Advanced CX

Advanced Policy Debate
The Forensics Files
Contents
Overview
Researching Evidence
Refuting Evidence
Judge Adaptation
Advanced Flowing Tips
1AC Strategy
1NC Strategy
Types of Counterplans
Counterplan Theory
2AC Strategy
Responding the Neg Positions
Refuting Topicality
Refuting Disads
Refuting Counterplans
Refuting Kritiks
Strategy for the Neg

Block
Kicking positions
1AR Strategy
2NR Strategy
2AR Strategy
Tournament Strategy
Review
TFF Review Game
Back to Table of Contents
Overview
This presentation focuses on
Refining skills
Reinforcing concepts from
Introduction to Debate
Introducing advanced strategic
techniques
Improving refutation skills
The Forensics Files
Sources where evidence can be found
Online Books and Journals
Books and Journals in print
Think Tanks Websites
RAND Corporation, Brookings Institution, CATO,
Heritage Foundation, etc.
Subscription Services
LexisNexis, Westlaw, Questia
Internet search engines

Google, Yahoo, Ask.com, etc.
More sources
The Forensics Files
What cards to cut
Cutting refers to picking a selection
from an article or book
Each card should include a claim and
a warrant, not just a claim
Each card that you cut should support
an argument you will be making (e.g.
uniqueness, link, impact,
arguments etc.)
The Forensics Files
When cards are not needed
While judges strongly prefer for arguments to be
supported with external evidence there are some
instances when analytical arguments
(arguments made without a card) is very
acceptable
When pointing out flaws in the other teams evidence

When weighing impacts
When weighing arguments
When making theory arguments (theory arguments
concern how the methods a team engages in would
theoretically affect the quality of debate if they were
accepted - these will be discussed more later)
The Forensics Files
When cards are always needed
When arguing about state the status quo
For example, the current state of the economy,
the current state of a bill in Congress, etc.
When what you are arguing is outside of the

realm of common experience or when
experts would be needed
For example, arguing about the complexities of
how Russia views US foreign policy is something
that an expert would need to help the judge
understand the argument
The Forensics Files
The best cards are
From an author that has qualifications
relevant to the argument he or she is
making
For example, a geologist would be better to
support arguments about geology than would a
high school math teacher
Another example, a person with a degree in
foreign relations would be more qualified than a
person with a degree in mathematics to support
an argument about US relations with China
The Forensics Files
The best cards are
From publications that are peer-reviewed
Peer review is a process by which other experts in the
field review the article and approve it for publication
For example, a foreign policy publication that is peer reviewed
will have articles by foreign policy experts that are reviewed by
other foreign policy experts that approve the validity of the
article before it is published
Some publications are peer-reviewed while others are

not
For example, blogs (online journals) by experts are not peer
reviewed and thus, an article from a peer reviewed journal has
more experts validating the argument than does argument
from an experts online journal
The Forensics Files
The best cards are
From more recent publications
For example, if you are researching the current state
of the US economy, it is best to find evidence that is
recent (from that past couple months) rather than
from older sources (from several years ago)
The benefit of recency of evidence is relative to the
arguments being made
For instance, more recent evidence would be needed
when arguing the current state of the economy than it
would need to be if you are arguing what has
historically happened when economies are weakened.
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Why does it matter?
If you do not refute the other teams evidence,
then the evidence is considered dropped
This means that the judge will presume that
you have no valid response to the argument
and will accept the evidence as true for the
remainder of the debate
This could make the difference between
winning and losing, depending on how
relevant the evidence is
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
The arguments you can make against cards
generally fall into two categories
Evaluative - Arguments that the other teams cards
are invalid and shouldnt be considered, even though
your team has not provided evidence on the
argument. These arguments evaluate the other
teams cards based on those cards own merits.
Comparative - Arguments that your teams cards are
better than the other teams cards. These
arguments compare your evidence with the other
teams evidence and attempt to convince the judge
that your evidence should be given more weight.
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Evaluative vs. Comparative Arguments
It is important to remember that, since
evaluative and comparative arguments are
arguments they must consist of both a claim
AND a warrant
Evaluative and comparative arguments can
both be made against the same card when you
also have evidence against the argument the
other team is making
However, only comparative argument can be
made only when you present evidence against
the argument the other team is making
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Evaluative Arguments
Arguments that the other teams cards should
not be considered because the cards are
lacking an essential component
Remember that the essential components of a
card include a tag, a cite, and a quote, and that
the quote should include a claim AND a warrant
Thus, if the evidence is missing any of these
essential components (tag, cite, or a quote with
EITHER a claim OR a warrant) then you can
make an evaluative argument based on the fact
that it is missing that component
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Evaluative Arguments
Remember that evaluative arguments
are arguments and thus, it must contain
a claim AND a warrant
An example of an evaluative argument is
as follows:
Their evidence that the US economy is
doing well now is missing a warrant. (your
claim) The evidence only says the US
economy is doing well, but does not state
why (your warrant).
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
The above example meets the requirement of an
argument because it has both a claim and a
warrant
However, what helps to distinguish between a
good argument and a bad argument is that a
good argument will tell the judge why the
argument itself matters - a statement of
relevance.
In other words, why should the judge care about
the argument you just made? What does it
suggest about the other teams argument or
evidence?
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
The following argument does not tell the judge what the
relevance of the argument is
Their evidence that the US economy is doing well now is
missing a warrant. (your claim) The evidence only says the US

economy is doing well, but does not state why (your
warrant).
Why should the judge care that the other teams evidence
is missing a warrant?
A better version of the argument made above would be
Their evidence that the US economy is doing well now is
missing a warrant. (your claim) The evidence only says the US
economy is doing well, but does not state why (your warrant).
This means that they give you no reason why the economy is
doing well, and thus you have no reason to believe that their
argument is true. (your relevance statement).
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Types of Evaluative Arguments
The other teams card has no warrant
The other teams card has no claim
The other teams card has no cite
The other teams card has no tag
The other teams tag does accurately
characterize what the quote is arguing
The other team does not read the quote
The other teams card is vague
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
No Warrant
Why does it matter that the other teams card
has no warrant?
Remember that a warrant is (1) an essential
component of an argument and (2) it is the
component that tells the judge WHY the claim is
true
Take the following quote for example: The Dallas
Cowboys are the best football team.
This quote lacks a warrant because it does not give
a reason why the Dallas Cowboys are the best
football team.
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
No Warrant
has no warrant?
If the quote has no warrant than it is NOT an
argument, it is simply a claim, and since debate is
about argumentation, there is no reason that anyone
should have to argue against a simple claim
If the quote has no warrant than the quote gives the
judge no reason to believe that the claim is true. If
the quote has no reason to believe the claim is true,
then why should the judge believe it?
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
No Claim
has no claim?
You should argue that the other teams card that has
no claim should not be considered because the author
may be providing warrants for another claim
For example, if a card only states the following: This is
true because Abraham Lincoln was the most honest
president but does not state what the argument is
trying to claim (i.e. what is true because Lincoln was
the most honest president?) then the evidence is taken
out of context of what the author was truly attempting
to argue and may not be what the other team is saying
the author is trying to argue
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
No Cite
Why does it matter?
If the evidence has no cite, then this
means that it is a quote that could be
from anyone written at anytime
This means that the author may not be
qualified or that the evidence could be
from decades ago
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
No Cite
What if the evidence is missing only part of the
a cite (e.g. the authors name, the date, the
publication name, etc.)?
It is sometimes okay for the publication name to
replace the authors name
For example, citing the New York Times instead of the
author is legitimate most of the time, but usually only
when the authors name is not given in the article
For cards missing dates, you should argue that your

