Sie sind auf Seite 1von 55

Day 1

Researching Args
Be comprehensive
Footnotes are your friend
Look for key phrases in the lit that you can use to refine search terms (e.g. ocean
aquaculture to offshore aquaculture to National Ocean Sustainability Act)
Keep a log of where you looked and what you searched for
Ignore the hype of Google should be avoided
Google News (useful for alerts)
Google Scholars
Google Books
Make a list of good journals, websites that are topic-specific and monitor them
Ocean Conservancy blog
National Resources Defence Council (
Heritage and Cato for neg
Dont make search terms too narrow
Maintain a cite list of things you cant find and dont give up
Ask for help if youre stuck, keep list of search terms and persevere

Keep everything electronic
Get the full cite every time (including author qualifications)
Never break up an article (copy the entire thing)
Use paste special (F2 key)
Always begin a piece of evidence at the start of a paragraph and end of another
Understandable and flowable: needs a claim and a warrant (why the claim is true)
Overfishing now because of too much trawling
Keep your stuff organized (only 2-3 tabs open), dont expect instant results, let the
research guide the arguments youre working on rather than researching a specific

Comparing ev
Qualifications of author and internal qualifications
Recency and why issue is time-sensitive and why it matters
Provides lot of explanation and warrants
Tag ev for the purpose you want in the debate
Ontology = being, what it is to exist in the world, how different things be in the world
Argument: See nature as distinct = only understand nature that is worthwhile as much as
we can use it; and to address problems through a technological solution (way things are
deployed and thought about, not about materials) problematic: way of viewing resources
as something that nature has and something we can take from it (technological
Dont abandon the machines, just reconceptualize the way we use them (not taking
resources for ourselves, no economic transaction, nature has value just because it is)
Recognize that nature is something that can enrich our lives and has authentic, valuable
existence and not force the wind to be a power source instead of being naturally
environmental damage is a problem because the environment in itself is valuable
inframing: heres valuable and the rest of nature is not of my concern: what we choose
to bracket and the reasons to is problematic
Alt = let being be, step back and let nature exist as it is, meditative thought, only way =
constantly re-evaluating our relationship with nature; acting is a component of
questioning (perm) any link = why we havent finished the questioning process yet
Impact turn alt: screwed up environment so much that cant let being be, only way
technological thought
Topic Lecture
Government sponsored exploration began in 1807 and has evolved over time (reason =
fish, latitude and longitude for cartography)
1950NASA and space satellites create new perspective on oceans
1970organizations grouped under NOAA
Minimal non-military development

Status Quo
Ocean policy = exploration, development, and protection of oceans, overall goal =
sustainable development
Core assumption = resource exploitation is in US national interest
Policy is highly fragmented 27 federal agencies and over 140 laws
Not much regulation = pollution, toxic spills, killing marine life, overfishing,
acidification, climate change; more reg now but change occurs slowly
Restrictions on jurisdictionsfed cant just increase development anywhere in the world
Local governments control the shoreline, state govs control land to 3 miles offshore, fed
gov controls between 3 and 200 miles. No nation can control parts of the ocean beyond
200 miles of their territory
Coast to 200 miles off the shore = EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) for countries that
touch oceans; only place gov has authority to develop; 1/3 of world oceans covered by
Most relevant in charge = NOAA, DOI, and Coast Guard; nobody really in charge
EEZs disputed: South China Sea and the Arctic

National Ocean Policy
Rolled out in 2010, Executive Action identified these the most important:
marine planning, coastal communities, fishing, aquaculture, agriculture, offshore
renewables, offshore oil and natural gas, shipping and ports; meant to protect marine
natural resources; big focus on regional action and protection

The Topic
substantially increase: more of it
its: USFG must be doing the exploration
non-military: the military can support or perform nonmilitary functions on the ocean
(e.g. Coast Guard doing port security) more affs such as piracy prevention, disaster relief,
refugee assistance, drug interdiction, search and rescue, sanctions neg argues using
military = difficult to prepare, neg has a CP for military to do the aff
exploration: discovery, process should be open-ended: finding something and you
know where it is is not exploration: debate over whether the aff can explore the ocean to
look for something in particular (e.g. oil)
development: utilization of ocean resources, utilization of ocean spaces, utilization of
ocean energy: definition very broad
Earths oceans: not seas, lakes, etc. debate over whether oceans are within EEZs, start
from the top and work down?

Affirmatives on the Topic
Underwater mapping: floor of the ocean is very diverse
Marine archaeology: e.g. looking for plane crashes, ship wrecks
How the ocean interacts with other parts of the globe or weather patterns, algal blooms,
acidification, etc. by using satellites and other things
Advantages: sustainable development and ocean management, climate change, US
credibility/leadership in science, tech, and environment, modeling arguments (other
members of the global community look to the US to take action before taking action).
1. to just do ocean exploration (just funding it)
2. go looking for it (MH370?)
3. ocean mapping: better understanding of all things ocean, better chances for
projects [might infringe on EEZs, already parts we have mapped]Southeast China
Seas, poles, need to be mapped better
Development: resource (oil and natural gas) methane hydrates: pockets of natural gas
with methane on the ocean floor or fish development
Renewable energy (OTEC [diff in temp to form steam: nearly infinite energy] , offshore
wind, geothermal heat from ocean vents, hydropower)
Biggest fish aff: aquaculture
Fishery management: remove red tape on fisheries
Pollution regulation affirmatives (ballast water, cruise regulation)
Marine protected areas

Politics (midterms?)
Sphere of influence: mess with another countrys EEZ or declare parts of the oceans that
encroach (e.g. Arctic)
Market confidence: undermining business confidence in industries

International Actor CPs
50 states CPs (only the states that are near oceans, or are directly affected)
Private Actor CPs
Military CPs
Do It On Land CPs

Capitalism, anthro, management/Heidegger, deep ecology, social ecology, free market
Day 2
Dont read 2 Ks in a debate
Work on efficient flashing of the docs
Conditionality argument
30 mins of speaking drills: do 1AC three times in a row
Warming advantage a little too short?
Have extra ev to fill time

