DOCSLIB.ORG

CX Firm Foundation I

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
CX Firm Foundation I Stefanie Rodarte-Suto Canyon High School [email protected] §Policy Debate: US policy at home and abroad is the central issue of the topic/resolution. Debaters role play by acting as a policy maker, playing out possible scenarios. Evidence driven §CX Debate: Cross-Examination Debate §Team Debate: Two members constitute a team; Two teams of Two constitute a debate § “At the beginning, though, it is important to understand that, whatever else debate is, it is a game. It has teams, points, winners, losers, tournaments, and trophies. Like many games, it is not always fair (even though we try hard to make it fair). Most importantly, debate is supposed to be fun.” - Dr. Joe Bellon, Director of Debate Georgia State University 2006 § Just like any game, there are rules and a basic structure to learn and understand. Constructives § 8 min. 1st Affirmative Constructive (1AC) § 3 min. CX by 2nd Negative § 8 min. 1st Negative Constructive (1NC) § 3 min. CX by 1st Affirmative § 8 min. 2nd Affirmative Constructive (2AC) § 3 min. CX by 1st Negative § 8 min. 2nd Negative Constructive (2NC) § 3 min. CX by 2nd Affirmative Rebuttals § 5 min. 1st Negative Rebuttal (1NR) § 5 min. 1st Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR) § 5 min. 2nd Negative Rebuttal (2NR) § 5 min. 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR) *8 minutes of prep time for each team §Resolution § Topic to be debated- Selected each year by a national vote § Debated across the US throughout the academic year § Wording is important: Each word has meaning (Topicality) Providing boundaries for each team § 2017-2018 Resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States. Resolved: The United States Affirmative: Uphold in the United federal States. the resolution by government affirming and defending the AFFIRMATIVE topic. Advocate for Ground change. of elementary should and/or secondary substantially education increase Negative: Negates/opposes the resolution, its funding and/or regulation preferring the Status Quo § Resolution: the topic to be debated. § Constructives: the first four speeches in a round. Evidence is presented to build the basis for your case and establish clash. § Rebuttals: the last four speeches in a round relying heavily on analysis. § Focus the round on most important issues. Why do you win? § New evidence is OK but NOT new arguments. § Negative Block: 13 minute block of Negative speaking time (2NC & 1NR) § Prep Time: 8 minutes per team given in round for the team to prepare responses to their opponents arguments. § CX Time: 3 minute time period after each constructive speech in which a team asks question of the person who just spoke. § Framework: the way that the debaters are asking the judge to view the round. § Paradigm: the way the judge will adjudicate the round. Judging preference. § Offense: arguments given by debaters that provide a reason for you to support a vote for them or their side § Defense: arguments given by debaters that negate arguments by the other team (only a mitigator) § Status quo: current system- Affirmative advocates change; Negative typically defends SQ. § Stock Issues: core issues in a debate round. Affirmative responsibility. § Clash: responding directly to your opponents arguments. § Flowing: taking notes in a structured fashion in a debate round. Status quo is presumed to be sufficient ‘as is’ § Affirmative responsibility: § “Burden of proof” lies with the Affirmative. They must show why status quo policies are insufficient to solve a particular harm, thus overcoming Status quo and presumption. presumption § Negative responsibility: § Clash with affirmative propositions, showing why the status quo is preferable to change (doing so meets the negative “burden of rejoinder”)Presumption lies with the negative. § Purpose of the debate: win each contention of clash 1AC: Affirmative team will present a structured case with a plan text to include all stock issues. § Stock Issues are how the affirmative meets the burden of proof; together, the stock issues are: § Harms (H): Evidence demonstrating the problems within the status quo. § Inherency (I): Evidence demonstrating barriers exist within the SQ making the current system unable to resolve the problem. § Attitudinal, Structural, Existential § Topicality (T): Affirmative case must *reasonably* fall under the terms of the resolution. § Significance (S): Evidence demonstrating the harms create BIG, BAD issues that justify a change to the SQ. (Often included with the harms. Impact of the harms.) § Solvency (S): Evidence demonstrating that the Affirmative plan will overcome the inherent barrier to solve for the significance and harms. § Prima Facie case: Latin term which means “first glance”; it refers to a case that meets all of the stock issues; a prima facie case overcomes presumption § A plan is a written text that demonstrates a step-by-step explanation of how the affirmative will change the Status Quo to achieve solvency for the Impacts they claim. § Typically placed before solvency in the 1AC. § “Plan Planks” can include: § Mandates: are the basic provisions (action steps) of what