evidence should be preference because it specifies a
date (however, keep in mind that this is stronger as a
comparative argument)
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
No Cite
What if the evidence is missing only part of the
cite?
For cards missing other important information in the
cite, you should argue the evidence should not be
considered for any or all of the following reasons
Cites are needed to verify the evidence as a way to
ensure the academic integrity of debate
Full cites enable other teams to retrieve the evidence
providing all teams with fair access to evidence
Cites provide credit to the authors and publications that
produced the article or book. Failing to provide them
with the full credit they deserve is, in a way,
disrespecting their intellectual contribution
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
No Tag
Why does it matter?
The tag of a card is the teams interpretation of what a
card says - without a tag, the team is not interpreting
the evidence for the other team or the judge
This also means that the other team is not telling the
judge why the card matters
The tag helps to explain to the judge why the team is
reading the card and what argument the card is making
You could argue that evidence without tags read are
misleading because of the reasons above (that other
team is not interpreting the evidence or that they are
not telling the judge why the evidence theyre reading
matters
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
The other teams tag does not accurately
state what the quote is saying
Can you see what is wrong with the tag
following card
The US economy is doing well. The
Forensics Files Reporter Jan 1, 2008.
Frances economy has been strengthened by
the recent surge in consumer spending.
The tag is talking about the US economy but
the quote is talking about Frances economy
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
The other teams tag does not
accurately state what the quote is
saying
Why does it matter?
Believe it or not, this (along with cards lacking a
warrant) is probably the most common mistake in
presenting evidence
If the evidence does not say what the other team
says it is saying, then the judge has no reason to
believe the argument the other team is using the
evidence to support
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
The other team does not read the quote
Why does it matter?
Reading the quote of the card, instead of only reading the
tag and the cite, is important because the text of the quote
is what contains the analyses and arguments being made
If the other team reads a tag and a cite, but not the quote,
then what are they citing? They have not read anything in
the debate to cite if they do not read the quote
If the other team does not read the quote, then the judge
has no reason to believe that the tag of the evidence is an
accurate reflection of what the author is really arguing
Also keep in mind that if there is no quote read, and if the
quote contains the claim and the warrant, then the tag and
the cite provides no claim or warrant supported by evidence
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Vagueness
The text of other teams evidence may be
much vaguer than the tag of the
evidence
Can you see what is vague about the
following evidence?
The US economy is doing well. The
France Reporter, Jan 1, 2008. The national
economy is strengthening as consumers are
purchasing more products and businesses are
investing more in new technologies.
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Vagueness
The tag of the card is the US economy is doing well
The cite of the card is from the France Reporter
The quote of the card talks about the national
economy
Does this say the U.S. economy? No.
What nations economy is the card talking about?
The card is so vague that we dont know what nations
economy the evidence is talking about and thus the card
is not necessarily talking about the US economy.
Since the quote is from the France Reporter, we can
guess that the nation that the quote is referencing the
Frances national economy rather than the US economy
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Vagueness
Why does it matter?
If the evidence is so vague, then there is no
way the negative can reasonably be
expected to respond to it
If the evidence is vague, the card may not
be arguing what the tag says the card is
arguing
If the judge cant determine what the
evidence is even talking about, then theres
no reason the judge should consider it
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Evaluative Arguments - arguments that the
other teams evidence should not be
considered because it lacks an essential
component, even though your team reads no
evidence on the issue. For example
No cite
No tag
Wrong tag
No claim
No warrant
No quote
Vagueness
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
The strength of evaluative arguments
Remember that evaluative arguments against the
other teams evidence are made when your team
reads no evidence
There may be many reasons you dont read
evidence to contradict what the other team is
arguing
You may not have heard the other teams argument before
You may have left your evidence at home
You may have failed to or did not have enough time to prepare
adequately for the tournament
You may not be able to find the right cards soon enough
You may not have enough time to read all of the cards you
want to in the time allotted for your speech
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
The strength of evaluative arguments
Those situations occur more than you
might think
Many debaters in this situation just give up
Evaluative arguments help you to chip
away at the other teams cards to where
they have no argument left, even when you
dont have any evidence of your own!
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Comparative Arguments
Comparative arguments can be made
when you DO read cards that
contradict cards read by the other
team
They are called comparative because
you are comparing your cards to the
other teams cards
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Remember that the best cards
Is peer reviewed
Is from qualified authors
Have at least one, if not more, warrants
Are more recent
Refute the other teams cards warrants
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Peer review - if your card is from a peer
reviewed publication and the other
teams card is from an experts online
blog, you should argue that your evidence
is more credible because it has been
reviewed by a community of experts
where the other teams card is just one
expert writing his or her thoughts
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Qualified Authors - Point out if your card is
from an author that is more qualified than the
author of the other teams card
For example, if the other teams cards author
is a high school math teacher and your
evidence is from a geologist with a doctorates
degree and 20 years of experience and if the
debate is about the geological state of the
earth, your author would be more qualified.
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Have at least one, if not more, warrants
The more warrants your cards have the better
Remember that warrants are reasons that the
judge should believe your claim is true
If you have more reasons than the other team for
the judge to believe your argument, than the
judge is more likely to believe you
Keep in mind that quality is more important than
quantity, but if your card has 10 warrants and the
other team only has 1, pointing this out can be
persuasive to a judge
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
More recent
If your card is from a more recent date than the other teams
card, you should point this out if it is important to what the
debate is about
For example, if you are arguing about the current state of the
economy, you want cards that are more recent because they
will more accurately reflect the current state of the economy
An example of when dates dont matter is the following: You
have a card from 1802 that says, Gravity exists. What must
go up must come down, and the other team has a card from
yesterday that says, Gravity doesnt exist. Just because the
evidence is more recent, does not make it better.
Recency only really matters when it pertains to something
that changes frequently.
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Your card refutes the other teams warrants
For example, the other teams card may say The
economy is strong because consumer spending
has increased substantially.
Your card may say
The economy is weak because interest rates are
increasing and while consumer spending has
increased substantially, it has been limited to
sales of electronics and thus has not had a big
effect on the overall economy.
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Your card refutes the other teams warrants
In the above example, your evidence is better
because it
Gives a counter-warrant - that interest rates are
increasing and this is hurting the economy
And because it refutes the other teams cards
warrant - it refutes the warrant that the economy is
doing well because of increased consumer
spending because it says that this consumer
spending has been very limited and has not had a
big effect on the economy
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Compare your cards with the other
teams cards. Examples are
Peer review
A more qualified author
A more recent publication date
More warrants
Your cards warrants refutes the other
teams cards warrants
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Remember that when you read a
card as a response to the other
teams card you can make both
evaluative AND comparative
arguments
The Forensics Files
Refuting Evidence
Like all other skills in debate, being
able to refute and compare cards takes
much practice
However, responding to the other
teams evidence is a skill that can, in
almost every single high school policy
debate round, make the difference
between winning and losing the debate
The Forensics Files
Judge Adaptation
Remember that the judge has the final say
on who wins and loses the debate regardless
of whether or not you think you should have
won
Many debaters forget that winning or losing
a debate does not have much to to do with
right or wrong, but rather whether you
persuade the judge that youre right
Thus, winning in debate only means
getting the judge to vote for you, not
whether or not you were right
The Forensics Files
Judge Adaptation
Unfortunately, not all judges think alike
Remember that judges can be anyone from the
best debater currently alive to someone that
barely speaks English that has never seen a
debate before
Debaters that consistently fail to do well will
frequently blame the judge for not understanding
their arguments
Debaters that consistently do well know how to
read the judge and adapt their strategy and
communication style to what the judge wants
and/or understands
The Forensics Files

Many students just starting debate
have difficulty knowing what is
important to write down and how
much of what is said to write down
It is practically impossible to write
down every word said in a debate,
especially because policy debaters
tend to speak rapidly
The Forensics Files

Thus, many debater develop their
own set of symbols that are used
for frequently used words or a
method of shortening words so
that more can be written down
more quickly
The Forensics Files

Some words and their respective symbols that are
frequently used in policy debate include
Topicality
Harms (H)
Inherency
Solvency
Vote
(V)
Counterplan
Kritik
(K)
Uniqueness
Link
(L)
(T)
(I)
(S)
CP
(U)
Impact Imp
Alternative
Framework
Increase
Decrease
Causes
Overview
Alt
FW
OV
The Forensics Files

For words that dont have a designated
symbol, some debaters will take out the
vowels of the words
For example, instead of today the
shorthand would be tdy
Remember that the 2 most important

things about your system of shorthand
or writing in symbols are:
1) That you understand what you are writing
2) That your system works for you
The Forensics Files

Another important flowing skill to learn is to know
what parts of the arguments to write down
You want to write down all arguments of course,
to help remind you of what arguments were made
by the other team so that you dont drop them
For carded arguments, you want to get down the
tag, the author and the date of the cite, and the
warrant in the quote, if possible
For analytical arguments (arguments without
cards), you want to write down the claim and the
warrant and why the other team is arguing the
argument is important
The Forensics Files

Now that you know what to flow and
what to write down, the next important
flowing skill is knowing when to flow
Clearly, you want to flow your teams
arguments and the other teams
arguments
But if you cant flow while youre giving
a speech, when do you write down your
arguments?
The Forensics Files

The answer to the above question changes
depending on which speech you are giving and
which side you are debating
For the most part, you want to flow your
arguments before you give your speech
For the 1AC this means either flowing before
the round or making a preflow
A preflow is either a typed-up or photocopied
flow of your 1AC. This way you can make as
many copies as you need before the debate
round so that you dont have to flow your 1AC
The Forensics Files

For the 2AC, you will need to write down the
arguments you will make for arguments that
you do not have blocks to
Blocks are a list responses to a particular
argument written before debate tournaments
in anticipation that other teams will make the
argument
If you do not have a 2AC block for a position
argued by the negative, then you will need to
prepare your responses on your flow during
your prep time or during the CX of the 1NC
The Forensics Files

For the positions that you do have 2AC
blocks to, then you will not want to spend
prep time writing down all the arguments
on your 2AC block for a couple reasons
First, you may not have enough time to read
all of the arguments in your 2AC block in your
speech
Second, you may need to read only some
arguments on the block if not all of the
responses in the 2AC block are relevant to
the negatives specific arguments
The Forensics Files

Thus, if you are the 2A and you are giving a
2AC where you are using 2AC blocks, and
since you cannot flow while you are
speaking, this only leaves your partner the
1A to record the arguments you made in
your 2AC blocks
Since each debater on the affirmative
should have his or her own set of flows this
means that the 1A will have to fill the 2A on
the arguments the 2A made
The Forensics Files

This is called backflowing, when the 1A copies
down all the arguments made by the 2AC that the
1A has on the 1As flows
The 1A copies these arguments on to the 2As flows
while the 2A is being cross-examined by the 1N
You might be wondering, if the 2A has blocks for
some positions and does not have blocks for other
positions, and if this means that the 2A will need his
flows for his speech since he wrote his responses
down on his flows for positions he did not have
blocks for, then how can the 1A copy the arguments
on the 2As flows?
The Forensics Files