CX: face forward
Asking questions that challenge, not clarify
Comparative internal link
CX agenda: notepad with post-its
Too caught up on the squo wind power
Delivery clear and persuasive: good link evidence to the politics
Respond to 2AC in arguments in the order presented (starting with impact args)
Work on making comparative statements: why is HTF more important than windmills
More time on the speeches and explain arguments more
Politics and Cap in 2NR order to kick those args
Repetitive on the CO2 stuff: extend the kritik first and use that on the CO2

Dont read redundant cards
Impact more stuff
Impact calc needs to be present in the 2ac onwards
Flow the 2AR

Military CP
Agents: Navy, Coast Guard, Military, Department of Defense
Solvency: ocean based energy, renewables and fuel, climate and weather monitoring,
exploration/mapping, marine protection, underwater vehicles, R/V (Atlantis research
vessel by Navy), public Navy mapping, giant jellyfish robot
Search for the Department of Defense should
2 days from now: Atlantis ship by navy: keep all of the articles cut articles
Databases and websites:

Day 3
Debate Tips
-think on your feet (especially against specific affs); be prepared for weird affs like
incentives to make people vegeterians and args like nuclear war is good
-get to know your judges
-dont let opponents get into your head
-lose to something: dont lose to it again
-dont get to reliant on an arg
-bad args can lead to short term wins but not long term wins
-have fun at camp
-do not be afraid of debating a more experienced team
-dont be afraid to be bold (impact turns are your best friend); later rebuttals are the crux
of the debate; later rebuttals for the aff are the crux of the debate
-cheer for people on your circuit: people and friendships more important

CX Tips
-using time more effectively to set up arguments, dont ask clarifying questions; set up
the foundation for winning strategy; presence and credibility; dont be a jerk to a team
that is less experienced than you good presence = eye contact with the judge, clearly be
understood, efficient with arguments; impacts speaker points
-CX can fill holes on your flow, gain info for strategy: find out the basis of arguments;
challenge arguments by the opponent
-where you stand is important: try to gain a little bit of forward momentum; face forward
and look at the judge
-be offensive, but dont be offensive: if rude, apologize after the debate: take the high
-is tag team CX okay: should always be avoided; only in rare circumstances when partner
is going to make a mistake
-how to use CX: have an agenda; have something to be accomplished; dont be too overly
focused on one thing; write your questions down on a notepad
-implement the agenda: dont ask open ended questions
wind aff: hegemony = manufacturing: one question = push our troops in = violence
reemerge; how can the plan increase hegemony if our militarys actually perceived as
weak from Iraq and Afghanistan? Follow up and actually make up arguments in your
speech The underlined parts of Voss evidence which statesactually read the evidence
-dont point out the obvious: dont bring up stuff you dropped and dont point out
-art of the trap (reverse pit of doom usually done on impact turns):
your arg = spread of nuclear weapons is actually good
-dont say or admit more than you have too: dodge or defer the question: ask yourself
what the purpose of the question is
never answer:
is your plan popular (say we think it is a good idea)
how does your plan get done (say just the USFG, not Congress and president or just
repeat 1AC plan)
plan passes immediately? (we think the plan is a good idea, and the word immediate is
not on the plan text)
if there is a really good question and they dont answer it correctly, dont ask it over and
think backwards: e.g. if you want to go for the perm, ask questions on the alt
politics in the 1NR
alt is the weakest part of the K
Georgetown AM

Day 4
K Lecture (neg)
1) Parts of the K in the 1nc.: Link and impact calc. Always go
2) AND
3) the opponent. External impacts make it easier to compete with the aff.
4) 2nc on the K. It needs to have an overview. You want to state the K as simply as
possible. For Cap K, AFF promotes cap if they dont want to. Then impact calc.
Probability youll probably win because the harms are already there. Some
reasons to read cards in the 2nc: read cards versus to their cards, if the 1nc
doesnt answer a piece of evidence. Its good to deploy tricks, if you only read a
structural violence in 1nc then you can read war in 2nc. Leveraging the link. The
links are the strongest part of the K. You should use links heavily to turn your
case. For Wind reducing warming say its part of capitalism so it doesnt solve. Be
careful not to disturb your judges flow.
Blocks youll need
If you are able to write your own blocks. Framework should depend on the K. Framework
answers the purpose of debate. FIAT is an imaginary tool for a specific purpose. FIAT is
good for policy making. FIAT is good for debate. Debate is to better our rhetoric in
ethical ways. Instead of thinking of FIAT as roleplaying, just let it be done just pretend it
happens. Its for the sake of argument. FIAT is the process of imagining an outcome. The
aff imagining is the fed govn actually does something. You shouldnt construct a K that if
you lose framework you lose the K. this way is more favorable for the neg. The k is about
telling a story that contradicts the affs story and puts a puts doubt on the aff. So its a
competition between the two worlds rather than a competition between the alt and the
plan. You should use framework to beef up your alt. Framework is a competition
between the different purposes of debate.
Debating the alt
The hardest part of the debate. There is no totalizing barrier to framework. Alt should fix
aff impacts. It could be a prerequisite argument about doing something before plan. Who
is the agent of the alt? Its a silly questions. If you win the framework, then the judge and
the participants follow the k. If the aff wins, then its an alternate government plan. Your
alt cant FIAT a cultural shift. It can help though. Framework is meaningless without the
alt. It shifts the debate from whether or not the plan is good but in general the plan is
good. If you lose framework, then you run the K as a DA.
What would the world of the alternative if the affirmative were to be included? The
alternative is not only just the text but the broader world of the aff. What would it look
like if the affirmative was another form of knowledge production and if you included
them both? Including cap would derail and remove possibility of seeing a world without
capitalism. Defaulting to militarism once means we cannot even see pacifism.
Impact framing
Its how you win with a systemic framing. Over time it kills more than just a single war.
Structural violence conditions us to violence. How might capitalism access terrorism or
something? Capitalism creates an unequal world for the benefit the of the global north at
the expense of the global south. It creates discontent that creates terrorism.

