mandates – what the affirmative is going to do
-”The United States federal government should substantially increase its
ocean development by funding expanded fisheries programs…”
-”The United States federal government should substantially increase its
exploration by investing $1 billion in deep sea navigation…”
B) Logistics – How the affirmative is going to do the mandates
-”The affirmative will be funded through a ½ cent toilet paper tax.”
-”The affirmative will be implemented through normal means.”
-”Plan Planks”
THE STOCK ISSUES
• The plan should, ideally, do four things.
– 1) Address the cause – this should let the judge know,
very briefly, why the plan is important.
– 2) Identify the actor – Who (agency, etc.) is going to
do the plan?
– 3) Eliminate Inherency – What does the plan do to
change the status quo?
– 4) Specifies how the affirmative will be implemented
– “normal means”, etc.
THE STOCK ISSUES
1) Due to the harms caused by the status quo’s lack of
inaction, 2) the United States federal government should
3) substantially increase its development of the Earth’s
oceans by substantially increasing domestic offshore oil
production in the United States. 4) The plan will be
implemented through normal means. The affirmative
reserves the right to fiat and to clarify intent.
•
•
•
•
1) Addresses the cause
2) Identifies the actor
3) Eliminates the Inherency
4) Specifies how it will be implemented
THE STOCK ISSUES
• B) What the affirmative does, and how it does it
1) FIAT – “Let it be so”
– AFF FIAT – the right for the aff to assume that their
proposal will be adopted for reasons of debatability. Thus the
debate centers on whether or not the aff SHOULD be
adopted, rather than on whether or not it WOULD be
adopted.
– FIAT is bounded by common sense – it’s ok to fiat funding
through the defense or increased taxes. It’s NOT ok to fiat
other countries to cooperate.
– Aff CANNOT fiat solvency
THE STOCK ISSUES
• TOPICALITY – Burden to prove that the
AFFIRMATIVE PLAN falls within the resolution.
– (The affirmative does NOT have to address this stock issue in the 1AC –
they only have to DEFEND it, if the negative team brings it up)
Shipping Lanes
Offshore Drilling
Fisheries
Cargo
Regulations
RESOLUTION
Deep Sea Exploration
Protection
Cooperation
THE AFFIRMATIVE
• 2 Parts of the affirmative
– 1) Plan – the central focus of the debate
– 2) CASE – a structured, outlined presentation
consisting of major and subsidiary arguments
(claims and their “proof” (warrants))
– “Case” is used in two ways”
• “Case” – what the aff is running in total
• “Case Side” – observations and advantages
(Everything in the 1AC except the plan)
THE AFFIRMATIVE
• The aff will create an outline and use terms like
“observation,” “contention,” and “advantage.” This
is their case.
• It will likely sound and look very much like an
outline for an English paper that you might write
• The affirmative will likely be a COMPARATIVE
ADVANTAGE case
– This means that that affirmative will defend that even if their
plan doesn’t solve every problem, it does solve for more than
the status quo – it is better than what we have now.
THE STOCK ISSUES
IMPORTANT EVIDENCE CONSIDERATIONS
- Research/Studies/Methods
-Evidence should show that the affirmative plan is
practical, possible and will work to eliminate the “harms”
or “solve the advantages”.
- Empirical Examples
-Shows that the plan (or parts of it) have been
implemented (or at least shown to work) in the past.
- Author Credibility
-Credentials (Why should we believe this person
-Merits/Warrants (Research, explain how, etc.)
-Ethos (sounds good, explained well)
BUILDING
BLOCKS OF
THE DEBATE
BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE DEBATE
• ARGUMENT
– CLAIM – The argument itself
• Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches are good
• United States ocean development hurts marine natural
resources.
– WARRANT – Why the argument is true
• Because they are healthy and they taste good
• Because protections are sacrificed for capital gain.
BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE DEBATE
• Types of Evidence
1) Personal Observation
-First hand account
2) Expert Testimony
-Someone “in the field”
3) Results of a Study
-Explaining and analyzing research projects
4) Empirical Example
-Discussing things that have happened in history
BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE DEBATE
• Types of Evidence
1) Personal Observation
-”I’ve seen the Lost City of Atlantis and we just need to go get it.”
2) Expert Testimony
- “As a professor of marine biology, I understand the impact that oil
spills have on marine ecosystems, and its just not worth the risk.
3) Results of a Study
- “Based on collected data, rate at which marine resources are being
destroyed is astronomical, and the course must be reversed.”
4) Empirical Example
-”In the past, and increase in ocean exploration has directly led to
enhanced medical aide and technology available to us.”
BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE DEBATE
• Author Credibility
– 1) Experience
– 2) Education
– 3) Warranted Analysis
– 4) Depth
– 5) Resources Cited
BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE DEBATE
• Author Credibility Continued....
– PhD misconception
– Consider the topic, when assessing whether or
not someone is “qualified”
BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE DEBATE
• The Art of Public Speaking (according to Aristotle)
– 1) Logos – logical appeal (links and solvency)
•
•
•
•
•
Theoretical, abstract language
Literal, historical analogies and examples
Definitions
Data and Statistics
Quotations
– 2) Pathos – to appeal to emotions (impacts/advantages)
•
•
•
•
•
Vivid (descriptive) and concrete language
Emotionally loaded language (makes people feel something)
Emotional examples/stories
Emotional tone
Figurative Language
– 3) Ethos – perception of speaker credibility (whole debate)
• Appropriate, concise, efficient language choices
• Restrained and fair minded presentation
• Correct grammar
BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE DEBATE
• Additional “Ethos Building” Thoughts
(EG – this is a list of things I think you should do and not debate in rounds/at tournaments)
• Things that I think are a bad idea:
-Losing your personal belongings
-Being combative, with me or in round
-Being obnoxious (in or out of round)
-Quitting!
-Chewing Gum
• Things that I think are a good idea to do:
-Bring all of your clothes/accessories – wear appropriate
-Shake opps. Hands
-Have confidence (or fake it!)
-Remember that your judges are watching
-Be friendly, not obnoxious, to judge(s)
-If your opponents get uppity, you don’t
-Fill speech/cross ex time
-Fake it, and stand your ground in CX
-Speak Up
-Have confidence in yourself/partner
-Make lots of eye contact with the judge
-Don’t lean, have good posture!
-Sit facing the judge(s)
-Diversify your arguments
-Know how to pronounce words in your evidence/affirmative
-Extend your arguments
-Be familiar with evidence
LET’S LEARN TO FLOW
FLOWING
• What is FLOWING – flowing is what we in
debate world call our specialized form of note
which we use in debates to keep track of
arguments
• It is primarily important so that you know:
A) What arguments you’ve made
B) What arguments your opponents have made that
you need to answer
FLOWING
• Tips and tricks to flowing effectively:
• 1) Abbreviate
– There are a million abbreviations and the most
important rule about them is that YOU are the one
that has to know what they mean (and ideally,
your partner)…
-Some Examples……….
FLOWING
• 2) Leave lots of space between arguments – I
recommend at least 1 inch between each new point
FLOWING
• 3) Flow DOWN and NOT ACROSS
– For each speech, each column will represent a speech
FLOWING
4) Write Fast
– This maximizes the amount of information you can
write down – namely about evidence your
opponent is reading
– It also forces you to listen more closely
5) Listen Closely – should be obvious
– Example
– Practice
FLOWING – PRACTICE!