The 2A should hand his or her
flows to the 1A right after the 2AC
so that the 1A can immediately
begin backflowing for the 2AC
Or, the 2A can leave behind the
flows for the positions he has
blocks to with the 1A
The Forensics Files

For the 1AR, the 1A should write
down the arguments he will make
on his flows before the 1AR
Similarly, for the 2AR the 2A
should write down the arguments
he will make on his flows right
before the 2AR
The Forensics Files

While each affirmative debater should have her
own set of flows, this is not always true for the
negative team
It may be more efficient for the negative team to
have one set of flows
This is so because the negative should always
split the block. This means that the 2NC should
argue some positions and the 1NR should argue
the other positions. If the 2NC and 1NR are
arguing different positions, then they will each
only need the flows for the positions they are
arguing
The Forensics Files

For example, assume the following resolution:
Resolved: the US federal government should
increase its aid to Nigeria.
Assume further that there are 5 off case positions
2 Topicality positions (increase and its aid to
Nigeria, 2 Disads (Economy DA and Politics DA),
and 1 Counterplan (EU CP)
If the 2NC takes topicality increase, the
economy disad and and the EU counterplan, the
2NC should have the flows for those positions
Thus, the 1NR should have the flows for the
Politics DA and Topicality its aid to Nigeria
The Forensics Files

This means that the 2N should flow one set
of flows for the positions argued in the 1NC
After the 1NC the 2N should give the 1N
the pieces of paper (the flows) that the
1NR will argue and the 2N should keep the
flows that the 2NC will argue
Why does this make sense if the 2N will
miss the 2AC arguments made on the flows
the 1N has and if the 1N will miss the 2AC
arguments on the flows the 2N has?
The Forensics Files

The 2N should only flow the 2AC
arguments on the flows that the 2N
has. This is because the 2N will only
be responding to these arguments,
because the 1NR will respond to the
2AC arguments on the other positions
The 1N should only flow the 2AC
arguments on the flow the 1N has
The Forensics Files

This is so that the 2N can start preparing
the 2NCs responses to the 2AC arguments
on the positions the 2NC will take and will
not have to listen to the arguments the 2AC
will make on the positions the 1NR will take
Similarly, the 1N can start preparing
arguments to respond to the 2AC
arguments when the 2AC is arguing against
positions the 2N will take in the 2NC
The Forensics Files

The 1NR is the 1Ns last speech so the
1N will generally not need to know the
2AC arguments made on positions the
2NC will take
The 2N, however, will need to know the
arguments made against positions the
1NR will take because the 2N still has
another speech after the negative
block: the 2NR.
The Forensics Files

This means that the 1N will have to backflow
the 2AC arguments made on the positions the
1NR will take on a separate sheet of paper for
the 2N to have for the rest of the speech
The 1NR should flow his responses to the 2AC
arguments on the positions the 1NR will take
on ONLY the 1Ns flows
The 2N will be able to flow the 1NRs
responses to the 2AC arguments on the
positions the 1NR will take on the blackflows
the 1N made for the 2N
The Forensics Files

The 2N should then write down the
arguments he will make during the
2NR using the flows the positions
2N used during the 2NC and also
write down the arguments he will
make in the 2NR on the backflows
the 1NR made
The Forensics Files

Flowing on a Laptop
Advantages
Some people can type faster than they can handwrite
You wont lose your flows among all your evidence
Backflowing is easier with a simple transferring of the file over
to your partners laptop
No need to worry about not being able to read your own
handwriting
Disadvantages
Computers can shut down or crash in the middle of a debate
Use of computers are sometimes the focus of methodological
kritiks
It may be more difficult for some to read flows off of the
computer and maintain eye contact with the judge
The Forensics Files
When
Duties of the Affirmative Speakers (1A, 2A)
1AC
Give the 1AC
Flow the 1AC
CX of the 1AC
Answer Questions
Prep before 1NC
1NC
Flow the 1NC
Flow the 1NC
CX of the 1NC
Ask the 1N questions
Prepare for the 2AC
Prep before 2AC
Help the 2A prep
Prepare for the 2AC
2AC
Flow the 2AC
Give the 2AC
CX of the 2AC
Backflow on the 2As flows
Answer questions
Prep before 2NC
Backflow on the 2As flows
Help the 1A finish backflowing
2NC
Flow the 2NC
Flow the 2NC
CX of the 2NC
Prepare for 1AR
Ask the 2N questions
Prep before 1NR
Prepare for 1AR
Help 1A prepare
1NR
Flow the 1NR
Flow the 1NR
Prep before 1AR
Prepare for the 1AR
Help the 1AR prepare
1AR
Give the 1AR
Flow the 1AR
Prep before 2NR
Help the 2AR prepare for 2AR
Prepare for 2AR based on 1AR
2NR
Flow the 2NR
Flow the 2NR
Prep Before 2AR
Help 2A prepare
Prepare for 2AR
2AR
Give 2AR
When
Duties of the Negative Speakers (1N, 2N)
1AC
Flow the 1AC
Flow the 1AC
CX of the 1AC
Prepare for 1NC
Ask 1A questions
Prep before 1NC
Prepare for 1NC
Help 1NC prepare
1NC
Give the 1NC
Flow the 1NC
CX of the 1NC
Answer questions
Prep before 2AC
Divide flows w/2N
Divide flows w/1N
2AC
Flow the 2AC on your

positions / Prepare your
responses while the 2AC is
answering 2Ns positions
Flow the 2AC on your positions

/ Prepare your resposes while
the 2AC is answering 1Ns
positions
CX of the 2AC
Ask questions
Prepare for 2NC
Prep before 2NC
Backflow 2AC arguments on

your positions for the 2N /
Prepare 1NR
Prepare 2NC
2NC
Prepare for 1NR
Give the 2NC
CX of the 2NC
Prepare for 1NR
Answer questions
Prep before 1NR
Prepare 1NR / Give 2N

backflows
Help 1N prepare
1NR
Give the 1NR
Flow the 1NR on the backflows
Prep before 1AR
Start thinking about 2NR

choice
1AR
Flow the 1AR
Prep before 2NR
Help 2N prepare for 2NR
Prepare for 2NR based on 1AR
1AC Strategy
The 1AC is the first speech of the
debate and will usually frame the rest of
the debate since the negative team will
have to respond in some way to the 1AC
This means that you should start out
strong so that you are not trying to
catch up with the negative after the
1NC
The Forensics Files
1AC Strategy
Remember that you will need to
adapt to a wide variety of judges,
this means your 1AC should appeal
to a wide variety of people
This means making your
arguments both appeal to many
people and making them
understandable
The Forensics Files
1AC Strategy
For more traditional regions of the country or more
traditional debate organizations, the 1AC should clearly
set out the stock issues: harms, inherency, plan and
solvency
The 1AC should always have clearly identifiable
advantages - advantages are the reasons why the plan
is a good idea (and thus reasons why the resolution is
true and, ultimately reasons why you should win) so
you want the judge to be clear on these
Organizing these advantage areas into contentions
or grouping the arguments together in a section of the
1AC is a good way to make the advantages of the 1AC
stand out
The Forensics Files
1AC Strategy
You want your advantages to have big impacts this means that passing your plan is a VERY good
idea instead of just an OK idea
For example, big impacts are mass death and
suffering, nuclear war, environmental destruction,
genocide, poverty, violations of freedom, human
extinction, etc.
Examples of small impacts are: (1) the economy
will be weakened, (2) people will feel sad, (3) plan
will cost money, etc.
You want to show that your plan would be a vast
improvement over the status quo
The Forensics Files
1AC Strategy
The more and bigger advantages
you have the better off you will be
It becomes easier to outweigh
disadvantages
It becomes less likely the negative
will answer all of them effectively
You have more reasons for the judge
to vote for you
The Forensics Files
1AC Strategy
Good impacts have the following 3 qualities
Quick Timeframe - this means that probabilistic harms
will occur sometime in the near future
Large Magnitude - this means arguing that the number
of people affected is and will be very large
High Probability - this means that it is very likely that
your impacts will occur
Remember that arguments with cards are more