Sustainability debate. Its important for the neg argue this. Its a way to say that the
impacts of the aff are inevitable. Oil drilling is another way to get offense about your aff.
It is a way to win even if you lose framework and the alt. Its another uniqueness trick.
You want to make the k unique. Alt is happening now. The next trick to the CAP k
debate. The links also turn the case on its own. It prevents cooperation. Competition
itself destroys resources. Environment outweighs because a lot of people will have an
environment impact anyway. If you win that their impact doesnt lead to extinction than
yours. Epistemology K. You should make arguments that their arguments are biased
because they get paid. You should characterize the authors as heartless hitmen who sell
their soul for money. God card: it says cap is the worst thing in the world. The card is
written on a forum board. Qualifications could be bad. you can argue biases. Economists
are like monkeys throwing darts. Their authors just want to expand capitalism to put
more money in their wallets. There is no energy crisis, just a consumption crisis.
Ethics impact
Another benefit to this capitalism K. You can say that capitalism itself is unethical.
Youre pricing things with money. Not intristic value. Youre throwing out those who are
not rich. Its better to be ethical than to have life. Capitalism as a system is unethical.
Policy debate doesnt have a full ethical system. We reject capitalism. We dont know
what the alt looks like until we pass the alt. Cant know what happens next. We know cap
is going to collapse.
Cross ex is not a good time to do any framework stuff.
Having concrete plans is what traps us in this world.
Weigh timeframe. Alternative allows us to pad that cap collapse.
David Berry cap.
Its doing the aff plan and part of the CP or the alt. Adding something that isnt in the CP
or the alt, or the affirmative plan. Its a sense of time and sequencing. Severance
permutation is when you perm it and then you take something out. Paramatricize the
resolution. The aff has to defend the plan, the entirety of the 1AC, defend the rhetoric,
defend the knowledge of researching, and the methodology of the implementation. You
have to think of putting a certain thing in your 1AC. You change your style.
Youll need blocks.

Day 5
K Lecture (aff)
CX is important against the K
KNOW YOUR JUDGE in K debates and opinions on natures of alt, framework, evidence:
wiki, friends, get a paper copy of pairings and track down the opposing team: the
scouting is VITAL
How do you know what you know
e.g. what color is the sky? Blue what if youre in a dark room we KNOW things because
people tell us thatwhat background or studies do the expert know?
US heg reduces war: prove by long term study, professional degrees, world leaders
saying not invade because of heg
The 1AC has created a narrative; the neg is to dispel the narrative;
Make the debate about our particular arguments rather than the other way around
Most of the time the K wins: the aff has bad CX
Three things in CX: clarify, set up, challenge
If you dont understand the 1NC kritik, clarify the argument especially the alternative:
even if you know you can ask questions
Youre done if you dont know what the alternative is
Are you willing to defend the squo or do you have another competitive alternative?
Neg can defend squo because there is no DA to the alt
How do you solve?
Your link argument changes nothing in the squo so you cant access the impacts
The perm on the K proves that the link or impact to the K isnt intrinsic (no link): there is
no forced choice between doing one and another action
Ks on why other ways of knowing the world is better
Your 1AC doesnt have 7 different charts: the only way you know is data processing
Aff counters this is the only way we have
Is it just because something is bad that it is better than something thats worse: having
an alt chooses the best outcome and cost-benefit analysis
Ask whos the agent of the alt: is it limited to only action by you or judge
Target such as people rejecting capitalism, the affs target is offshore drilling
Get the neg to describe what the alternative looks like: the alt has two components: a
process and a goal and generate offense on both of those
Whats the goal (replace capitalism) and how are you going to achieve the goal (reject the
aff, interrogate capitalist epistemology, endorse social movements, resist all corporate
structures) of the Cap K
Can our plan exist in the world of your alternative? (whats the tension between your aff
and the kritik)
Pick: plan inclusive kritik: the neg will say that the plan is not the issue, rather the way
you have talked about using nature
Follow up with why is the plan mutually exclusive
We ask the judge to envision a world without capitalism: whats the mechanism: the
transition to different worlds is bad: our 1AC takes steps for change. How does your alt
do it?
Offense = envisioning utopia and rejecting squo policies bad: turn both the process and
the goal
Is it possible that there will still be government in the alternative? Will they provide
social services, foreign aid, etc all designed to figure out the world of the alt is bad
Start with basics and build up: make it clear that the alt cant solve the advantages and
that they are true
Popular media is biased and wrong, if you lose this argument youve lost your debate:
you know your advantages are truesay thats circular and heres the ways our claims
have been demonstrated to be true in the past indict the claim and have epistemology
defense: our authors are not paid in the ways by the corporate world: our claims are true
because we use the scientific method and data processes, etc.
Our 1AC quotes domestic and international experts and cites examples where other
countries have done wind: how does the aff building turbines make the problem worse
Ask questions on the inevitability
People are going to be starving if we dont feed them: how does the alternative do that
You said K turns case: how is this and say right now unregulated aquaculture is
increasing, how does your plan make that worse
Use the specificity of the aff against the generality of the K
Reject the plan alt: how is that different from the squo?
Social movement alt: movements have existed in the past, why shouldnt the government
respond with force
Arguments in the K can be broken down
Link = DA and case defense
Linear DA = more aff case = more impact
Case defense
Alternatives sort of like counterplans
The counterplan provides uniqueness
Alts function to provide either uniqueness or to solve the aff plan
Theory argument by neg to generate offense or to eliminate aff offense
Framework becomes a debate about whether only the plan matters or the plan and the
Aff should race to the middle:
Aff has Iran advantage to drill for oil to cut off money
Neg kritik is shouldnt represent Iran that way
1) plan focus only: whether or not the plan itself is a good or bad idea
2) yes, representations are relevant, but we still get to weigh all the consequences of
our planbest framework and allows you to access negative offense AND allows
aff to say representations are not the only things that are important
3) prioritizes representations (neg should always go for this): if neg wins they can
win the floating pick
Using the aff to defeat the kritik
The best way to defeat the kritik is to make the debate about the aff case
Remember to talk about the aff
Do impact calc on the K: most of the time TIMEFRAME is very important