• A few ways to hone your new flowing skills:
1) Watch Practice Rounds
-In the squad room, afterschool
-Online
2) Flow the news
3) Playing cards/Apples-to-Apples
4) Debate yourself, in your head
NEGATIVE STRATEGIES
NEGATIVE - DIVISION OF LABOR
1NC – T, DA, CASE 1NC – T, DA, CASE
1NC – CASE
2NC – DA, T
2NC – CASE, T
2NC – PLAN (DA)
1NR - CASE
1NR – DA
1NR - CASE
*My general thought is that a DA and Case is TOO MUCH for just the 2NC
NEGATIVE – THE FIRST NEGATIVE
• 1N and 2N need to discuss where debate should
focus before 1NC stands up to speak to avoid
contradictions – “neg philosophy”
• Significance attacks – 3 options for attack:
– 1. Direct denial—there is no problem
– 2. Minimize the magnitude—problem is not
widespread
– 3. Turn the impact – aff harm is actually good
ALSO: regardless of the type of argument (sig, inh,
solv, other teams’ attacks in general) ALWAYS
analyze and attack the other team’s evidence.
NEGATIVE – THE FIRST NEGATIVE
-INHERENCY attacks – attacks which might argue
that the status quo has more motive, means and/or
opportunity to change if it needs/wants to
• - OPTIONS:
– 1. Defend the SQ
-SQ is better b/c it has better agents (ie privates,
st and locals)
-SQ is better b/c it does something differently
than
aff to solve the problem
NEGATIVE – THE FIRST NEGATIVE
• SOLVENCY attacks
• 3 types of solvency arguments (although they’re all just called
solvency)
• 1. Workability—a flaw in the wording of the plan that prevents
its implementation and solvency
– EX: no enforcement, no staff, no funding
• 2. Circumvention—aff d/n deal w/ motive (inh) effectively, thus
the plan will be circumvented or ignored
– EX:
NEGATIVE – THE FIRST NEGATIVE
• 3. Alternate causality—the plan doesn’t
deal with all of the causes of a problem,
so it can’t solve the problem
NEGATIVE – THE FIRST NEGATIVE
• AUTHOR CREDIBILITY – are the people the other
team is citing qualified to talk about what they’re
talking about?
– 1) What are the authors qualifications?
– 2) Does that make them qualified to talk about THIS
topic (the specific topic of the card)?
– 3) If not, how does that implicate my opponents args?
– 3) If so, how do my authors match up with theirs?
NEGATIVE – THE FIRST NEGATIVE
1. SIGNPOST - Identify the claim you wish
to attack
2. TAG - Number and Label (w/a brief concise
statement) the claim you wish to make
3. Provide evidence to support your claim/pick
holes in the opponent’s evidence
4. Summarize your position and make
transition to next point
NEGATIVE – DISADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES – a negative ramification of passing
the affirmative plan
-EX: If we pass the plan “X” bad thing will happen
4 components:
1)
UNIQUENESS/BRINK
-The USFG is practicing fiscal discipline
2) LINK
-The plan spends $1 billion new dollars on tech
3) INTERNAL LINK
-New USFG spending causes economic collapse in the
United States, and globally
4) IMPACT
-Global economic collapse leads to global nuclear war
NEGATIVE - DISADVANTAGES
• UNIQUENESS – neg must show that a disad
will happen ONLY w/ the adoption of the aff
and that it will NOT happen in the SQ.
• BRINK - specifies how much plan action will
cause the disadvantage to happen.
NEGATIVE – DISADVANTAGES
• 3 types of “brinks”
– Linear – low uniqueness burden
– Threshold – VERY high burden of uniqueness
– A priori – little to no burden of uniqueness – it’s a
value question
• ***This is in terms of what the burden on you, the negative, is***
NEGATIVE - DISADVANTAGES
• A. Linear – there’s a direct relationship between the
amount of plan action and amount of harm
EX: Every dollar the plan spends is two dollars
saved in the long run.
NEGATIVE – DISADVANTAGES
• B. Threshold – the SQ is on the brink of something.
If we cross the line, something massively bad happens
 aff plan crosses that line
– EX: If the federal government spends $1 billion or more new
dollars, it will collapse the US, and subsequently the global,
economy
NEGATIVE - DISADVANTAGES
• C. A priori – certain categories of plan action are
evil/immoral and should not be allowed. (Aff violates
a value that should always be protected.)