the plan should accomplish. § Administration: planks define who is to operate the Affirmative plan. § Enforcement: provisions identify the penalty will be for violating any laws proposed by the Affirmative mandates; these planks may also specify what agencies will prosecute cases. § Funding: provision to pay for plan. § Spikes: plan components which serve to avoid a disadvantage that the rest of the plan would otherwise cause. § Intent: "The Affirmative team reserves the right to establish legislative intent based on speeches presented in this round." Traditional needs (Problem/Solution format) § Contention I. Harms/Significance § Contention II. Inherency § Plan--the affirmative must present a solution for the problem identified § Contention III. Solvency § Contention IV. Advantages § Beyond solving for the BIG, BAD problem(s) identified in Contention I, these are the additional benefits to adopting the Affirmative Plan. Comparative advantage (Case formatted to show that adopting the policy would have advantages over the SQ): § Observation 1. Observations are usually general statements about the problem area which are important but do not readily fit into the analysis structured in the advantages. These are optional. § Observation 2. Some cases will have one, others may have none. § Plan--this format states the policy, then explains why it would be advantageous § Advantage 1. The affirmative does something better than the status quo § A. Significance § B. Inherency § C. Solvency § Advantage 2. The affirmative does something else § A. Significance § B. Inherency § C. Solvency Fiat: Latin- ’let it be done’ § Affirmative has this implied power to put the plan into effect LMGTFY § https://lmgtfy.com/ CX Tools & Resources § https://goo.gl/z8owYY Up Next… Negative argumentation and the progression of the round.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Use and Abuse of Risk Analysis in Policy Debate
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 354 559 CS 508 069 AUTHOR Herbeck, Dale A.; Katsulas, John P. TITLE The Use and Abuse of Risk Analysis in Policy Debate. PUB DATE Oct 92 NOTE 16p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association (78th, Chicago, IL, October 29-November 1, 1992). PUB TYPE Speeches/Conference Papers (150) Viewpoints (Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.)(120) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Debate; Debate Format; Higher Education; *Probability; Rhetorical Criticism; *Risk IDENTIFIERS *Policy Debate; Rhetorical Strategies; *Risk Assessment ABSTRACT The best check on the preposterous claims of crisis rhetoric is an appreciation of the nature of risk analysis and how it functions in argumentation. The use of risk analysis is common in policy debate. While the stock issues paradigm focused the debate exclusively on the affirmative case, the advent of policy systems analysis has transformed debate into an w,aluation of competing policy systems. Unfortunately, the illusion of objectivity masks several serious problems with risk analysis as it is presently used in academic debate. Risk analysis artificially assigns probability to arguments and overvalues arguments with large impacts. Four suggestions can dramatically improve the use of risk analysis in policy debate:(1) some risks are so trivial that they are not meaningful;(2) the increment of risk must be considered; (3) debaters must not become enslaved to large impacts; and (4) debaters must rehabilitate the importance of uniqueness arguments in debate. (Twenty-one notes are included.) (RS) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made * from the original document.
    [Show full text]
  • Debate Association & Debate Speech National ©
    © National SpeechDebate & Association DEBATE 101 Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Bill Smelko & Will Smelko DEBATE 101 Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Bill Smelko & Will Smelko © NATIONAL SPEECH & DEBATE ASSOCIATION DEBATE 101: Everything You Need to Know About Policy Debate: You Learned Here Copyright © 2013 by the National Speech & Debate Association All rights reserved. Published by National Speech & Debate Association 125 Watson Street, PO Box 38, Ripon, WI 54971-0038 USA Phone: (920) 748-6206 Fax: (920) 748-9478 [email protected] No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, now known or hereafter invented, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, information storage and retrieval, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without the prior written permission of the Publisher. The National Speech & Debate Association does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, gender identity, gender expression, affectional or sexual orientation, or disability in any of its policies, programs, and services. Printed and bound in the United States of America Contents Chapter 1: Debate Tournaments . .1 . Chapter 2: The Rudiments of Rhetoric . 5. Chapter 3: The Debate Process . .11 . Chapter 4: Debating, Negative Options and Approaches, or, THE BIG 6 . .13 . Chapter 5: Step By Step, Or, It’s My Turn & What Do I Do Now? . .41 . Chapter 6: Ten Helpful Little Hints . 63. Chapter 7: Public Speaking Made Easy .