Falsifiability = testing
Fearing death is good
By preventing suffering we still gain value in our lives
Security K: best way to answer it; perms not really helpful on security K
2ACs should drive the debate rather than reactive
tactical opacity: the 2AC has the ability to craft multiple strategies
Start the 2AC as a series of strategies
Put as many different options and 2ARs as possible in the speech: do not let the neg
block what strategy you are going for and have a diverse array of arguments on every
The 2AC sets up a series of different arguments and the 1AR takes a few of those and
expands them
The 2AC should think about the 2AR when writing the args
Its strategic to sandbag some of your arguments: save pieces of evidence in the 1AR
2Ns hate reading 1AR cards: hide great cards in the 1AR

-leverage the case and expand impacts
the aff can use the 2AC to read add-ons and add-on internal links (synthetic link-turning:
read why we better access Iran)
all you need to link turn a disad is why hegemony solves Iran (why advantage internal
link solves neg impact)
every 2AC should find some way to access their impact
when synthetic link turning read link turn defense

-move away from blocks and towards modular blocks
each individual link turn planned out
use prep time for the 2AC
read the least amount of cards to make the most 2AR strategies

-dont be afraid to use prep time for the 2AC
take the time to find the perfect card you need

-assess the debate
assess where youre weak and where youre strong
physically write down a list of arguments and rank them
counterplans and Kritiks are more threatening than case and Das
dont undercover anything though

offense on everything

-know when to move on
a good 2AC should know when to spend 30 seconds on arguments
dont read redundant cards
never kick a case advantage in the 2AC to make the 2NRs life harder
probably kick an advantage in the 2AR

-straight turning
Neg reads politics DA on HTF
Reading non-unique argument and a link turnmaking it an advantage for the
2AC says HTF not renewed now and the plan is a win for Obama
when the CP solves all your case you can straight turn the net benefit
when synthetic turning say no internal link

always on every CP and kritik make a perm
at a minimum perm do both
the negative response to the perm is to make a link argument (because the affirmative is
super capitalist)
internal net benefit: net benefit to the CP that is a reason why the CP is good but not
necessarily why the plan is bad
ex. Japan should do aquaculture
net benefit would be boosting the Japanese economy
aff response is perm do both
reason to have perm on every flow is because the neg can always make internal benefit
arguments, and EXTEND perm

-case debating is always about the 1AC
the 1AC should pre-empt common neg arguments and the best cards on every issue
the best 2A draws upon the 1AC to respond to case arguments: be extremely familiar
with your evidence: get through the case really fast
develop a coding system
read counterplan text over and over again

Performance Affs
I. definition
a. what it is
1. Performance debate is a debate about the political consequences of the inaction/action
of the debaters in the room: includes discursive and symbolic consequences: includes
both positive and negative consequences

2. Concerned with the totality of what is done in the debate round
Concerned with what debaters fail to do in the round

3. talking about all four debaters: even if one team decides that they are not, their
performance still remains

4. the audience sometimes matters as well

b. plan is no longer the focus of the debate
move beyond the plan and open the scope of the debate
distinct from the kritik debate
might see hip-hop or speaking in a different language
evolved from the kritik to illusory fiat to the discourse decided that they would do this on
the aff = no plan to defend state: the affirmative are the agents and not defend the
resolution and make style and body relevant
individuals who are disabled, etc. their experience can be ignored when we ignore the
body and stylistic differences
talk about how the debaters in the room are differently situated

performance debate is a field of study: interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary
criticize boundaries like I am a sociologist or I am a traditional debater
want to be part anthropologist, part mathematician, part dancer, etc. because when we
only have disciplinary commitments we have a more limited point of view
primarily concerned for the unveiling of subjugated knowledge (ways of knowing that
have been denied from traditional academia)
we never know where were going to find the answer
performance affs decenter the text as a primary object of study: the plan is not the focus
of the debate
e.g. a movie might be more relevant to culture than Kant
performance debate affirms knowing and explaining the world: for example say I feel
discriminated against: Do you know what its like to be a short person? not interested in
the truth, only in explanation
living in a different body comes to unique forms of knowledge
concerned with the politics of the everyday: how gendered is constructed by everyday
actions (e.g. wearing pants instead of skirt)
there are political implications to what you do everyday
performance is a method of activism
body used as protest for example a hunger strike, sit-ins, or simply a speech

performance can be an explanatory tool
everyday lives can be important areas of study
explanation of how we can get knowledge in non-traditional places

III. How do you do this?
a. tips for writing the 1AC: engage in the 3 as: analysis, activism, artistry
b. engage in the three-tier methodology: incorporates organic intellectuals (knowledge of
a subject based on personal experienc for example a veteran who knows about the Iraq
War, personal experience: one way in which we validate our arguments, engage in the
production of knowledge rather than the consumption of knowledge: make something
new and combine arguments, make it look, sound, and feel good
an affirmation of yourself
evidence is still good
a defense of a radical, black, and queer subjectivitymight be them cussing you out
(CEDA 2013): to put before the judge what they could not see or know otherwise
how to answer framework: framework run by the neg is that the aff should have a plan
and the performance argument in response that plan focus is bad because it excludes
other ways of knowing and being
start with kritik on plan focus, and talk about why performance is necessary and
performing boy, black, lab leader, debate coach, public speaker: talk about why
performance is necessary and beneficial
always defend your performance as reasonably topical: whatever starting point you had
with the resolution; the inspiration for the aff = topical: important to highlight that
framework debate are about stylistic differences
if you can convince someone youre reasonable, you can convince someone the neg is
unreasonable by not allowing it
framework as an argument on the neg requires that we only debate about the topic and
read plans:
performance debate is fair: having lit makes it fair
the fairness is about whether the neg actually has anything to say in response
performance debate takes personal problems and makes them political

Performance debate is educational: gives us access to things that may not be in the
library or long lost

