Ask Jim about Debate
|
Breaking Down Barriers: Ask Jim about Debate |
You can submit questions too, just email Jim at hansonjb@whitman.edu
(This is a significantly revised version of what is in Breaking Down Barriers: How to Debate (Version 1.0, 1989):
Some affirmative teams like to support unique cases that you may not be prepared to debate against. These cases are frequently called "squirrel cases". How can you argue against a case that you aren't prepared for? By preparing! You're probably saying, "what?", but it is true. You should be prepared on the negative to debate squirrel cases. How do you do that? The answer is to prepare generic strategies that you can use against all types of cases. To do this, do the following:
1. List out all the kinds of cases and plans teams are running on the topic
2. Make a "typology" of affirmative cases. In other words, put the affirmative cases into categories that you can strategize against. I would have three main strategies ready--one against cases that rehabilitate criminals, one against cases that punishes criminals, and one against cases that establish programs to prevent crime.
3. Prepare strategies that you can use against each of these types of cases. For example, against cases that give criminals tougher punishments, I might prepare a social control critique, a rehabilitation is superior to punishment argument, etc.
4. Prepare prepare topicality briefs. Consider what cases affirmatives may legitmately support. If that squirrel case is not topical--argue it. In fact, be ready to take up every minute in every one of your speeches to argue that it is not topical.
For these strategies, prepare generic disadvantages that can apply to many kinds of affirmative cases. For example, in policy debate, most plans will need funding, and that means they will cut programs, increase taxes, or increase deficit spending. Be ready with disadvantages against any of these three approaches. You can also prepare disadvantages against what the resolution requires. If the resolution requires federal action, you can argue that federal action is bad. If the resolution requires an increase in political stability, you can argue that increased political stability is bad. When you use your generic disadvantages in debates, be sure to use the cross-examination to get the affirmative to state that your argument applies to their plan. In addition, listen carefully to the affirmative case. Frequently, it will contain links to your arguments--just listen for arguments in the case that actually support your arguments. For example, frequently, the affirmative inherency hints at or explicitly states that cost is the reason congress won't pass the affirmative plan.
In addition, prepare and prepare for attacks against the affirmative case. As much as possible, be ready for every kind of general harm that affirmatives might present. If you still are not ready, be ready to press the affirmative case arguments. Finally, you might wish to consider supporting a counterplan.
In the round, you need to focus on thinking rather than getting nervous against squirrel cases:
1. Press the evidence in the affirmative case
2. Listen to the evidence in the affirmative case--does it give a link to your arguments
3. Present your arguments against the affirmative case and listen carefully to their responses--you may be able to use one of their responses against them or to link to arguments that you do have.
Thanks to Nick Wesselman for this question.