    [Show full text]
  • Beg. CX Robertson-Markham
    Jonathan Robertson, Sudan H.S. and James Markham, Anton H.S. An Introduction to UIL CX Debate UIL WTAMU SAC - September 23rd, 2017 Beatriz Melendez and Jose Luis Melendez, 2-A UIL CX Debate State Champions 2016 “You can do it!” -The Waterboy Introduction - Brief video as students and coaches enter: (Debate class video) What is CX Debate? Policy debate. Policy = evidence. Lots of evidence. This event will change your life. One student’s story that ends submerged. So, are you ready to “Suit Up”? The Resolution: Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its funding and/or regulation of elementary and/or secondary education in the United States. “Debate is blood sport, only your weapons are words.” 2 - Denzel Washington in The Great Debaters The Speeches and their Times: 1st Affirmative Constructive (1AC=8 min) CX (3 min by the 2NC) (never use prep time before CX periods) 1st Negative Constructive (1NC=8 min) CX (3 min by the 1AC) 2nd Affirmative Constructive (2AC=8 min) CX (3 min by the 1NC) 2nd Negative Constructive (2NC=8 min) (2NC + 1NR = Negative Block) CX (3 min by the 2AC) 1st Negative Rebuttal(1NR=5 min) 1st Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR=5 min) 2nd Negative Rebuttal (2NR=5 min) 2nd Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR=5 min) Each team receives 8 minutes of prep time that may be used according to their strategy. Citation of evidence Evidence must be contiguous. And, citations done correctly, i.e.: Frank, 2015 [Walter M. Frank (legal scholar, attorney), “Individual Rights and citation → the Political Process: A Proposed Framework for Democracy Defining Cases,” 3 Southern University Law Review 35:47, Fall, 2015, p.
    [Show full text]
  • 11. Lincoln-Douglas Debate [Language Approved by Membership at NFA 2013; Incorporated by Executive Council on August 12Th, 2013]
    11. Lincoln-Douglas Debate [Language approved by membership at NFA 2013; incorporated by Executive Council on August 12th, 2013] PURPOSE: A debate event designed to engage the audience through a policy-oriented dialogue. DESCRIPTION: NFA Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a one-person, persuasive, policy debate on the traditional stock issues of policy debate (harms, inherency, solvency, and topicality). It is a communication event, in which competitors will be evaluated on their analysis, use of evidence, and ability to effectively and persuasively organize, deliver and refute arguments. Rapid-fire delivery, commonly called “spread delivery,” is considered antithetical to the purpose and intent of this event. RULES: a. Paradigm for Judging Lincoln-Douglas Debate - The official decision making paradigm of NFALD is that of Stock Issues: Harm (Advantage or Goals), Inherency, Solvency, and Topicality. The affirmative is required to propose a plan that meets four initial burdens. The plan need not be detailed, but should be sufficient to prove the plan’s propensity to solve the problem area. The affirmative must prove: - The harm of the present system or that a comparative advantage or goal can be achieved over the present system; - The inherency which prevents solving those harms or achieving those advantages or goals; - The proposed plan’s propensity to solve the harm or achieve the advantage or goal claimed by the affirmative; and - The topical nature of the proposed plan as an inductive proof of the resolution. If, at the end of the debate, the negative has convinced the judge that the affirmative proposal has violated the parameters set by the resolution, then the decision in the debate should be awarded to the negative.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Lincoln-Douglas Debate
    Introduction to Lincoln-Douglas Debate John R. Prager Copyright © 1993, 2007 John R. Prager CONTENTS 1 Lincoln-Douglas Debate Format 1 2 Values 5 3 Value Hierarchies 12 4 Fundamental Theory of Lincoln-Douglas Debate 20 5 The Affirmative Constructive Speech 29 6 The Negative Constructive Speech 36 7 The Rebuttal Speeches 50 8 Cross-Examination and Flowcharting Skills 55 9 Evidence and Research Skills 61 10 From Policy Debate to Lincoln-Douglas 72 11 Fallacies of Reasoning 76 12 A Sample Lincoln-Douglas Debate 86 Index 97 INTRODUCTION This text developed in response to the needs of my own students during my tenure as a coach of a small school in Michigan. At the