Other recommendations
Limit the debate to what you do: defend hip-hop to the lyrics you play rather than saying
hip-hop is important

Be ready to explain why a performance is important: self-identify = Kritiks alt cant
touch it

IV. Answering performance debate
a. counter-performance: on the negative you can do the same thing? And how the
aff didnt do it and doing something black and queer will solve their aff
b. impacting it: find something that has a huge impact (e.g. eco performance impact
environmental destruction)
c. criticize the performance: fails to achieve its desired purpose: e.g. like making
solvency deficit argument; performance produces the opposite result (case turn):
counterproductive effect: just help us recreate the problem; performance is
flawed: what they did is bad arguments of what they excluded are external
reasons; answer style and substance: dont like how you talked about capitalism
off a Mac
d. unforgiving theory of negation: have some argument why we should not affirm
anything: theres something that the ballot can do
e. pick something like Marxism, anthropocentrism, etc, engage in all of the other
Kritiks and predict the general field of performance affs
Day 6
Need to write AT framework, AT perm, Impact overview, Alternative explanation
Not to always jump in and read new evidence: extend and compare
Cap sustainability new ev
Reasons why cap is good or bad
Impact debate: more ev
Indict what your opponent reads
K Debate comments
CX and 2AC
Dont ask repetitive questions: ask the neg to get specific about particular things
dont take the 2AC prep for off case
use more evidence
answer arguments made in the same order

fill up speech time by going more in depth
good to extend the perm by flag it as a dropped argument: explain it to the judge: no part
of the plan is inherently capitalist

stop getting repetitive: set a timer for a minute and talk about the perm

Seminar 1: Evidence Comparison
Do not want to assume that the judge is smart
Prefer evidence because of
-warrants: prefer an in-depth discussion: prefer the quality over the quantity of warrants
statistical studies are a powerful type of warrant history doesnt ever repeat itself and
take account a larger data set
empirical warrants make individualized examples in the past and have certainty behind
point out the difference in historic context when countering empirical warrants
at every level of evidence comparison provide a lens through which the judge can
compare the warrants highlighted with your opponents highlighted warrants

-recency: matters in politics debate

-author qualifications: the same person writing in a different location is not the same
emphasis on peer-review in author qualifications
author bias: sometimes counteracted by author accountability (these people are in the
public eye and everyone is paying attention to what theyre saying: they have a strong
incentive to check their facts)
internal citations
descriptive evidence and predictive evidence (good for UQ)
one piece of qualified evidence with all the internal link chains is better than 4 pieces of
internal link chain evidence
read it while theyre reading the evidence

Impact Calc
Win one of the trifecta and tell the judge why that matters the most
Put less effort into winning youre faster, more probable, or bigger, but establish a
framework to prioritize the characteristics you are winning
Timeframedetermines the direction of turns
Probabilitywill happen almost for certain: if we prepared for every big magnitude we
would be wasting our time
My impact short-circuits yours because it happens first and changes the calculations of
the government
e.g. econ collapse vs global warming
linear and singular impacts (off-on button)
linear impacts could be preferable because it is difficult to isolate the specific way which
they happen
singular impact would be more devastating because linear impacts have intervening
longer the impact takes to occur, likelihood increases that something will resolve the
magnifier and filter impacts
warming is a conflict magnifier (war is worse in a world with global warming)
heg is an impact filter (in a world with heg, it is unlikely that impacts will escalate)
not be so hasty to grant people that their impacts are existential
e.g. deep African nations unlikely to get into global nuclear war and NZ is safe: DENY
PEOPLE ACCESS to existential impacts
2 kinds of impact calculus: integrated (importance of 2 impacts given what has happened
in the rest of the debate e.g. link turn or internal link: weve crushed their internal links
to 1%) and isolated impact calculus (only going to talk about whose impact is bigger)

Seminar 2: 2AC
The 2AC is against the negative block
2AC terrorism

psychological warfare
oil drilling aff

topicality0:30 reasonably topical
case 0:30 opponent read low quality args
states CP 3:30 mins
environment DA 1 min
politics DA 2:30

politics DA has the states CP with it
think about what are the 2NRs
T, politics and case, politics and states CP, environment and case
Think about which of these are actually threats to me
Think about how much time they spent on each position in the 1NC
If you know the aff and the literature, then you can predict neg arguments: know the
strengths and weaknesses of your argument
Get around conditionality by making an argument on one flow relevant to another
(ex. On case read hegemony bad and off are Cap K, topicality, disads and counterplans)
read heg good in the 2AC because it answers the Cap K

say the CP is have China drill
say USFG is key
add-on is a new advantage (in 1AC global warming impact, 2AC can read global warming
causes refugee flows)
read an add-on on the impact that the counterplan doesnt solve

say that theyve read a disad against their K
jettison parts of the aff to hurt the negative

read theory

politics DA theory
bottom of the docetthe plan would come after the important bill
vote nothe plan if its a bill, which has been introducedanyone who doesnt like it is
already angry
not intrinsicpolitics DA controlled by USFG, but so is the planif we were in
Congresswere the USFGwe can do both
if they drop any of these they LOSE

multiactors fiat, picks bad, conditionality bad

Sit on good and true arguments with 1AR cards to back it upthink through every single
off case

