Getting Started in CX Debate Julian Erdmann What

Getting Started in CX Debate Julian Erdmann

What is CX debate? • Team debate made up by two students from the same school. • They will defend either Affirmative or Negative. • Focuses more on policy-making and evidence

Basic Terms • Constructive- first speech given by every debater; used to establish a particular position. • Rebuttal- second speech by each debater; used to answer opposing team’s attacks and sum up one’s own position. • Speaker Points and Rank- points awarded by the judge on a scale of 20 -30 and ranking each speaker 1 -4. (Half points) • Prep Time- the amount of time you are allowed to prepare for each debate round (UIL 8 minutes) • Flowing- a record of arguments as they proceed. Flowing occurs on sheets of paper columned off for all 8 speeches. Usually each argument gets its own sheet.

Cross-Examination • 3 minute questioning period after every constructive • Done by the speaker of the opposing team who isn’t speaking next • May be used for the following purposes: • To clarify portions of the opponent’s case which were unclear • Establish the presence or absence of evidence for key positions • Diminish credibility or point out inconsistencies in opposing evidence. • Force an opponent to take a position on an issue • To set up an argument in the next speech. • UIL does not allow open CX

Round Structure • • • 1 st Affirmative Constructive (1 AC) 8 minutes CX Period 3 minutes 1 st Negative Constructive (1 NC) 8 minutes CX Period 3 minutes 2 nd Affirmative Constructive (2 AC) 8 minutes CX Period 3 minutes 2 nd Negative Constructive (2 NC) 8 minutes CX Period 3 minutes 1 st Negative Rebuttal (1 NR) 5 minutes 1 st Affirmative Rebuttal (1 AR) 5 minutes 2 nd Negative Rebuttal (2 NR) 5 minutes 2 nd Affirmative Rebuttal (2 AR) 5 minutes

Speaker Responsibilities • 1 AC- presents the whole affirmative case addressing at a minimum harm, inherency, plan and solvency. • 1 NC- Addresses the off-case arguments against the affirmative case including topicality, disadvantages, counter plans, and kritiks. (However, some judges/circuits require that all arguments be made in this speech including case). • 2 AC- must provide answers to each of the negative arguments usually in the same order. (Any arguments dropped in this speech are considered by the judge granted to the negative. )

Speaker Responsibilities Cont. • 2 NC- This speech usually covers on-case arguments including advantages and plan. (However, in a round where all arguments must be made in the 1 NC, this speech will focus on one or two of those arguments and expansively extend them). • 1 NR- This speech usually responds to any of the 2 AC attempts to refute the 1 NC arguments. It can deal with any of the negative attack but it cannot develop or make new arguments. • Because there are two negative speech separated only by a CX period, it is important that you maintain a good “division of labor”. The two speeches should divide the negative attack instead of repeating one another.

Speaker Responsibilities Cont. • 1 AR- One of the most difficult speeches, because they must cover all arguments presented in the negative block. • 2 NR- Should summarize the entire negative position, answering the 1 AR and highlighting key voters on why the negative has won the round. An effective 2 NR will know what arguments can be kicked. • 2 AR- must answer each of the key voters made by the 2 NR and also highlight why the affirmative should win the debate.

AFF: Stock Issues • Harms “(H)”- something that is currently happening in the status quo that is preventable through the AFF plan. • Inherency “(I)”- something that is stopping your plan from happening. • Topicality “(T)”- Responsibility of the AFF to show that their plan is within the scope of the resolution. • Solvency “(S)”- Proof that AFF plan will solve the harms presented. • Significance- responsibility of AFF to present a case that focuses on a problem that needs to be addressed.

Harms “(H)” • Quantitative Harm - a measurable harm such as 1%, 20 bombers, 300 deaths, 4, 000 smokers, 50, 000 poor. • Qualitative Harm - A non-measurable harm but one which will effect the quality of the system such as rights, freedom, happiness, etc.

Inherency “(I)” • There a couple types: • Structural Inherency - A law or policy, which prevents the plan from being adopted. For example, if your plan was to legalize drugs, the numerous anti-drug laws would be the structural inherency. • Attitudinal Inherency - Attitudes within the status quo, which are opposed to the plan. With a plan to legalize drugs, there also numerous attitudes against such a law. • Funding- It's debatable, I view it as both Attitudinal and Structural. It's structural because it's the given budget, and it's attitudinal because budget wouldn't be a problem if it was popular.

Advantages “Adv. ” • Advantages: indirect benefits which will result from adoption of the Aff. plan. This is usually shown by proving solvency and harm. • Ex: Advantage One: Global Warming • a. (Harm) Global Warming is continuing to get worse • b. (Link) Increasing Global Warming causes lack of oxygen in the ocean • c. (Internal Link) Lack of oxygen in the ocean leads to fish die-off • d. (Impact) Fish die-off leads to biodiversity loss and that leads to extinction • when you present Solvency, you will want a card that states that doing the aff plan will solve for global warming.

Plan • the aff’s example of implementing the resolution, an outline for change. • The plan usually contains four elements: • Action or mandates (what is going to be done) • Agent (who is going to do it) • Enforcement (what happens when somebody doesn’t follow the plan) • Funding (paying for the plan). • Fiat- the power to implement the plan. The aff only needs to prove that the plan SHOULD be done, not that it WOULD be done.