persuasive than analytical arguments when it
comes to impacts - this means you should try to
find evidence that addresses these three qualities
for EACH advantage of the 1AC if possible
The Forensics Files
1AC Strategy
When it comes to advantages, think
outside the box
Take the Nigeria topic for example:
If your plan is to give $10 billion to Nigeria to
help it develop its farming communities,
some of the more obvious advantages would
be providing economic support to Nigeria,
helping fight food shortages, etc.
However, to win this advantage, the 1AC will
have to show how giving aid will be used
effectively by the Nigerian government.
The Forensics Files
1AC Strategy
Creative Advantages
A creative advantage would be arguing that,
even if Nigeria did not use the money as it is
supposed to and thus no advantage from
economically supporting Nigeria or helping
fight its food shortages, the US would look
like a humanistic world leader in the eyes of
other nations.
This advantages does not rely on Nigeria using the
money, but rather is garnered simply by the US
giving aid to Nigeria.
The Forensics Files
1AC Strategy
In addition to strong advantages. A
good 1AC will preempt (presume and
argue against) certain negative
arguments that will be made against
the case.
For example, assuming the Nigeria topic
again, it is predictable that a negative
team might argue that giving $10 billion
away might hurt the US economy
The Forensics Files
1AC Strategy
An affirmative case that preempted this US
economy argument would include some sort of a
way to refute the argument within the 1AC
For example, assume that the 1AC inherency
argument is simply, The US is not giving aid to
Nigeria now.
This claim only makes an inherency claim for the
1AC, but it does nothing more.
How could this argument be expanded upon to
make it preempt the negatives predictable
argument that giving aid to other countries will
hurt the US economy?
The Forensics Files
1AC Strategy
Assume the inherency claim was instead,
While the US is currently giving aid to many
countries, it has failed to give adequate aid
to Nigeria.
This also makes the inherency argument, but
it goes a step further and adds the claim
that the US is giving aid to many other
countries.
How does this preempt the negatives
argument that giving aid will hurt the US
economy?
The Forensics Files
1AC Strategy
Remember that negative disadvantages must
have a uniqueness argument - the uniqueness
argument for the economy disadvantage would
be that the US economy is doing well now
If the US is giving aid to other countries aside
from Nigeria, and if the economy is doing well
then the negatives argument that giving aid to
other countries will hurt the US economy is
weakened because the US is giving aid to other
countries now and the US economy is doing
well now
The Forensics Files
1AC Strategy
Thus a strong 1AC will have:
Several advantages with big impacts
Creative advantages with big impacts
Arguments that preempt predictable
negative arguments
The Forensics Files
1AC Strategy
Choosing a case area
Usually a topic will have several case areas
Take the following topic for example: Resolved:
The United States federal government should
increase its financial support for technological
development.
Since the word technological is broad it
would include many case areas such as energy
technology, health technology, space-related
technology, computer-based technology, etc.
The Forensics Files
1AC Strategy
Choosing a topic area
You may want to choose a case area
that:
Many other teams are not choosing because the more teams that argue a
specific case area, the more responses and
evidence against that case area there will be
Allows for creative advantages and big
impacts
Interests you
The Forensics Files
1AC Strategy
As the year goes on, many cases will have been
debated several times and by many teams and other
teams will be better at refuting them
Or your first case idea may not be successful
Changing your case area may be strategic if you put
the work into researching evidence and writing blocks
for the case - however, frequently changing your case
can hurt you in debates if you are not familiar with
your new case or have not done enough work on it
Choosing a new a case may be strategic if you have a
judge that you think would really like your old case so
that you can switch your cases as a judge adaptation
strategy
The Forensics Files
1AC Strategy
What is fiat?
The resolution asks the question what the US federal
government should do, not necessarily what the
government would do
This means, the affirmative only has to prove that the US
federal government should pass its plan, not that the US
federal government would pass its plan
Fiat is a word that is frequently used to refer to the
assumption that if the judges votes for the affirmative team,
the plan would be passed - that way way both teams could
debate the policy as it would be enacted in the real world
However, this clearly does not mean that the if the
affirmative wins the US federal government will pass the
plan
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
The 1NC is the first negative speech and
establishes the main negative positions for
the rest of the debate
As you have learned, there are 4 main types
of negative positions (topicality,
disadvantages, counterplans and kritiks) and
arguments that can be made against the
case
On the negative, your arguments should be
as consistent as possible
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
If your arguments are inconsistent
You may look foolish to the judge and
You may lose because your arguments dont
make sense together
It is important to always keep in mind that

just because your positions are on separate
pieces of paper (on different flows) all of
the arguments are being made in the same
debate round and all of the arguments will
thus interrelate, regardless of what sheet of
paper the argument appears on
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Thus, what you argue on one position may
affect what you argue on another position
It is therefore important that your main
positions and arguments fit well together
A negative strategy or neg strat is the
combination of negative positions run in the
1NC
In the Nigeria example above, the 1NC
strategy was Topicality Increase, Topicality
Its Aid to Nigeria, Economy Disadvantages,
Politics Disadvantage, and the EU Counterplan
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
A strong negative strategy will
Respond, in some way, to the 1AC case
advantages - through direct refutation
of the case and/or with a counterplan
that solves all or part of the case
advantages
Present reasons why the policy or
mindset of the 1AC is disadvantageous
with a disad or a kritik
Not be inconsistent
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Case Arguments
Since many teams run kritiks and
counterplans which address the need to
respond to the affirmative case without
actually arguing the affirmative case, teams
are generally more prepared to answer
kritiks and counterplans than they are
prepare to defend their own case!
Thus case arguments are generally a very
good way to defeat an affirmative team
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Counterplans
When a negative team argues a counterplan in the
1NC, the counterplan must always have a net
benefit (a reason why the counterplan is better
than the plan)
The most effective way to prove a net benefit is to
run a disadvantage that links to the affirmative
plan that does not link to the negative counterplan
For example, the EU counterplan would not link to
the US economy disadvantage because the US
government would not be involved as it would be
in the affirmative plan
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Type of Counterplans
There are many different types of counterplans. For
example, there are:
Timeframe CPs - counterplans that mirror the plan exactly, except the
counterplan pass the policy at some specified future date
Consult CPs - the counterplan has the US federal government consult another
agent (E.U., U.N., NATO, etc.) about implementing the policy - it the other agent
approves the CP will pass the policy, if the other agent disapproves the CP will
not pass the policy
Topical CPs - the counterplan meets all words and phrases of the resolution
Plan Inclusive CPs (aka PICs)- the counterplan does all or part of the affirmative
plan
Alternate Agent CPs - another actor aside from the agent in the plan takes the
same action as the plan text (e.g. in a Congress CP Congress would act instead
of the President if the plan so specified)
International CPs - counterplans that have a foreign government or agent acting
(e.g. the European Union, the United Nations, NATO etc.)
International CPs are also Alternate Agent CPs and PICs - can you see why?
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Counterplan Theory
Counterplans are probably the negative
positions that are the most open to theory
arguments
Remember that theory arguments are
arguments about what the consequences of
permitting a certain practice in debate would
have on the activity as a whole
For example, what consequences for the debate
activity would result if negative teams were
permitted to run international counterplans?
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Counterplan Theory
Timeframe CPs - Sample Theory Arguments
Pro: Timeframe counterplans may be beneficial
for debate because they force the affirmative to
defend that its policy would be good to implement
today and that there would not be some benefit
to delaying the plan for a while
Con: Timeframe counterplans are unfair because
the resolution does not mandate the affirmative
team to defend passing the policy now. Thus, the
negative would be imposing an unfair burden
because the resolution says nothing about now
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Counterplan Theory
Consult CPs - Sample Theory Arguments
Pro: Consult counterplans allow the negative to test
whether the US federal government should pass the
policy or if the US federal government should only
pass the policy with consent of another entity.
Con: Consultation CPs are unpredictable because
they CP could consult any person or governmental
agency, which there are many of. Theres no reason
the affirmative should be expected to against all of
these possible consultants.
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Counterplan Theory
Topical CPs - Sample Theory Arguments
Pro: Topical counterplans help to find the best
policy option. If the affirmative plan is a bad
idea, and if the negative proposes a better
idea the negative should win
Con: Topical counterplans prove the resolution
true. If the counterplan is topical, and if the
counterplan is a good idea, then the US
federal government should do the
counterplan, then the resolution is true and
should be affirmed
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Counterplan Theory
Plan Inclusive CPs (PICs) - Sample Theory
Arguments
Pro: PICs permit the negative to test the
affirmatives advocacy and if the affirmative
cannot defend its entire advocacy it should lose
Con: PICs are unfair because they take the
affirmative's offensive arguments away (e.g.
advantages) and leave the affirmative with little
ground to argue
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Counterplan Theory
International CPs - Sample Theory
Arguments
Pro: Debate over international actors increases
education about foreign policy and foreign
governing bodies. Limiting to domestic agents
limits education
Con: There are many international actors that
could potentially implement a similar policy to the
affirmatives policy and this makes these types of
counterplans unpredictable.
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Counterplan Theory
In addition to the types of counterplans that can
be argued (international, plan-inclusive, etc.)
there are different statuses of counterplans
Generally, a team can drop any one of the
arguments it makes without any penalty
However, for counterplans, there are 3 generally
recognized statuses, or set of circumstances
under which the negative can drop its
counterplan
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Counterplan Theory
Counterplans have statutes because they are, arguably
different than other positions because they introduce a
new policy to be considered
Typically, when counterplans are not argued, the only
debate is whether the plan or the status quo is better
from a policy stand-point
When counterplans are argued, arguments have to be
made about whether the plan or the status quo is better,
whether the status quo or the counterplan is better, AND
whether the plan or counterplan is better
Thus, all disadvantages and case arguments must be
argued in terms of those three comparisons (plan vs.
CP, CP vs SQ, SQ v. Plan)
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Counterplan Theory
Thus, the three statuses of CPs are
Conditional
Dispositional
Unconditional
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Counterplan Theory
Conditional CPs can be kicked or dropped
for any reason or for no reason
Pro: Conditional counterplans are not really
different from any other position and the negative
has the right to drop the position if it wants
Con: Conditional CPs create multiple worlds (plan
vs. CP vs. SQ) that the affirmative must argue
against and this hurts the affirmatives ability to
refute the negative positions effectively
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Counterplan Theory
Dispositional CPs - the negative can drop a
dispositional CP unless the affirmative only
makes substantive arguments against the
CP (e.g. argues that the CP has
disadvantages, does not solve for the
case, etc.) but if the affirmative makes
theory arguments then the negative can
kick the CP at any time (like a conditional
CP)
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Counterplan Theory
Dispositional CPs
Pro: Dispositional CPs give the affirmative the
strategic choice about whether to stick the
negative with the CP or to choose for the CP
to be conditional
Con: Dispositional CPs are really just
conditional CPs because testing the
theoretical legitimacy of the CP is an
essential affirmative argument and any smart
affirmative would challenge an illegitimate CP
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Counterplan Theory
Unconditional CPs - the negative team
can under no circumstance support
the status quo after running the CP
Since unconditional CPs do not create
multiple worlds as do dispositional and
conditional CPs the standard objections to
those types of CPs dont necessarily
apply
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Counterplan Theory
Usually CP statuses do not usually
come up until the affirmative team
asks the negative team what the
status of the CP is after the 1NC
If the affirmative team does not ask,
then the negative can choose at a
later point what the status of the CP
is, if the issue arises
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
A good negative strategy therefore
will
Be consistent
Have disadvantages or kritiks that
outweigh the affirmative advantages
Will respond to the case in some way
Be well adapted to address theoretical
objections to the counterplan, if one is
argued
The Forensics Files
1NC Strategy
Prep Time before the 1NC
Every word the 1AC says will give you some clue
about what case the affirmative is supporting
You want to think of neg strats to cases during
practice so that when you get into a debate, you
can quickly assemble your neg strat during the 1AC
and the cross-examination of the 1AC
You really should only take prep time before the
1NC if you have never heard the case before and
have no generic positions that would apply
If so, you should think of creative ways to argue against the
case during your prep time
Never give up in this situation
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
The main goals of the 2AC are
To extend and defend the 1AC
To refute the positions read by the
1NC
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Extending the 1AC
The 2AC is the first speech in which an argument should
and can be extended
An extension is generally restating the argument (both
the claim and the warrant) from the previous speech
given by your team
However, if certain parts of the 1AC (e.g. the
contentions) are conceded, extending the claim and the
warrant of each card may seem excessive to a judge
Simply saying extend the first advantage, with the
impact of may be sufficient
When certain parts of the 1AC is refuted by the 1NC the
2AC should extend the claim and warrant of the card
read in the 1AC
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
To extend an argument, for example, you
need to extend the claim and the warrant,
simply extending the authors name is not
sufficient
If your evidence is: The economy is weak.
The Financial News, Jan 1, 2008 The
economy is weak because interest rates are
increasing and while consumer spending has
increased substantially, it has been limited
to sales of electronics and thus has not had a
big effect on the overall economy.
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
A valid extension of the above card
would be:
Extend the Financial News evidence,
the economy is weak because interest
rates are increasing.
This extension is good because it