Day 7
Debate comments

Better off doing: wind power inevitable but better to do it in the ocean
Cite spin-off benefits of the aff
CX on the K very good
Very good job on the case in 1AR (too much time on case)
Cap is sustainableNEED to win on the aff and win cap inevitable
Deal with the epistemology argument: how do you know what you know: the reason why
we know: empiricism
Dig in on the perm: more ev about why renewable energy is sustainable pathway
Make the barebones argument on the case
Winning capitalism inevitable then going for the perm is good
1AR case blocks

work on better preparation
make the block really big
pick and choose his weakness
spend more time on the case
trying to win warming is your impact is tough: cap is the root cause of warming is too
choose something like heg or the economy (probably heg)
invest in running sustainability
writing the 2AC blocks: start at the 2AR blocks
sustainability, perm, heg outweighs everything (rank your 2ARs) and retroactively
construct 2AC blocks: think about what the path to victory over the K is
have good capitalism adaptability cards
win the framework and the impact on the debate: they dont get an alt
sometimes you just dont have something to say: slow down
explain why the alt isnt pragmatic: its a problematic thing
could go for dropped politics
no windmills will get builtlinks to capitalism doesnt apply
focus on impact take-outs and internal link take-outs

perm first read cards
then explain why links cant be solved by the perm

Demo Debate
The 1AC is global imagination that must be told gives attention
1ACs radical act of deconstruction destroy the world question of grammar and suffering

turns the neg
ethics: externality means destruction
sets the stage for global discourse and conflicts
class warfare, ethnic conflicts
focus on the unspoken axis of questions

dont objectify body look at the middle passage key
foundation of US is unethical
capital monolith but cannot explain black existence
push on to hegemony which blackness cant account for

1. incoherent
2. lose racism

the alt cannot deconstruct the world
Marxism transform antagonistic
Wage slavery
Aff paints black body as destructive
Political society tear up hegemonic thought
Who are slaves and not is ontological
Black cannot exist with the alternative
Solves the internal link to all politics
Perm socialism, coherent grammar
Alt fails
Aff solves the alt
Your K doesnt affect our ability to solve

Extend 1NC Aff is a pornography of violence: no background or context no faces ghost in
the machine Alt identifies capitalist slave relations no social movements organized

Capitalism precedes middle passage longer and larger

Only focus on what is gratuitous and ignore everyday violence
Capitalist lens

Focus on the middle passage centralizes analysis on gratuitous must destroy material
labor relations like wage cuts (violence: more systemic, common, deadly)

Alt shatters Determined by productive and nonproductive and gains productivity

capitalism more massive: starvation: manifestations of violence that are not seen for
example when NAFTA liberalizes trade Mexican farmers couldnt sell focus on small
because cumulatively

turns case: neolib parasitically exploitative to the black
no link on case turning the K
prefer who can solve these now instead of 500 years ago
history goes negative

waste time exploring the middle passage: chose Middle passage over plantations site of
slvery: ignores where colonialism was everywhere in the world
perm fails: trades off with blacks as a piece of property

disproves link argument: a slave is an extension of an economic system
perm cannot solve any link arguments

focus on whiteness
No link: proletariat
Redistribution causes more violence
Key to understand how black people enslaved

ahead on why cap accesses impact anti-blackness cannot access
precedes the middle passage
incalculable and invisible
inequalitycapitalism can be explained
makes grassroots movement

Day 8
Nexus question of debate
TOC: of teams didnt read a plan
Should our focus be changing debate or the world at large
Framework blocks should change and tailor offense to affirmative

Read 1 card in the 2NC: connect with the judge, but locks you into positions

Part 2: what is debate good for
-decision making

decision making: unique to the type of debate that requires implementation of
hypothetical action: UNIQUE to debate and not other activities
it is looking at the cost-benefit of taking actions: is having fun or working more
important over the summer
forces us to think about external actors, important to weigh aff vs the counterplan and
DA tradeoffs

Part 3: how do we get there
Things that need to be present in debate:
-competitive equity
-predictability: allows preparation and can add nuance when doing research: forces
discussion; if the negative presents a terrible strategy the aff isnt being pressured to
explain why its better: in real life youll be presented the best possible disadvantage not
just the generic ones
-limits: offering only a limited set of arguments: good because it makes us consider
better arguments and decisions
-debatability: never can say racism good: not being racist more important than winning
debate; incredibly hard to negate some argument: the reason why we have a
controversial resolution is to argue against it: to negate is key to clash: in life we are not
presented with racism good or bad
clash: only way we get anything out of it is discussion: without clash it just becomes just
a lecture: allows complex engagement with other peoples ideas
-policymaking: larger-scale: think on a larger scale, which allows us to make better
decisions later that also affect others
-mutually accessible information: nobody writes about whether I should trade with
Anay: better for research based debate and important for making real decisions
-external actors: forces us to consider the perspectives of different people and forces us
to think about the consequences of our actions and build empathy: getting rid of
government bad for people such as disabled people
-switching sides: if theres no resolution it means that theres no way to require people to
be different on the aff and the neg: more tolerance and deeply engages opponents
positions: weigh the pros and cons vs personal bias
no model of debate says that you have to defend the government

allows us to challenge dogma: useful to have a devils advocate to challenge us and forces
us to become better defenders of what we know is true: better skills in the future
advo skills better applies concepts: teaches us to advocate what we believe in

Whenever you see an argument on framework that you dont know how to answer
1. our type of debate solves it better: better decision makers
2. your type of debate doesnt solve it: doesnt solve imperialism because doesnt force
people to get two sides of an issue

Part 4: common responses
Dont talk about fairness because they can say life isnt fair
1. sequencing: more fair and just world: debate needs to purge itself of what is wrong
first: learning better decision making can help us address racism
never get to a type of debate with resolution: always imperfect and work within an
imperfect system to make it better
our type of debate solves better and yours doesnt
2. we meet: draw a line: explain why what they do outside the bounds is uniquely bad:
for example exploring the ocean by jumping in links to offense
something can be debatable but not necessarily predictable
3. role of the ballot: extend counter-interpretation the world of debate is a process and
not a productit is an opportunity to turn us into better decision makers. The object is
not to make debate perfect but is a laboratory of ideas
role of the ballot (affirm black women) predetermines the ballot and isnt good
role of the ballot is arbitrary and not debatable
4. decision making turns their argument: important to know about how the government
works to combat the worst elements of it
switch-side arguments are why they should defend the government: the government
interred Japanese but also passed civil rights legislation
the government is not going to go away
roleplaying badchanging the government is not within our agency
just expressing opinion about what the government ought to do
imagining that what you want to happens happens
should have opinions about what the government should change

permwe get to have policy debate, but we get to read our aff
answer: if allowed to read your aff teams have an incentive to run away from controversy

deal with the case: contest the idea that the aff solves or have a CP
the aff has a method but no way of getting to the method

we make decisions too
all offense = not making the best possible decisions

good to have limits because of meaningful discussion
if the aff is able to lecture its beneficial to have contestation and definition

not silencing youquestion about what is a way to win

Turning it into arguments
More like writing a series of small essays
Continue to expand to make it as applicable to the aff
Meld the framework to what they are saying
Turn their impact and why theirs doesnt solve
Be respectful of the other team