– EX: The USFG spending money it doesn’t have is a bankrupt
model of governance and should be rejected on face
NEGATIVE - DISADVANTAGES
• LINK – there is a link between plan
action and some harm – Plan will cause
something bad to transpire (or prevent
something good from happening)
– The link will describe what the plan does
NEGATIVE - DISADVANTAGES
A. SPECIFIC LINK – on point link to aff
plan – mentions some action in the aff
plan SPECIFICALLY
EX: the plan spends $1 billion on
fishery development.
EX: the plan engages Russia on ocean
exploration cooperation.
NEGATIVE - DISADVANTAGES
B. GENERIC LINK – plan action belongs to
a category of actions that cause harm –
applies to MANY cases
EX: The affirmative spends money.
Increased government
commitment to other countries
will cost billions of dollars.
NEGATIVE - DISADVANTAGES
• INTERNAL LINK – the internal link should make
a causal connection between the link and the
impact
EX
A government abandonment of fiscal
discipline will cause a US economic
downfall which will spiral globally
A renewed practice of fiscal indiscipline by
the USFG will devastate the US economy
NEGATIVE - DISADVANTAGES
• IMPACTS – the bad thing that will result from the
adoption of the affirmative plan (or, why they
stop something good from happening)
EX
Economic collapse leads to global nuclear war
Global economic collapse leads to a
skyrocketing of poverty globally
NEGATIVE - DISADVANTAGES
• IMPACT CALCULUS – showing the judge,
through evaluation and analysis, which
impacts he or she should vote for at the end
of the debate
• *Can and should start early in the debate
• 3 Parts:
– Timeframe – which impact will happen fastest
– Probability – which impact is more likely to occur
– Magnitude – which impact is worse?
• Effects the most people
• Inflicts the most damage
NEGATIVE - DISADVANTAGES
• Structure of a Disadvantage:
– Thesis: The story of the disad (summary)
– A) Uniqueness – this its what happening now
– B) Link – this is what the affirmative does
– C) Internal Link – this is what that leads to
– D) Impact – this is why that’s bad
NEGATIVE - PREEMPTION
• PREEMPTION –
– an anticipated answer to an attack that
hasn’t yet been made. These can be run by
aff or neg and are often structured into
disads.
NEGATIVE - TOPICALITY
-TOPICALITY – The affirmative burden to prove that
the plan falls within the resolution
-While it is technically okay for the negative to read
new disads or case arguments in the 2NC, a topicality
argument should always be made in the 1NC
-The only exception is if the affirmative changes
the nature of the plan.
NEGATIVE - TOPICALITY
• In order to prove that the affirmative isn’t topical,
the negative must show that the affirmative does
not meet the resolution – specifically, the negative
must define a word/term within the resolution,
show why that is a good interpretation for debate,
and show why the affirmative has not met this
interpretation
NEGATIVE - TOPICALITY
• Structure
I. Topicality (Term violated) – summary of the
argument and brief explanation of purpose
A. Definition of ____________
EVIDENCE
B. Violation
C. Standards
1.
2.
D. Topicality is a voting issue
1.
2.
NEGATIVE - TOPICALITY
• The title and summary – tell the judge the
resolution, what term(s) you’re arguing the
affirmative violates, and why topicality is important
• A) Definition of word (or term(s)) – words can be
defined in many different ways
– 3 primary types
• A) Common/dictionary – from a typical dictionary
• B) Contextual – from articles/literature about the topic
• C) Legal – from court cases/legal dictionaries
NEGATIVE - TOPICALITY
• B) Violation –
– This part is EXPLAINED by YOU within the
debate.
– You’ll have to think on this one – use your
brain!
– The violation should explain to the judge how
the affirmative PLAN does not fall within your
interpretation of the resolution
-Remember that the advantages do not have
to be topical, only the affirmative PLAN
ACTION
NEGATIVE - TOPICALITY
• C) Standards -how the judge should evaluation definitions
(which one is best for the debate round)
– Some possibilities include:
•
•
•
•
Reasonable/limited
Ground
Predictability
Education
• D) Impact of Argument – Topicality is a voting issue –
– The judge is only supposed to listen to cases on the topic (those
are all that’s within his/her jurisdiction.) Aff should lose the
whole round if they lose this issue, because it is founded on an
incorrect premise.