identifies the argument by the
name of the publication, it extends
the claim and it extends the warrant
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Defending the 1AC
When the 1NC makes specific refutations of the
1AC case, the 2AC must respond to each and
every one of these arguments
When the 1NC reads the evidence, the 2A
should obtain it, read it, and develop responses
against this refutation
If the 2A can find a card that responds to the
1NC card, both evaluative arguments and
comparative arguments can be made in the 2AC
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
If the 2AC does not respond to all of the
1NC arguments on the case, then the 1NC
arguments are dropped and the judge will
most likely accept the arguments as true
This may mean that the 1AC could lose one,
if not all of its advantages
This would be problematic because
advantages are the affirmatives reasons
for the judge to vote for affirmative
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Responding to the 1NC Positions
The negative positions are reasons
the judge should vote negative
The responses the 2AC can make to
the negative positions fall into one of
three categories
Offense
Defense
Neither
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Offensive Arguments - offensive 2AC
arguments are ways the 2AC can make the
1NC positions reasons to vote affirmative
Defensive Arguments - defensive 2AC
arguments are arguments that seek to prove
that the 1NC positions are not reasons to vote
negative
Neither - these 2AC arguments are neither
offensive nor defensive because they do not
respond to any of the negative position (these
are arguments the 2AC should never make)
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
It is important to understand the
distinction between proving reasons to
vote affirmative and disproving the
reasons the negative team argues the
judge should vote negative
Just because the affirmative disproves
reasons the negative puts for voting
negative, does not mean these are
reasons for the judge to vote affirmative
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Thus, while offensive arguments
(reasons for the judge to vote
affirmative) are stronger than
defensive arguments (disproving
the negatives reasons for the
judge to vote negative) they are
both essential to an effective 2AC
strategy
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
The 2AC should make both offensive
arguments and defensive arguments
against all negative positions when
possible
Another way to think about offensive and
defensive arguments
Defensive arguments are generally a youre
wrong statement
Offensive arguments are more than this, it is
usually a not only are you wrong, but the
OPPOSITE of what you argue is true
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Refuting Topicality in the 2AC
Since topicality is an affirmative
burden (i.e. since the aff must prove
its plan proves the resolution true),
then generally arguments against
topicality can only be defensive
Remember that topicality consists of
4 main parts - an interpretation, a
violation, standards and voters
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
A good 2AC refuting topicality will make
arguments pertaining to all 4 parts
The arguments a 2AC can make on topicality
include the following:
Reasons why the 2AC meets the 1NC definition
(known as we meets)
Reasons why the 1NC definition is bad for debate
A counter-definition and reasons why the counterdefinition is good for debate
Reasons why the judge should not vote for the
topicality argument, even if the negative wins the
other 3 main parts
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Refuting Disads in the 2AC
Defensive Arguments - Remember that
defensive argument generally refute
the arguments the other team has
made with a youre wrong statement
Also remember that disadvantages
have 4 main parts: uniqueness, link,
impact, and weighing
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Defensive Arguments
Nonunique
No Link Can you understand why you
would not want to make some of
these arguments with other of these
arguments?
No Impact
Case Outweighs
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Offensive Argument
Link Turn
Impact Turn
Case Solves for the Impact
Caution: Some of these arguments
should not be made more later
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Defensive Arguments
Non-unique: the status quo is the opposite
of what the negative says it is
No link: argue that the plan does not cause
the disad impacts to happen
No impact: that the negative impact would
not occur even if the plan linked
Case Outweighs: the impact to the
disadvantage does not outweigh the
advantages
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Offensive Arguments
Link Turn: the plan actually has the opposite
effect of what the link argument says the plan
does
Impact Turn: the impact the negative claims is
really a good thing
Case solves for the impact: the plan claims an
advantage that has the same impact to it as the
negative disadvantage has
Caution: Can you understand why you would not
want to make some of these arguments with
other of these arguments?
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Link Turns on Disads
These arguments are special because
they are not offensive alone
However, link turns become offensive
when combined with a non-unique
argument
Can you see why?
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
If the negative wins its uniqueness argument
that the economy is strong now, and your link
turn is that plan makes the economy strong,
then since the economy is already strong, then
plan doesnt necessarily provide any new
benefit to society
It would be similar to arguing that the plan
fixes a problem that doesnt exist in the status
quo - this clearly doesnt make sense because
if there is no problem in the status quo to fix,
then plan cannot fix the problem!
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
However, when coupled with a non-unique
argument (e.g. the economy is weak now)
the link turn (e.g. the plan makes the
economy strong) makes more sense
Remember that offensive arguments are
defined as reasons why the judge should
vote for the affirmative
An example of a general offensive argument
would be a 1AC advantage, because the
advantage shows that the plan is a good idea and
that the resolution is thus true
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Thus, a link turn becomes offensive when you
prove that there IS a problem now (e.g. the
economy is weak now) that the plan can fix.
The non-unique argument turns a link turn into
an advantage for the affirmative
A link turn without a non-unique argument is
just a defensive argument because it is only
saying that the negatives teams link
argument is not true (e.g. that the negative is
wrong about the plan weakening the
economy)
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
You were warned above about making
certain offensive arguments on disads
together
If you make a link turn and an impact
turn, can you see why this is
problematic?
Can you see why also making an impact
turn and a case solves the impact
argument is problematic?
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Link Turns + Impact Turns = Double Turn
For example, if you argue that the plan helps the
economy and then you also argue that the a weak
economy is good, you are double turning or
arguing against yourself because, if it is true that a
weak economy is beneficial to society and plan
strengthens the economy, then the plan is
depriving society of a benefit
Double turning yourself is dangerous because your
are essentially arguing a disad against yourself
The same is true when arguing that the plan
solves the impact to a disadvantage
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Refuting Counterplans
Arguments against CPs are difficult to
classify as offensive or defensive because
this depends on the status of the CP
If the CP is conditional, then all nontheory arguments against the CP must be
defensive because they cannot be used
as reasons to vote affirmative if the
negative chooses to not go for the
counterplan
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Examples of Arguments Against CPs
CP does not solve for the case: these are
essentially solvency arguments against the CP and
why the CP cannot solve for the case advantages
No net benefit
1NC fails to argue a net benefit: the 1NC does not read a
disad or other argument that makes the CP a better
policy than the plan
CP links to the net benefit: the CP also links to the 1NC
disad that was supposed to be the reason why the CP is
better than the plan
CP links more to the net benefit: the CP is more likely to
cause the disad than the plan is
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Turn: the CP has other disadvantages that
the plan does not link to (e.g. an EU CP
having a European Economy disadvantage
that US action would not cause)
Theory: Reasons why the CP is an
illegitimate position to argue (e.g. the CP is
a PIC, is topical, etc.)
the 2AC is the first time the aff can and must
make theory arguments or otherwise waive the
right to make those arguments
Permutation: an argument that the plan and