time, Michigan did not have a statewide program of competition in Lincoln-Douglas, but a handful of invitational tournaments were experimenting with the form. There were no good options for textbooks on the subject at the high school level, and so my teaching notes gradually evolved to become this text. As of 2007, which this book was last revised, Michigan continues its exclusive commitment to policy debate at the high school level. The experiments with Lincoln-Douglas at tournaments have largely stopped. Yet I remain convinced that there is great worth for the high school student in learning about value debate, both for its own sake and for spillover benefits on policy and legislative debating. For this reason, I have made this text available online as an introduction to the subject for students and coaches. If you are approaching Lincoln-Douglas after experience with policy debate, you may wish to begin reading with Chapter 10, which has been written to ease the transition between the two forms of debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Stock Market Prices and the Market for Corporate Control
    CHEFFINS-ARMOUR.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 6/22/2016 11:13 AM STOCK MARKET PRICES AND THE MARKET FOR CORPORATE CONTROL John Armour* Brian Cheffins** The manner in which hostile takeovers have historically been executed has just begun to receive serious academic attention. Similar- ly, while the literature on the accuracy and determinants of share prices is voluminous, there has been little systematic historical analy- sis of when and how modern standards of share price efficiency took shape. This Article addresses both subjects in depth to ascertain the extent to which developments in the market for corporate control may have been associated with, or facilitated by, developments in stock market efficiency. We identify potential linkages between hostile con- trol transactions and stock market pricing and explore these linkages empirically with a new hand-collected dataset of control contests oc- curring between 1900 and 1965. We show that, while the evolution of acquiror tactics in control contests was plausibly linked in some cir- cumstances to changes affecting the manner in which shares were priced, other factors have to be taken into account to explain how the market for corporate control developed over this period. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 762 II. SHARE PRICES AND EFFICIENCY------A PRÉCIS .................................. 765 III. TAKEOVER TECHNIQUES OVER TIME .............................................. 770 A. Transfer by Vote vs. Transfer by Sale ........................................ 770 B. Exchange vs. Cash Tender Offers ............................................... 771 C. Block Purchases vs. Open Market Bids ..................................... 772 D. Cash Tender Offers vs. OMBs .................................................... 773 * Hogan Lovells Professor of Law and Finance, University of Oxford; ECGI. ** S.J. Berwin Professor of Corporate Law, University of Cambridge; ECGI.
    [Show full text]
  • POLICY DEBATE: “Two Versus Two” Debate
    WNDI 2014 p. 1 of 12 Policy Debate http://www.whitman.edu/academics/whitman-debate POLICY DEBATE: “Two versus two” Debate. CONDUCTING THE DEBATES THEMSELVES Each debate will have four constructives, four rebuttals, and four cross-examination periods. In a single debate, each student will deliver two speeches—a constructive and a rebuttal. 1AC: 5 minutes First Affirmative Constructive : This speech is almost fully prepared before the debate starts. The First Affirmative constructive speech is expected to defend the resolution in the most compelling way possible. This means at least 3 (and probably 4) components should be part of the 1ac: The existence of a problem, the consequences (impact of significance) of that problem, the need for a solution provided by the proposition, and (optional) arguments against what the negative side might say. In other words, the task of the 1A is to explain the resolution and provide arguments defending the resolution. The format is flexible, but most good 1As will defend an interpretation of the resolution and then establish 3-5 arguments in favor of the resolution. Each argument should have a claim, data, and warrants. Each argument should independently prove that the resolution is valid or true. Each argument should be given weight (significance)—why does that argument matter? Each argument should also link itself directly to the wording of the resolution. Most importantly, each argument should have evidence to back it up—quotations from experts, statistics, narratives, other reasoning, etc. CX of 1AC: 3 minutes The negative team cross-examines the affirmative speaker. These 3 minutes can be used to clarify information, set up future arguments, expose weaknesses in the speech, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Debate Manual