– EX – its like playing Chess with Checkers rules….
AFFIRMATIVE - TOPICALITY
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
We Meet….
Counter Interpretation…
Counter Standard(s)…
Negative definition is inadequate…
Answer negative standards…
Topicality is not a voting issue…
Answer their voting arguments…
REBUTTALS
REBUTTALS
1) Use mini-max principle – MINIMIZE your
burdens while MAXIMIZING your opponents’
burdens
2) CARDINAL RULE OF REBUTTALS – NO
NEW ARGUMENTS
3) IMPACT CALCULUS – Timeframe,
probability, magnitude
4) Tell the judge why they should vote for you!
REBUTTALS - EXTENDING ARGUMENTS
• 1) Don’t contradict things that your partner said!
• 2) Extension Formula:
– 1) Identify my argument
– 2) Identify my warrant
– 3) Identify my opponents answer
– 4) Identify my opponents warrant
– 5) Answer my opponents warrant
– 6) Tell the judge why my warrant outweighs
– 7) Tell the judge why they should care about this
argument (the impact!)
REBUTTALS
• Other general thoughts/ideas:
– Make PRESSES –expose weakness of opponent’s
claims 
Especially expose:
Contradictions
Flawed evidence
– Turns/Feeds – show how opponent’s reasoning
actually supports your position
- New ev is NOT a new arg unless it supports a new
position
- DO NOT REREAD ev in a round
REBUTTALS
CRYSTALLIZE! Tell the judge what the 3 most
important arguments are that you are winning
in the debate. Do this in your intro and/or in
the last 30 seconds of the rebuttal
INNOCULATE. (2NR) Warn the judge of
arguments that MAY be coming up in the next
speech that they WON’T want to vote on
CROSS EXAMINATION
CROSS EXAMINATION
• Lay judges LOVE cross ex and will often vote on this
interaction over and above other parts of the debate.
• Good cx skills will get you far with flow judges as well.
I. Basic purposes
A. Fill in holes in your flow
B. Gain clarification
C. Pick on evidence/ask for evidence
D. Strategy 
1. set up arguments / disads especially
2. pick holes in case logic
3. pin other team to a position
CROSS EXAMINATION
• A. Make sure you have a question – CX is
NOT a chance for you to give another speech
• Keep a legal pad/notebook and write questions during the debate
• Ask about evidence, specifically, about warrants and author
qualifications
• Sound good – be authoritative and sure of yourself
• B. Leading questions are ok in debate
Leading = statement + right?
– EX - It’s true that this guy is a blogger, right?
CROSS EXAMINATION
• Make questions short and simple
• It is a bad idea to ask open-ended questions
• (Ideally) Know what answer you want BEFORE you
ask the question
• Always fill your CX time – its your partners prep!
– What is the warrant to…..?
– What are this authors qualifications?
– What is the internal link between….?
CROSS EXAMINATION
• A. Always stand facing the judge. Look at
the judge, not your opponent
• B. ALWAYS be polite
•
1. Gentlemen:
•
a. d/n be condescending or too
sarcastic
•
b. don’t bully women debaters
CROSS EXAMINATION
2. Ladies:
– a. keep the tone and volume of your voice
pleasant
3. All
-Be professional
-Don’t cry
*Yes, these are stereotypes…I’m sorry. They
reflect the way judges often look at people…
CROSS EXAMINATION
• Dealing with people with BAD CX etiquette
A. If they continually interrupt your answer to a question or
won’t let you answer:
1. ask if you may complete your answer
2. stand silently until they ask why you’re not answering
and then ask them to allow you to complete your answer
CROSS EXAMINATION
• B. If they are padding time so that you
can’t ask more questions
• 1. Politely say Thank You
• 2. Politely say, Thanks, that’s all I really needed.