the counterplan should be done together
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Permutations or Perms on CPs
The word permutation simply means
combination
A perm on a CP is a claim that the plan and
the CP can and should be done together
Perms are a way to test the CP to see if it is
really net beneficial
For example, if the topic is the Nigeria topic and
the CP is the EU counterplan for the EU to give aid
to Nigeria, and if the net benefit was an EU
leadership argument, a perm on this CP would be
to have the EU and the US act together
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
In the example perm above, the aff would
argue that the perm of having the US and EU
jointly increase aid to Nigeria would still be
able to have the net benefit of EU leadership
The aff may argue that the EU would look like
a world leader if it cooperated with the US on
such an issue
The neg may argue that the EU would look
like it was tagging along, and following the US
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
The question a permutation asks is
whether the net benefit would still
apply if the counterplan and plan
were done together
If so, then the CP is considered to not be
net beneficial
If not, then the CP has a legitimate net
benefit
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Refuting Kritiks
Defensive Arguments
No link, No impact, & Case Outweighs: these
arguments on kritiks are the the same as they are on
disads
No alternative: this defensive argument seeks to prove
that if the neg does not provide an alternative, then
the worldview the aff endorses is not improved by
voting for the negative and will still
Alternative does not solve: the arguments are similar
to arguments that a CP does not solve the case, except
they are made against the alternative; if the judge
votes for the alternative, this argument contends that
the affirmative harm will still exist
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Refuting Kritiks
Offensive Arguments
Link Turn, Impact Turn, Case solves the impact are all
the same types of arguments made on disadvantages
Turns to the Alternative - this argument is, like turns on
a CP, that the alternative has disadvantages that link
to the alternative but not to the plan
Perms on Kritiks: perms on kritiks are similar to perms
on CPs because they test the alternative to see if the
plan would cause the impacts of the kritik when the
alternative is endorsed along with the affirmative
policy
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
2AC Blocks
It was mentioned above that 2AC
blocks are list of prewritten
arguments that answer a negative
position
Why are 2AC blocks a good idea?
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Advantages of 2AC Blocks
Your arguments will be better articulated if you think and
write them out when you have plenty of time than if you
write them out under the time pressures in a debate
You will be able to discuss with your coach the strength
of the arguments on a block, but you cannot discuss
them with your coach before you make them in a debate
The combination of arguments you can make will be
more strategic if you think about how they interact
before you make them together in a debate (e.g. it will
help you to avoid double-turning yourself)
You can research and incorporate evidence into your
blocks that you may be unable to in the middle of a
debate
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
2AC Blocks - What goes in them?
You want to make the relevant offensive and
defensive arguments
You want a variety of arguments
For example, you dont want 6 no link arguments;
youd rather have 2 no links, a nonunique, 2 link
turns, and a case outweighs argument
You want to incorporate evidence into a

block
Click here for sample 2AC blocks
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Sometimes when a 2AC has adequately
extended and defended the case and refuted
1NC positions there will be time left over in the
speech
One big mistake that some 2As make is to read
new cards in the 2AC to reinforce arguments in
the case
This is a mistake because this generally
involves the 2AC reading cards that say the
exact same thing the 1AC has said, which is a
waste of time both for the 2AC and for the judge
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
2AC Add-Ons
Instead of reading cards that say the
same thing as the cards in the 1AC, the
2AC should read an add-on instead
An add-on advantage is a short 2-3
card advantage read in the 2AC
It should be a different advantage than
one that was read in the 2
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
2AC Add-Ons
Like 2AC blocks, 2AC add-ons are
prepared before the debate
A 2AC add-on should include a harms
argument, a solvency argument and
an impact
The best 2AC add-ons will be tailored
to the positions the negative argued
in the 1NC
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
2AC Add-ons
For example, if the 1NC argues a CP then a
strategic 2AC will read an add-on that the
CP cant solve for
This would help outweigh any net benefit to the
CP
Another example is when the other team

just runs disads and does not argue against
the case or argue a CP - add ons would
really help to outweigh the negative disads
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Thus, in the 2AC you want to
Extend your case
Defend your case
Refute the neg positions
With offensive arguments
With defensive arguments
The Forensics Files
2AC Strategy
Prep Time Before the 2AC
You always should have your blocks accessible during the
debate
When you hear the negative starting to read a new
position, think quickly about whether you have a block to
that argument already
If so, quickly pull the block and set it aside
If not, listen carefully to what the argument is and think
of and write down arguments against it on your flow
Pay some attention to CX, but focus mostly on preparing
your arguments against positions you dont have blocks to
Always remember to check your blocks and to make sure
they really respond to the positions read by the negative
The Forensics Files
Strategy for the Neg Block

In the neg block, the main goal is to split
the block effectively, extend refutations of
the aff case and to extend and defend the
positions read in the 1NC
Splitting the block is essential
The 2NC will usually not be able to respond
effectively to all 2AC arguments
If the 2NC addresses all positions, this leaves
the 1NR to just repeat the 2NC which is a
waste of 5 minutes of negative speech time
and may make the 1N look silly to a judge
The Forensics Files

Splitting the Block The 2N and the 1N should come to an
agreement about the positions that each will
usually take in all debate rounds (e.g. the 2N
will always take the economy disad and the
counterplan and the 1N will always take a
topicality argument and the case arguments)
This will give each negative debater a
specialization on the arguments they take
and each will become very good at arguing
those same positions
The Forensics Files

Splitting the Block Since the 1N will have more time to prepare
(the 8 minutes of the 2NC and the 3 minutes
of the CX of the 2NC) the 1N should consider
taking positions that you dont have 2NC/1NR
blocks for
This will generally be the case debate
Writing 2NC/1NR blocks for common

argument you hear against each position to
cut down on the amount of prep time you will
need to prepare for the 2NC and 1NR
The Forensics Files

Extending the 1NC positions
In the 2NC and 1NR, each debater will want
to extend the main parts of the positions
each argues in his speech
For example, if the 2NC takes a disad and a CP, the 2N
should extend the uniqueness, link, impact and
weighing arguments from the disad and the text, the
solvency argument and the net benefit argument from
the CP
If the 1NR takes topicality and case arguments, the 1N
should extend the interpretation, the violation, the
standards and the voters on topicality and the case
arguments individually
The Forensics Files

Extending the 1NC Positions
For 1NC positions that are frequently read
and extended into the block, teams
frequently write overviews or prewritten
out extensions of the positions they will
argue
This way, they can just read the overview
instead of finding the evidence and finding
the claim and warrant for each during prep
time
The Forensics Files

Choosing 1NC positions to not extend
Sometimes it will be more strategic for the neg
block to not argue a position
These circumstances arise when
The affirmative team is just right about the position and
it will be an uphill battle persuading the judge you are
right on the issue
The affirmative team spends a lot of time on position, but
not much time on other positions
If the 2AC made 35 arguments on topicality, and 2
arguments on the disad, 2 arguments on the CP and 2
arguments on the kritik, it may be wise just to not extend
topicality and spend the entire 13 minutes of the neg block
answering the 6 arguments on the disad, CP and kritik
The Forensics Files

Not extending a 1NC position is called dropping
the position if you just dont mention the argument
again
However, in some circumstances you will want to
mention the position you are not planning on
extending.
These circumstances exist when the 2AC makes offensive
arguments on a position
You do not want to drop offensive arguments made by the
2AC because these offensive arguments are reasons for the
judge to vote affirmative and, as the negative, you
generally do not want to just concede that the affirmative
has many reasons to for the judge to vote affirmative
The Forensics Files

Thus, if the 2AC makes offensive arguments
on a disad, CP or kritik you need to kick
the position if you do not want to extend it
into the negative block
Kicking the position is different from
dropping it in that you are mentioning the
position again when you kick it, when you
drop it you just dont mention the position
at all
The Forensics Files

Kicking a position is different from extending a
position even though you mention the position
both when you extend and when you kick it
Kicking is different from extending a position
because when you extend a position, you
extend your teams arguments, when you kick
the position, you extend the other teams
arguments
Why would you ever want to extend the other
teams arguments for them?
The Forensics Files

Assume the 1NC argued the following disad:
Uniqueness: the US economy is doing well
Link: Plan hurts the economy
Impact: a weak economy increases poverty
Also assume that the 2AC made the

following statements
No link - the plan does not affect the economy in
any way
Impact Turn - a weak economy provides benefits
to society
The Forensics Files

The affirmative has made an offensive argument (the
impact turn)
Thus if you just drop the position, the 1AR can extend
the impact turn and that becomes a dropped reason
why the judge should vote affirmative
However, if you extend the defensive argument (the no
link) that the aff plan has no affect on the economy,
then you are taking out the affs offensive arguments
If the plan has no effect on the economy, then the plan
cannot weaken the economy and thus the plan cannot
get the benefit the aff says weakening the economy
will provide
The Forensics Files

Now that you know that you need
to decide what positions the neg
block will choose to extend (and
which positions to kick) and to split
the block and decide which
positions each negative debater
will take, you should know how to
answer the 2AC arguments
The Forensics Files

Responding to 2AC arguments begins
first with knowing what arguments the
2AC made on what position
This requires good flowing skills - how will
you know what arguments the 2AC made if
you do not have the written down
If you miss an argument you have 2 options
Ask the 2AC during CX what arguments she made
Ask the 2AC during CX for a copy of the block she
read, if she read one
The Forensics Files