    The National Debate Project's Policy Debate Manual Dr. Joe Bellon Director of Debate, Georgia State University with Abi Smith Williams NDP 2006, version 1.2 National Debate Project © 2006 Dr. Joe Bellon for questions concerning copyright permission, electronic copies, and permission to post this publication online contact Dr. Bellon at: [email protected] Contents What Is Debate? ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 2 Speech Cheat Sheet ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 5 The Constructive Speeches ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 8 The Rebuttals ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9 Flowing Tips ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������10 Symbols and Abbreviations ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������11 This Is What It Sounds Like In a Speech �����������������������������������������������������������������������12 This Is What It Looks Like On the Flow �������������������������������������������������������������������������13 Introduction to Speaking Style �����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������14 Delivery and Staying "In Shape" for Debate ���������������������������������������������������������������17
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to CX Debate
    CX DEBATE: THEORY MAKING RULES Stefanie Rodarte-Suto Canyon High School [email protected] The game ■ “At the beginning, though, it is important to understand that, whatever else debate is, it is a game. It has teams, points, winners, losers, tournaments, and trophies. Like many games, it is not always fair (even though we try hard to make it fair). Most importantly, debate is supposed to be fun.” - Dr. Joe Bellon, Director of Debate Georgia State University 2006 ■ Just like any game, there are rules and a basic structure to learn and understand. Benefits of Debating Theory ■ Even at a very basic level, well-executed theory debate can shift the focus of the round in your favor. ■ Provides opportunity to define the rules of the game and set the boundaries ■ Gives the option to establish control over debate and set the focus of the round ■ Can create a different set of rules in each round ■ Method to articulate the reason/s something is bad for debate rather than just tagging it ‘bad’ ■ Develops our critical thinking skills ■ As we better understand theory, we can teach our younger teammates and become better debaters in the process. Plan based Affirmative • Affirmatives only have to defend the plan Resolved: • Neg has much bigger ground The United States in the United • Aff gets to focus the round federal X States. government • In a framework debate, the Aff can use theory to argue their original position X AFFIRMATIVE Ground of elementary should and/or secondary substantially education increase its funding and/or regulation ■ Status quo is presumed to be Argument sufficient ‘as is’ Basics ■ Affirmative responsibility: “Burden of proof” lies with the Affirmative.
    [Show full text]
  • The Code of the Debater
    The Code of the Debater The Code of the Debater INTRODUCTION TO POLICY DEBATING ALFRED C. SNIDER International Debate Education Association New York • Amsterdam • Brussels International Debate Education Association New York • Amsterdam • Brussels Published by: International Debate Education Association 400 West 59th Street New York, NY 10019 © 2008 International Debate Education Association All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Snider, Alfred. The code of the debater : introduction to policy debating / Alfred C. Snider. p. cm. 1. Debates and debating. I. Title. PN4181.S65 2008 808.53--dc22 2008020463 Design by Kathleen Hayes Printed in the USA Contents Acknowledgments xi Introduction xiii What Is Debate? xiii Why Debate? xiii PART ONE: INITIATION Chapter 1. Policy Debate 3 The Policy Debate Experience 3 The Debate Tournament 4 The Resolution 5 Speech Order and Responsibilities 6 Judges 10 The Affirmative Stock Issues: Upholding the Resolution 11 The Negative Stock Issues: Refuting the Resolution or Case 12 Exercises 14 The Code of the Debater 16 PART tWO: BASIC KNOWLEDGE Chapter 2. The Affirmative Case 19 Affirmative Advantages 19 Selecting an Affirmative Case 20 Preparing an Affirmative Case 21 Constructing Your Affirmative Case—The First Affirmative Speech 23 Briefing/Frontlines—Preparation