Framework Blocks

Decisionmaking, predictable limits, AT we meet, AT role of the ballot, AT framework
keeps us from saying what we want to say

Debating Climate Change
Qualified people that interpret data
Biggest debate on anthropogenic or not
Sources matter
see whether context is scientific or political
cut evidence that indicts studies out there
dont cut evidence from K-Mart
be looking at journalists and blogs from qualified scientists
The solvency debate
whether or not gov can solve climate change
full scale renewables can probably solve
Other side of solvency: China accounts for a lot of greenhouse gas emissions
Highest emitting countries: China, US, Russia, Germany, Canada, etc.
Per capita: Australia, Canada, Saudi Australia

Solvency turn
Wind power actually bad LOL

Most heat goes into the oceans: 80-90%

Warming impact turns
Evidence for both sides of the impact arguments
CO2 k/t water k/t America

Adaptation and anthropogenic: timeframe and whether or not we can adapt in time
Smart affs can set up advantages about this: create more time to study

Kritiks of Global Warming
Should be concerned about famine, poverty, etc.
Systemic impacts such as more authoritarian governments
Kritiks of consumption and top-down policies (criticizing governments combating
climate change)
Kritik of securitizing ourselves: further militarzies the environment

How to judge warming debates
Indict the other teams evidence based on common sense
Day 9
-military destroys environment
-how one ocean catastrophe continues to undermine environmental protection
-naval readiness high now
-naval readiness not important for preventing conflicts

Day 10
Preparing Files
After camp
for a few days after: do nothing
get on the same page with your partner: dont have the 2A do everything with the
aff: switch speaker positions for a week
start thinking about aff arguments: dont choose fun affs
explain the aff to your momhave reasonable internal links
prepare for non-traditional approaches with the same amount of focus, focus on
preparing 1 policy aff
neg approach: decide on a core counterplan, disad, K strategy
1NC Prep
-offshore wind
politics, natural gas, Heidegger, case
-offshore drilling
Russia, environment, military CP, case
NOAA, Cap K, case
-middle passage
Cap, T, case, analytics, start thinking about CX

-politics, natural gas, Heidegger, case
-politics, environment, military CP, case
In CX: set up off case by setting up links
If you start putting analytics, alter them with a card
Please do not make analytics super flowery
Need to go through for camp tournament: discuss with partner
Have your lab leader read the 1NC

Politics Theory
1. non-intrinsic
not a necessary result of the plan e.g. there wont be a tradeoff
a logical policymaker can do both: no opportunity cost
affs fiat: the judge is a member of Congress
neg can respond that the judge can be someone else (like President Obama who
has PC)
reinterpret fiat by saying the judge is just a citizen of the United States (general
neg response)
politics disads are good for education and groundweighing opportunity costs
(general neg response)
link proves that the disad is intrinsic
2. fiat solves the link
fiat means we dont consider the political consequences: just debate on whether
the plan is good or bad
3. vote no
says that the judge is Congress as a whole and the affirmative team is the
President: the PC that the President has to spend is being spent now (as the aff is
pushing for the plan)
4. bottom of the docket
the plan would be put on the bottom of Congress docket: no tradeoff because the
plan is just at the bottom
unfair interpret of fiat because the aff just says it takes a long time to pass
use the argument against the aff by saying that it will never pass: Congress always
has a huge docket
Whether political capital is even a real thing: if the Presidents influence actually matters
Politics good because it helps us keep up on current events
For the sake of the negative and prevent aff side bias the neg needs ground to apply to
most affirmatives
Group theory and answer them: our interp of fiat is that the judge is an intellectual and
then move on to specific arguments
Kicking Comments
Concede by 2AC author/number
Overview: economic collapse outweighs and turns the case
All extension should happen when answering their argument
Improve order: be very direct with 2AC answers (2AC 8) do it with EVERY 2AC
Might want to read another card or few more warrants on econ collapse: when
economies contract and leaders create diversionary conflict (Royal in 10)

Day 11
Nontraditional affirmatives
Performative: the performance is the central question of the debate
embodiment: in some way your argument encompasses your identity
active embodiment: choosing to make their performance a central question
neg can generate offense out of anything that appears in the 1AC: not just limited
to the advocacy statement or the cards they read: garner links and read counter-
methodologies, PICs (word PICs, we dont like a word in the 1AC)
the debate is not about an action but an approach, a way of looking at the world
(ontology, epistemology), the neg can say that the way that the methodology
looks at the world creates problems
change in the way we look at competition: traditional debates = mutually
exclusive; nontraditional debate = methodological tradeoffs Cap vs racism: make
arguments that fighting both at the same time reduces effectivenessnot a good
idea to use both metricsthe reason why some people are put below their
ethnicity is because of the state
o teams will argue that they are part of a larger social movement: if debate
is larger then we should be able to generate tradeoffs: automatic tradeoff
in organizing a movement and saying this is a proletariat movement: if
theyre defining as black power then its difficult for the movement to
include white/other minorities proletariat