Once you have identified all of the 2AC
arguments on the positions you will take in
the block, pulling your 2NC/1NR blocks to
respond to the refutations the 2AC made, if
you have them
If you have not written blocks to certain
refutations yet, begin writing the
arguments on your flow next to the specific
2AC refutation you are responding to
The Forensics Files

Remember to
Split the block
Choose wisely what positions you want to
extend
Kick the positions you dont want to extend
Get all of the 2AC refutations made on the
positions you are extending
Respond to all of the 2AC refutations made
on the positions you extend in the neg block
The Forensics Files
Prep Time Before the 2NC

Use this prep time to
Pull and organize your 2NC/1NR
blocks and overviews
Read over the cards the 2AC read in
her speech
Write responses to the 2AC
refutations you dont have blocks to
on the positions you will extend
The Forensics Files
Prep Time Before the 1NR

Prep time should almost never be
taken before the 1NR
The 1N should prepare during the
8 minutes of the 2NC, 3 minutes of
the CX of the 2NC, plus all the prep
time the 2N spends preparing for
the 2NC
The Forensics Files

Times when prep time should be taken before
the 1NR are when
You are debating with someone new to debate who
does not know how to prepare speeches yet or
otherwise when the 1N absolutely needs the time to
finish preparing for the 1NR
The 2NC did not finish responding to all 2AC
arguments on a position the 2NC extended and the
2N needs to explain to the 1N what the arguments
were
The 2A pointed out a flaw in one of the 2NCs during
the CX of the 2NC that the 2N wants the 1NR to
address
The Forensics Files
1AR Strategy
The goals of the 1AR are to
Extend the case
Defend the case
Extend 2AC refutations to the 1NC
positions
Refute new arguments brought up in
the neg block
The Forensics Files
1AR Strategy
The 1AR is often thought of as the
hardest speech because the 1A has
5 minutes to respond to 13
minutes of the neg block
However, a smart 1AR will know
how to quickly extend her best
arguments and respond to the
other teams arguments
The Forensics Files
1AR Strategy
Extending & Defending the Case
Remember that the 2AC will initially
extend the case into the 2AC, this
means that the 1AR will be extending
a 2AC extension
The 1AR can extend case
similar to the way the 2AC extends th
e case
The Forensics Files
1AR Strategy
The 1AR should also respond to all of the
extensions the 2NC/1NR made on the case
However, this is where the strength of
having multiple advantages comes in
If the 2NC & 1NR spend a lot of time
answering 2 of the advantages but dont
address the third one, the 1AR can just
extend the dropped 3rd advantage and use
that dropped advantage to weigh against
the negs positions
The Forensics Files
1AR Strategy
If the 2AC follows the suggested
guidelines for writing blocks and making
arguments on positions, there will be a
variety of refutations to choose to extend
The 1AR should extend as much offense
as possible - remember these are the
reasons the judge should vote for you, so
you want to have many of them extended
in the 2AC
The Forensics Files
1AR Strategy
Defensive arguments should be
extended only to support your
offensive arguments or when you do
not have any offensive arguments on
the position
Remember from the discussion about
kicking positions that some defensive
arguments can take out your offensive
arguments
The Forensics Files
1AR Strategy
Fortunately for the 1AR, extending
2AC refutations is quite formulaic.
This means that the structure of a
1AR extension is the same for
every 2AC refutation extended by
the 1AR
One formula that can be used is as
follows:
The Forensics Files
1AR Strategy
Step 1: Extend the Claim by saying
Extend the _____ (first/second/third/etc.) 2AC
argument that ______ (say what the claim of the
argument is here).
Step 2: Extend the Warrant by saying

This is true because ________ (say what the warrant
of the argument is here).
Step 3: Identify the negative argument

that you will respond to briefly by saying
They (the negative) say that _______ (insert the
negative response you will refute here),"
The Forensics Files
1AR Strategy
Step 4: Refute the Negs Response
but this isnt true because (insert your argument
as to why the negative response is not valid here).
Step 5: Repeat Steps 3 & 4 for all Neg Responses
on the argument
Step 6: State why the judge should care about
the argument if you win by saying
If we win this argument, we win ______ (that the disad
does not apply to the case, that the case advantages
outweigh the disadvantages and the USFG should do the
plan, etc.)
Step 7: Repeat Steps 1-6 for all 2AC

refutations you want to extend
The Forensics Files
1AR Strategy
This formula may seem very difficult or
complicated, but the more that you practice
using the formula, the more comfortable
(and faster) you will become with using it
This formula helps you to remember to
Extend your arguments fully
Not drop the negatives responses to your
arguments
Tell the judge why your arguments matter
The Forensics Files
1AR Strategy
Remember in the 1AR to
Extend and Defend your case
Extend 2AC responses to positions the
the neg block extended
Use the 7-Step formula to extend
offensive 2AC responses on positions
the neg block did not kick well
The Forensics Files
Prep Time Before the 1AR

Use prep time before the 1AR to
write on your flow the
Some teams will write 1AR blocks
that include the formula above for
2AC blocks to positions that are
frequently argued against the
team
The Forensics Files
2NR Strategy
The 2NR should
Select one or two main positions to go
for
Kick the remaining negative positions
Extend and Defend the main positions
the 2NR will go for
Clarify the reasons the judge should
vote negative
The Forensics Files
2NR Strategy
The 2NR Choice
The 2NR needs to choose only 1 or 2
positions to go for because, if the 2NR
decides to go for all the positions, the 2NR
will probably not cover the arguments
adequately and may cost the negative the
win
The 2NR is often thought to be the second
hardest speech because the 2NR choice can
often be very difficult
The Forensics Files
2NR Strategy
The 2NR Choice
The position the 2NR chooses to go
for are usually
Dropped or under-covered by the 1AR
and/or 2AR
The negatives most persuasive
arguments
The positions the negative has read and
extended the best and most evidence on
The Forensics Files
2NR Strategy
The 2NR should kick the remaining
positions he/she is not going for in the
same way that the 2NC/1NR would kick a
position - by extending defensive
arguments that would take out the
affirmatives offense
Failure to kick out of positions properly in
the 2NR could result in the negative
conceding reasons why the judge should
vote affirmative
The Forensics Files
2NR Strategy
Extend and Defend the positions
the 2NR goes for
The 2NR should extend the main
arguments of the positions he/she is
going for (e.g. uniqueness, link, impact
and weighing arguments for a disad)
The 2NR should also respond to all
arguments the 1AR extended on those
positions
The Forensics Files
2NR Strategy
The 2NR should also clarify the reasons
why the judge should vote negative
This is usually done in a 2NR overview
There are 2 types of 2NR overviews
Voter (Reasons Why We Win) Overviews
Big Picture Overviews
The Forensics Files
2NR Strategy
Voter Overviews
These overviews are simply 2-4 short
statements as to why the judge should vote
negative
They are good for judges with little or no
experience or for judges that say they prefer
these overviews
The danger with these overviews is that a 2N
may think that he/she adequately extended an
argument in an overview, but may fail to
address affirmative responses to the voters
The Forensics Files
2NR Strategy
Big Picture Overviews
These overviews are more of an in depth discussions
about the big picture of the debate in terms of how all
the arguments interrelate
For example, if the 2NR goes for a CP and a disad, the 2NR
big picture overview will discuss how the CP solves the
case and that, even if the CP does not solve for all or part
of the case the impacts from the disad outweigh the
impacts from the advantages of the case
They are better for more experienced judges or judges

that look confused for a good part of the debate
The danger with these overviews is that 2NRs tend to
go on tangents which leaves less time for the 2NR to
refuted the 1ARs extensions adequately
The Forensics Files
2NR Strategy
Thus, the 2NR should
Make the 2NR Choice
Kick out of the other positions
Extend and Defend the positions the
2NR goes for
Clarify the reasons the judge should
vote negative
The Forensics Files

The 2NR should use prep time to
Make the 2NR Choice
Decide what kind of overview to give
Write that overview
Write down the responses the 2NR will make
to the 1AR extensions
Ask him/herself, What are the only ways I
could lose this debate? and make a point to
spend adequate time addressing these issues
The Forensics Files
2AR Strategy
The purposes of the 2AR is very similar
to those of the 2NR
The 2AR should
Give an 2AR overview that is a voter and/or a big
picture overview that clarifies the reasons the
judge should vote affirmative
Address the voters the 2NR gives
Extend, defend and explain the 1AR extensions on
the positions the 2NR went for
Extend offense from position the 2NR did not kick
out of properly
The Forensics Files
2AR Strategy
The 2AR should remember to extend the 1AR
extensions fully and to extend and rebuild
the case
If the 2NR goes for a kritik or counterplan
and disad, the 2AR should focus on how the
case outweighs and how the negative
positions are flawed
If the 2NR goes for topicality, the 2AR should
extend and explain fully why the plan meets
the neg interpretation and/or why the affs
interpretation is best for debate
The Forensics Files
2AR Strategy
Thus the 2AR should
Give an 2AR overview that is a voter and/or a big
picture overview that clarifies the reasons the judge
should vote affirmative
Address the voters the 2NR gives
Extend, defend and explain the 1AR extensions on
the positions the 2NR went for
Extend offense from position the 2NR did not kick out
of properly
The Forensics Files
Prep Time Before the 2AR

