Adaptation

I dont hate players, I dont love the

game, Im way above the game
Stop whining, learn from your mistakes. Judges are not robots.
Put yourself above the game board, see the pieces and dont
get upset.
Entitlement is bad; you have to debate the way judge wants
you to. Useful and realistic skill to be able to repackage your
ideas and arguments in the way that the judge wants to hear.
You can correctly assess how to win the debate or you can
choose to ignore it.
Stop getting mad at other people for doing debate in the way
you find most ideal.
Adaptation does not require you to debate stupid, just to
debate smart.
Where a judge is from affects how they see how you argue and
what you do.
In the northwest theres a lack of acceptance for super pointed
questions or anything.
Dont do anything really weird.

The difference between your subject position and the judges.

The judge fundamentally is spectating the debate. Its hard to
look objectively at the round when you are participating.
Youre the only person who understands 100% of your speech.
You will understand most of what the opponent is saying;
youll see their speech doc and have seen their arguments
before.
Judge may have never heard your aff before, they might be
unfamiliar about the arguments or concepts when youre
reading it. GIANT disconnect between you and the judge;
brings background to the table.
You experience the round differently; actively formed as the
debate happens. Generally you already have a schematic
understanding of the affirmative.
You need to highlight a specific concept. Rhetorical proof is
key to the debate round.
Rhetorical proof is different from logical proof; Rhetorical proof
is mutually established by the speaker and the audience. A
moment where you know something is solidly is resolved.
Rhetorical proof is established based on the ways in which the
audience reacts.
Essentially: What is sufficient to win an argument, not what is
necessary to prove an argument to be true

Logos: appeal to the audiences reasoning; what we like to

think debate is about.
Ethos: appeal to the moral character of the audience;
credibility of the speakers knowledge helps with Ethos.
Experience with the subject matter. IE misrepresenting
evidence sort of destroys Ethos; failing to answer questions
also sorta destroys Ethos. Appeal to the character of the
individuals were listening too. If we think the person has
integrity and honesty were more willing to believe what they
say to be true. Finally an element of goodwill exists; whether
or not the speaker is interested in making the speaker make
the right choice.
Pathos: appeal to listeners emotions.
Factory Model: Suggests that certain conditions must exist for
an issue to be recognize/become prominent. This then leads to
it getting attention by legislators who come to the best
decision and then make a law.
-Presumes rational and objective determining of facts. Not
super plausible
Contest over Meaning: Policy process is a contest over
meaning. Policies that get passed are not the ones that are the
best but the ones that are able to develop stronger
connections to deeply held world view and values that the
public has. Figures that are less connected to a story resonate
very little. Ideas->Conflict. Communities and governments
attempt to answer questions of meaning not questions of fact.
Efficiency: Usually used to describe a bill. Americans like fast
shit.
Efficiency is presumed to be rational objective way of looking
at the policy; stays out of murky area of feelings and shit.
Appears to be rational and objective. Side steps the
fundamental question of efficiency of what. Is the outcome
good to both sides?

How to assess your Critic

These are not the droids youre looking for:
1. Style: Sit/Stand during CX? Tag-team?
2. Content: Dont dilute your content; repackage your
arguments. Repackage your arguments in a way that makes
them easier to understand.
3. You must unlearn what you have learned; Make sure you
stereotype right.
4. Do or Do not; there is no try: Dont be half assed. Do the
debate right. Make a decision before the debate round about
how your adaptation will affect you. Once you decide what
youre going to do roll with it.
5. Shoot first: Plan ahead; prepare for the tournament youre
going too. Asses the type of critic youre likely to see. Cut a
case neg that makes sense with the critics youre likely to have
at the tournament. Do your research; cutting uniqueness
updates for your position/read judge philosophy books and
repackaging strategies.
6: Do your thing; when in doubt, still do your thing.