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Debate Introduction
    POLICY DEBATE INTRODUCTION National Federation of State Take Part. Get Set For Life.™ High School Associations A very brief introduction to policy debate, using some examples from the the Immigration Topic, by Rich Edwards, Baylor University THE FORMAT FOR POLICY DEBATE ▪ Constructive Speeches • 1AC: 8 Minutes – Cross-Examined by 2NC: 3 Minutes • 1NC: 8 Minutes – Cross-Examined by 1AC: 3 Minutes • 2AC: 8 Minutes – Cross-Examined by 1NC: 3 Minutes • 2NC: 8 Minutes – Cross-Examined by 2AC: 3 Minutes ▪ Rebuttal Speeches • 1NR: 5 Minutes • 1AR: 5 Minutes • 2NR: 5 Minutes • 2AR: 5 Minutes THE STOCK ISSUES ▪ Topicality: Is it germane? ▪ Harm: Is there a significant problem? ▪ Inherency: What is causing the problem? ▪ Solvency: Can the problem be solved? ▪ Disadvantage: Will the solution create more serious problems than the ones it resolves? CONSTRUCTIVE SPEAKER RESPONSIBILITIES ▪ 1AC: Present a “Prima Facie” Case • Harm, Inherency, Solvency, Plan ▪ 1NC: Present the Negative Attack • Traditionally attacked the 1AC • More recently: Topicality, Disads, Case ▪ 2AC: Re-Defends Against 1NC • Follows 1NC point-by-point ▪ 2NC: Answer 2AC positions • Divide positions with the 1NR (division of labor) REBUTTAL SPEAKER RESPONSIBILITIES ▪ No new arguments in rebuttal (new evidence OK) ▪ 1NR: Answer remaining 2AC arguments ▪ 1AR: Answer all 2NC & 1NR arguments ▪ 2NR: Extend winning negative arguments ▪ 2AR: Answer all remaining negative arguments & claim all affirmative positions that are no longer contested CROSS EXAMINATION ▪ The speaker completing the constructive speech remains at the podium for questions ▪ Both questioner and respondent face the judge ▪ The questioner controls the cross examination period ▪ What to ask? • Set up arguments for later speeches • Use all of your time (it’s prep time for your partner) KEEPING A FLOW SHEET 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Debate Introduction
    POLICY DEBATE INTRODUCTION National Federation of State Take Part. Get Set For Life.™ High School Associations A very brief introduction to policy debate, using some examples from the the Education Topic, by Rich Edwards, Baylor University THE FORMAT FOR POLICY DEBATE . Constructive Speeches • 1AC: 8 Minutes – Cross-Examined by 2NC: 3 Minutes • 1NC: 8 Minutes – Cross-Examined by 1AC: 3 Minutes • 2AC: 8 Minutes – Cross-Examined by 1NC: 3 Minutes • 2NC: 8 Minutes – Cross-Examined by 2AC: 3 Minutes . Rebuttal Speeches • 1NR: 5 Minutes • 1AR: 5 Minutes • 2NR: 5 Minutes • 2AR: 5 Minutes THE STOCK ISSUES . Topicality: Is it germane? . Harm: Is there a significant problem? . Inherency: What is causing the problem? . Solvency: Can the problem be solved? . Disadvantage: Will the solution create more serious problems than the ones it resolves? CONSTRUCTIVE SPEAKER RESPONSIBILITIES . 1AC: Present a “Prima Facie” Case • Harm, Inherency, Solvency, Plan . 1NC: Present the Negative Attack • Traditionally attacked the 1AC • More recently: Topicality, Disads, Case . 2AC: Re-Defends Against 1NC • Follows 1NC point-by-point . 2NC: Answer 2AC positions • Divide positions with the 1NR (division of labor) REBUTTAL SPEAKER RESPONSIBILITIES . No new arguments in rebuttal (new evidence OK) . 1NR: Answer remaining 2AC arguments . 1AR: Answer all 2NC & 1NR arguments . 2NR: Extend winning negative arguments . 2AR: Answer all remaining negative arguments & claim all affirmative positions that are no longer contested CROSS EXAMINATION . The speaker completing the constructive speech remains at the podium for questions . Both questioner and respondent face the judge . The questioner controls the cross examination period . What to ask? • Set up arguments for later speeches • Use all of your time (it’s prep time for your partner) KEEPING A FLOW SHEET 1.
    [Show full text]