Before the 2AR, the 2A should
Decide what type of overview to give
Write that overview
Think of arguments where the 2NR
did not spend enough time, and make
a point to exploit those arguments
Write down the extensions the 2AR
will make from the 1AR
The Forensics Files
Tournament Strategy
What you do when you are not in a
debate can influence your success
Clearly, whether or not you prepare
(writing blocks, researching, practice
debates, etc.) for tournaments will
determine how well you will do
However, there are is more that you
can do at tournaments to enhance your
success, even when youre not
debating
The Forensics Files
Tournament Strategy
When you are not in a debate you should
Always act professionally
Prep out other teams at the tournament
If you did not advance to out rounds, watch them
If you did not advance, but a team from your
school has advanced to out rounds, watch out
rounds the team from your school is not in
Sometimes, it is appropriate to disclose your
plan if asked to by the other team before a
debate
Do not plan on conceding debates
The Forensics Files
Tournament Strategy
Act Professionally
Remember that you are representative of your
school and that if you act inappropriately this
not lonely reflects poorly on you, but on your
other teammates and school
If people at tournaments (other teams,
coaches, or judges) see you acting
inappropriately, this may hurt your reputation
and they may not take you seriously during a
debate
The Forensics Files
Tournament Strategy
Prepping Out other Teams
At tournaments, your win-loss record will determine
who you debate, as you will debate other teams that
have the same record as you (e.g. if you have won 3
debates and lost 0, then you will probably debate a
team that has also won 3 debates and lost 0)
You will also debate teams that have debated on the
opposite side more frequently than you have (e.g. if
you have had 2 affirmative debates and 1 negative
debate, you will be negative in the 4th round; this also
means that you will probably debate a 3-0 team who
has had 2 negative debates and one affirmative
debate, because they must be affirmative in the next
round)
The Forensics Files
Tournament Strategy
Prepping Out Other Teams
If you know debaters that go to different
schools, it is not necessarily inappropriate to
ask them what their record is
If you know other teams records and you can
tell how many rounds they have been aff and
neg (by looking at the pairings), then you may
be able to narrow down the teams you could
debate to one or two teams
You can then start to prepare based on what
you know about those teams and what
arguments you think they might run
The Forensics Files
Tournament Strategy
Watch Out Rounds When You Dont Advance
This will help you develop your flowing skills, if
the tournament allows you to flow the out-rounds
If you dont advance to out rounds, then the
people that have advanced are probably doing
something you are not; you can always learn from
watching others debate
You can also learn about judges and their
paradigms and how particular judges decide
debates so that if you ever have that judge, you
will know more about what the particular judge
likes and dislikes
The Forensics Files
Tournament Strategy
Watch Out Rounds When You Dont
Advance
If other teams from your school
advance and you dont, if the
tournament allows you to watch and
flow out-rounds, you can watch the
debate other teams are in and help
prepare your other team for the
arguments other teams are running
The Forensics Files
Tournament Strategy
Disclosure
It is sometimes appropriate to disclose your
plan text or otherwise tell the team what
your plan is before the round starts
While many teams wont disclose, it never
hurts to ask
If you think that you would benefit from not
disclosing, then it is alright to not disclose
However, if you dont disclose, do not expect
other teams to disclose their plans to you
The Forensics Files
Tournament Strategy
Conceding
Conceding is not usually a wise policy
because teams generally get better by
debating better teams - if the best
teams never debate each other, then
those teams are missing out on a
chance to improve
Conceding may also be seen as a way
to circumvent the point system
The Forensics Files
Tournament Strategy
Conceding
Sometimes, some teams will ask
other teams to concede to them in an
out-round
Some teams ask other teams to do this
so that the team can advance and get
more organizational points (NFL, TFA,
etc.)
The Forensics Files
Tournament Strategy
Keeping a Judge Book
In many rounds, the judge will give an oral
critique
This means that after the 2AR and after the
judge has make her decision, the judge will
discuss the debate and the arguments made
with the debaters explaining what the judge
voted on and why
From this discussion, you can pick up a lot
about the particular judge that is judging you
The Forensics Files
Tournament Strategy
It is not uncommon to have the same
judge judging you throughout the year
In a judge book (kept in a notebook or
a computer document), you should
write down
The judges name
Who the judge voted for and why
The judges likes/dislikes
The Forensics Files
Tournament Strategy
Why does it matter?
It will help you when you during practice
to know why you won some debates and
lost others so you can improve your
weaknesses
It will also help you to remember what
particular judges like so that you can
adapt better the next time you have those
judges
The Forensics Files
Tournament Strategy
Always act professionally
Prep out other teams at the tournament
If you did not advance to out rounds, watch them
If you did not advance, but a team from your
school has advanced to out rounds, watch out
rounds the team from your school is not in
Sometimes, it is appropriate to disclose your
plan if asked to by the other team before a
debate
Do not plan on conceding debates
Keep a Judge Book
The Forensics Files
Review
What is meant by
cutting cards?
To take selections
from articles and
books that
support
arguments made
in a debate
The Forensics Files
Review
What are 2 types
of arguments that
can be made
against the other
other teams
cards and when
can each be
made?
Evaluative arguments
can be made to try to
convince the judge to
not evaluate the
other teams card
Comparative
arguments are made
to tell the judge why
the judge should
prefer your evidence
to the other teams
evidence
The Forensics Files
Review
What does the 1A
do during the CX
of the 2AC?
Backflow the
arguments the
2AC made with
blocks on the 2As
flows
The Forensics Files
Review
What does the 1N
do during the
2NC?
Backflow the 2AC

refutations the 2A
made on the positions
the 1NR will take
Flow these arguments
onto new pieces of
paper so the 2NC will
have them to flow the
1NR responses to the
2AC refutations
The Forensics Files
Review
What are theory
arguments on
counterplans?
They are
arguments against
counterplans that
argue that they
are illegitimate
because of the
type of CP or the
condition of the CP
The Forensics Files
Review
What are the 3
conditions of CPs?
Conditional,
Dispositional and
Unconditional
The Forensics Files
Review
What should the
2NC and 1NR
always do when it
comes to
choosing which
positions each will
argue?
Split the block
The Forensics Files
Review
What are thought
to be the 2 most
difficult speeches
to give and why?
The 1AR has to

cover 13 minutes
of the neg block
in 5 minutes
The 2NR must
make the 2NR
choice
The Forensics Files
Review
What are the 2
types of
overviews for the
second rebuttals?
Voter overview
Big picture
overview
The Forensics Files
TFF Review Game

Back to
the Basics
Debate
Words That
Begin With
C
Counterpl
an
Theory
Speech
Duties
10
10
10
10
15
15
15
15
20
20
20
20
The Forensics Files
Back to the Basics

5
These are named
the affirmative
and negative.
What are the

teams or sides in
the debate?
Back to the Board
The Forensics Files
Back to the Basics

10
These last for 3
minutes
What is the crossexamination (CX)

period?
Back to the Board
The Forensics Files
Back to the Basics

15
These 2 speeches
compose the neg
block.
What are the 2NC

and 1NR?
Back to the Board
The Forensics Files
Back to the Basics

20
This team has the
last speech.
What is the
affirmative?
The Forensics Files
Debate Words that Begin With

C
This what you do

What is cutting
when you
cards?
research evidence
and you take
selections from
books and
Back to the Board
articles.
The Forensics Files

C
10
This counterplan
status tends to be
the most
controversial.
What is
conditional?
Back to the Board
The Forensics Files

C
15
This is the first

What is the claim?
part of an
argument that is
the statement
you are trying to
prove. Back to the Board
The Forensics Files

C
These positions
claim to solve for
all or part of the
affirmative case.
20
What are
counterplans?
Back to the Board
The Forensics Files
Counterplan Theory
5
These
counterplans
include all or part
of the the plan.
What are plan

inclusive
counterplans
(PICs)?
Back to the Board
The Forensics Files
Counterplan Theory
10
This status of
counterplan tends
to have the least
theoretical
objections to it
What is
unconditional?
Back to the Board
The Forensics Files
Counterplan Theory
15
This is type of
counterplan that
affirms the
resolution.
What is a topical
counterplan?
Back to the Board
The Forensics Files
Counterplan Theory
20
These types of
counterplans are
plan-inclusive and
involve foreign
alternate agents.
What are
international
counterplans?
Back to the Board
The Forensics Files
Speech Duties
5
This is the main
point of the 1AC.
What is reading
the affirmative
case?
Back to the Board
The Forensics Files
Speech Duties
10
This speech
involves a 7-step
repetitive
formula.
What is the 1AR?
Back to the Board
The Forensics Files
Speech Duties
15
The 2NR must
What is making
usually do this to
the 2NR choice?
effectively win the
debate.
Back to the Board
The Forensics Files
Speech Duties
20
These speeches
What are all the
involve
affirmative
convincing the
speeches?
judge that youre
right and the
negative Back
is wrong.
to the Board
The Forensics Files

Advanced CX

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Advanced CX

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Advanced Policy Debate

The Forensics Files

Strategy for the Neg

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Internet search engines

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

When pointing out flaws in the other teams evidence

Back to Table of Contents

When what you are arguing is outside of the

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Some publications are peer-reviewed while others are

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

missing a warrant. (your claim) The evidence only says the US

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

For cards missing dates, you should argue that your

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

The Forensics Files

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents

Back to Table of Contents