Negative: Off-Case • Topicality “T”- concept that AFF must fall under the resolution. • Disadvantage “DA”-a harm resulting from adoption of the AFF plan. • Counter plan “CP”- negative tactic stating the present system is flawed, but that there is a better non-topical solution superior to the AFF. • Kritik “K”- philosophical argument attempting to show that there are far greater problems than those presented by the resolution and the affirmative team. Often critiques how the AFF views the world. • These arguments are flowed on separate sheets of paper and this is what the 1 NC usually focuses on.

Neg: Topicality • Definition - What a word in the resolution means. This is usually taken from a dictionary like Websters or Black’s Law Dictionary • Violation - The reasons why the Aff. plan does not fall under (meet) the definition of the word. • Standards - The reasons why the Definition is a good way to interpret the particular word or words in the resolution. The standards are used to decide which of two definitions actually defines a word. (Ex: Education, Fairness, Reasonability, Preferability, Grounds, Limits, Brightline, Common Usage) • Topicality Is a Voting Issue - The reasons why the judge should vote Neg. if the Affirmative is not topical. (Ex: Jurisdiction, Tradition, Rules of the Game)

Neg: Topicality • Extra-Topicality – The theory that the affirmative plan goes beyond the scope of the resolution. Plan uses non-resolutional action to gain an advantage. Ex: Taxing cigs and claiming decreasing cancer. • Effects Topicality – The theory that the affirmative can only be granted solvency through several steps. An effect of plan makes the affirmative topical. Ex: resolution is to reduce crime, aff increases space exploration. AFF claims that space exploration increases lead to economic growth and that decreases crime.

NEG: Disadvantage • Uniqueness – Something that is currently happening now that will be ruined by the passage of the affirmative plan. • Link - A logical connection between two events i. e. Aff. does A and A causes B. As it is applied to DAs, it is a statement of how the Aff. plan will lead to a disadvantage. • Internal Link - A separate step which leads the Aff. plan to the impact.

NEG: Disadvantages • Threshold or Brink- Burden of the Neg. to show that the Aff. plan is sufficient to cause the impact. In other words, we are at a threshold point now and the plan would cause us to cross that threshold (push us over the brink), causing the impact. OR • Linearity - Direct relationship between the Aff. plan and the amount or scope of the impact. i. e. increasing the number of smokers by 10% will increase the number of cancer deaths by 10%. • Impact - The resulting harm from a disadvantage, it may be qualitative or quantitative.

NEG: Counter plan • Plan Text- details of the non-resolutional action the neg team is advocating. • Case- Neg must be able to show it solves. • Competitiveness- Burden of the Neg to show that the CP and the Aff plan shouldn’t exist in the same world at the same time. (Mutually Exclusive) • Non-topicality- Burden of the Neg to show that the counterplan is non-topical. (Topical CP’s are now acceptable as long as they compete) • Net Benefits- Advantages that the counterplan claim that the Aff plan can’t claim.

NEG: Kritik • Link- the negative will attempt to link the affirmative to the Kritik. Much like a disadvantage. • Impact- Much like the Disadvantage, the Kritik will then give an impact scenario, which the affirmative will lead to if they maintain the mindset the negative is critiquing. • Alternative- This is a shift in mindset that the negative should provide. The negative’s solution for avoiding the impact of the Kritik.

Negative: On-Case • An attempt by the negative to beat the case and/or plan using direct type of argumentation. • Means Clashing right down the flow of the affirmative case causing direct contradiction with the affirmative. • Arguments specifically geared toward answering the parts of the 1 AC (harm, solvency, inherency, plan and advantage arguments). They are flowed next to the notes relating to the 1 AC. This is what the 2 NC focuses on

Judging Paradigms • Paradigm- The way a judge views or examines a debate. • Skills or Stock Issues Judge - A judge who decides a round based on the speaking and advocacy skills of the debaters. Such a judge puts less importance on policy or procedural considerations such as DAs or T. • Tabula Rasa - The philosophy that there should be no preconceived notions on debate. The debate round should be decided based on what debaters in the round argue. The tabula rasa judge will decide the round on whatever criteria the debaters present, it could be hypo-testing, policy making, the color of shirts etc.

Judging Paradigms Cont. • Hypo Testing - The idea that debate determines whether the resolution is true. The debaters are testing different parts of the resolution (affirmative plans). However, the negative can disprove the resolution by proving superior non-resolutional alternatives (counterplans). The hypo-testing judge will vote on whether the affirmative has proven the resolution true (usually through winning an example of the resolution, the case). • Lay Judge- Judges with little to no experience. Accentuating style is a good idea, since a lay judge prefers debaters that can demonstrate good delivery skills. Explain all arguments thoroughly, and identify key voting issues.

Judging Paradigms Cont. • Games- The philosophy that debate is a game with the object to win. Anything goes as long as it is fair to both teams. This is sort of like a tabula rasa judge, only fairness is the one basis for evaluating whether an issue may be voted on. • Policy making - The idea that debate is a search for the best policy. The debaters are advocates for a policy, and the judge is a policy maker trying to make the best policy. A policy making judge will vote for whichever team’s policy is better (usually the aff. plan vs. the status quo).