make them admit that their methodology is only productive for them
o generates solvency deficit arguments that disprove that they cant
influence anyone outside of them
or that they think this methodology is one that should be adopted more widely
for everyone
o make arguments as to why the methodology is not valuable for other
people and not helpful for everyone
differences in solvency: different standards for aff and neg on solvency
voting aff in part of movement or microlevel and doesnt fix racismsolvency
come from personal ability or from theoretical benefits to widespread adoption if
everyone looked at value of our performance, neg can attack this
defense is offense in nontraditional traditional = weigh offense against
squo or offense against the case: defensive arguments are like solvency deficit:
means that we are always going to misidentify problems: is all offense against the
case: methodologies dont stack e.g. 30% oppression + 40% dont add up and
policy plans do stack e.g. Cap vs race: the root cause of inequality is capitalism;
history of biological markers are why inequality exists gender: reason why
inequality is gender all are saying that these are THE cause of oppression
evidence: other forms of justifications (three-tier methodology)
o academic experts
o organic intellectuals (literal experience)
o yourself: what you say, your experience, and your opinions: can talk about
white existence in a black community
o within your subject position = social position
o you can counter with something on your own subject position
Ronald Judy: authenticity: how humanism is derived within the black body
From the Middle Passage it changed the ontology of black people
Took away religion, speaking a language, where specifically youre from
The n-word is specified as people who identify with slave labor not being black
Negro = works to prop up the society in which he was born
Nigga = equivalent of bad n-word: rebellious property
Africa chose as people to enslave: Biblical separation (dark skin) and only Africans could
survive the trip
Middle passage = middle part of the triangular trade
The skin became a symbol of what it meant to be a slave
Authenticity = possible for slave to be humanized; chattel slavery different because other
forms of slavery were considered humans
Prisoners of war and fragmented tribes: the language divide
1AC: war powers have been used against rebellious property
argument = dont kill niggas
when people think of slavery they think of shackles and spirituals: we instead should
think about psychological and gratuitous violence done to people in chattel
Explore the middle passage = what to do about humanity
Affect = how others perception: target of Presidential war powers
Fungibility: currency or commodity
In CX: tie the aff to the judges ballot
Strategy should be looking ahead: showing images bad because just shows that whites
tactics are working: instead show images of hope and positivity
Argument = we shouldnt perform them in a debate round in public
Cap K
Different modes of resistance
Materialist capitalism has explanatory power
e.g. police brutality can be explained through capitalism
if we make all the races hate each other theres no way to overthrow the elite
materialism rejects notions of affect: we should be looking at the way of how
governments and businesses work
everything about the Middle passage can be explained through economic analysis
attempting to intervene with other possible roots masks and deflects attention from
the state is a superstructure, racism and sexism are superstructures that are built upon
most important = root cause and perm debate
anthropocentrism: treat people like animals because thats how we learned to treat
animals: treat person like a workhorse because we treated workhorses like that
focus on different races: what the USFG government is built on
How to Win As Underdogs
look like you are winningbe confident and call out a team for a bad argument
o in close debates tell the judge how they should vote if they are unsure
o if another team sounds better in your final rebuttal tell the judge to
imagine switch in positions
debate everyone the same
respect your partner and present yourself to the judge
Day 12
How debate should work: how certain arguments should or should not be allowed
Makes debate self-correcting
norms are shaped by theory
theory has helped debate evolve
How to debate theory
have theory blocks (your own) makes it easier to deliver argument; know which
arguments to prioritize
theory blocks should be as easy to flow as possible: tag (explains problems that
they have)+ explanation for warrants
important to have a counter-interp that is fair to both sides while resolving the
problems you have highlighted
needs both defensive (e.g. conditional args do not uniquely skew the time
allocation of the 2AC) and offensive arguments
avoid overly substructuring theory arguments
best theory arguments are well delivered and slow down and put emphasis on
certain words
have a good flow of theory
o when neg: the 1NR should handle theory: then the 2NC has a good flow of
o when aff: the 1AR should handle theory and should extend at least one of
explain why it is a voting issueimpact: allows for improvement of debate and
real world impacts (education and fairness [competitive equity in round]); their
models of debate conflict; probably go for competing interpretations; say to the
judge that they should reject the team not the argument (with impacts) 2002
university of kentucky theory
o competing interpretations causes a race to the bottom: it incentivizes
debaters to go for theory instead of substantive argumentstheory should
not be a large part of the 2AR most of the time
o response = our specific objection causes a race to the top: our theory
argument is legitimate and our theory argument is productive
o reject the team for the purpose of reform: causes the team to change the
practices that they employwill have seen the wrongs of running theory
o reject the team to discourage future of use of theory argumentative
o reject the team for retribution: they broke the rules and there has to be
o object to their abuse and raise a good theoretical objection; sometimes fall
back on reject the argument not the team (e.g. consult CP)
o sometimes what the other team did that isnt ok justifies what you did that
isnt super ok
o way that you carve out your counter-interpretation is important:
debatableisolate one or two things about their model of debate bad and
why our model of debate solves: depth over breadth: their model allows
contradictory arguments
o flow condo somewhere on one of the conditional advocacies, put it
towards the bottom of one of the advocacies
o if the PIC is nontopical, we get to have it: any kind of military bad
arguments is a DA to the counterplan
o PICS with solvency advocate: we should get to read it: primarily about
research and literature
Use of theory in the 1AR
o If the 2AC has a theory argument, one of them has to make it into the 1AR
o Either shadow extended (no use in 2AR) or extended actually for the 2AR
o If the neg concedes, highlight their mistake and extend
o pick one reason why their model of debate is wrong and extend
o consider using embedded clash (they say, we say) to defeat theory
o shadow extending: extending one theory argument that creates a time
tradeoff and draws fire from the 2NRmake the 2NR that theory might
be a viable strategy in the 2AR
o two different sets of theory blocks: shadow extension15 to 30 seconds in
length with grouping and embedded clash and 2AR theory45 to 60
seconds long and detailed and thorough make it clear that shadow
extension is the product of an error on the neg
o condo group it illegit concede that it destroys 2AC and wrecks depth of
debate destroying education our counter-interp preserves neg flexibility
without destroying engagement and has net benefit of allowing the 2AC to

account for both sides of the theory debate
choose one impact (fariness or education) and deploy new arguments that way
bend the laptop over
2AC impact calc good but too extensive: shorten it and stop repeating it
on Heidegger go for timeframe: warming causes the impact of the environment
flow better to get all the case arguments: only pay attention to the case
the perm on the K (say perm do the both or perm do the alt)
good arguments and delivery
should not be extending responses to what the 2NR does not go for
no perm on the K in the 1AR
1NR = only flow the 2AC and 1AR