• 3. Ask if you can ask another question.
CROSS EXAMINATION
C. If they bully you
• 1. Act MORE nice  the contrast btwn
your behavior and theirs will become
more evident to the judge
• 2. Act put upon, but DON’T act like a
wimp. Be strong.
CROSS EXAMINATION
• D. If they get shrill, make your voice
MORE low and pleasant
E. If they ask “yes or no” questions
1. Ask to qualify your answer
2. If they w/n allow it, say “yes and
no” or “yes or no”
DEBATE
PARADIGMS
• Paradigms are about how the judge looks at the round
and what a debater can do to adapt to that
perspective.
• A model or perspective on how judges evaluate
debate
REAL WORLD PARADIGMS
• I. Public
DEBATE PARADIGMS
• I. Common Person/Lay
• II. Judicial
• II. Stock Issues
• III. Legislative
• IV. Scientific
• III. Policy Making
• IV. Hypothesis Testing
• V. Gamesmanship
• VI. Tabula Rasa
EXPLANATIONS OF PARADIGMS
• I. Common Person / Lay –
– A. Argumentation choices/rationale:
1. everyday life, familiar types of arguments
2. key value is REASONABILITY – common sense
analogies help with complex ideas (but they
have to make sense)
– B. Presentation style
1. Treat this judge with respect – as an informed
citizen
2. Appeal to first impression/gut reaction of
judge—be kind, polite, professional
3. NO SPEED. Conversational and persuasive
style.
II. Stock Issues –
• A. Argumentation choices/rationale:
1. Debate is a court—the SQ is on trial
2. Key value is FAIRNESS to the defendant (SQ),
who is innocent until proven guilty
• B. Presentation style
1. On the negative, checklist the stock issues…if
aff loses one stock issue, neg will claim
that SQ is innocent
2. Aff needs to argue the policy paradigm…
comparative advantage
3. Little or no speed. Persuasion and
communication important.
III. Policy Making
• A. Argumentation choices/rationale:
1. Used in policy questions: Which POLICY is best?
2. Key value is INCREMENTALISM—what is the best
deal with the least amount of change?
B. Presentation style
1. compares/WEIGHS advantages and disadvantages
to determine which policy is best
(COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE)
2. Speed is variable.
a. Many stock issues judges can be persuaded
to vote in the paradigm if you keep it
communicative and persuasive
b. Lots of different types of speeds…
IV. Hypothesis Testing (Hypotesting)
A. Argumentation choices/rationale:
1. Textbooks, experimentation, etc., held valuable
2. Key value is TRUTH – By exploring many options we
can prove what is TRUE
3. Debate focuses on the resolution AS A WHOLE
and whether or not it is true or false
B. Presentation style
1. Speed is usually A-OK
2. These judges will often be a little wacky and hard
to call
V. Games Playing
A. Argumentation choices/rationale:
1. Rejects the idea that debate is like the real
worldit’s a game sophisticated game
2. Rules are subject to change
B. Presentation style—Ask or argue it—this is negotiable
as is everything else in the round
VI. Tabula Rasa – means “blank slate”
A. This is usually a young judge
B. Don’t necessarily believe them…anyone who knows
enough to say these words has some preconceived
notions about what makes debate good or bad. Watch
them like a hawk and tell them in speeches what
paradigm you would like for them to vote in and why.
OTHER JUDGE ADAPTATION CONSIDERATIONS
Lay judges
– These are community judges
– They do not flow conventionally
– GO SLOW
– Use lots of examples/analysis
– MAKE SENSE – nothing too complicated
Flow judges
Young/college flows
- will have lots of paper/legal
pads to write on or will
borrow from you
- varying speed –WATCH or ask
- will accept most argumentation
but are often not as cool as
THEY think they are.
Make your stories clear in
rebuttals
• Older/Coach flows
– - write down things at the appropriate
place
– - relatively slow speed. WATCH but never
ask
– - Use sensible arguments. Try to avoid
huge generics