How to form compatible teams and prepare for cross-examination debate

By: Nicholas A. Donofrio

Table of ContentsTable of contents

Table of contents............................................................................................................................iiiOverview..........................................................................................................................................vProblems with Current Debate.........................................................................................................3

Summary of problems teams, and students have.........................................................................3Team Problems............................................................................................................................3Individual Problems.....................................................................................................................4

Forming a Cohesive Debate Team..................................................................................................7Summary......................................................................................................................................7Evaluate talent.............................................................................................................................7First Speaker................................................................................................................................8Second Speaker............................................................................................................................8Once a new team is formed.........................................................................................................9

Preparing your Affirmative Case...................................................................................................13Summary....................................................................................................................................13About the Affirmative................................................................................................................13Structure of the Affirmative.......................................................................................................13Steps to prepare your Affirmative.............................................................................................13

Preparing your Negative Strategy..................................................................................................19Summary....................................................................................................................................19About the Negative....................................................................................................................19Topicality...................................................................................................................................19On Case......................................................................................................................................19Disadvantage (Dis-Ad)..............................................................................................................20Counter Plan (CP)......................................................................................................................20Kritiks........................................................................................................................................20General steps to prepare a Negative Strategy............................................................................21

Final steps to be ready for Any Tournament.................................................................................25Summary....................................................................................................................................25Tips for any Tournament...........................................................................................................25Conclusion.................................................................................................................................26

Index..............................................................................................................................................27Picture Citations.............................................................................................................................29

Introduction vOverview

Cross-examination debate is one of the leading forms of competition for debate around

the country. It is the art of two teams with two people each who compete to affirm and negate a

resolution. The team with the better arguments is declared the winner. Often in today’s debate a

team may lose not because the other team had better arguments, but because the losing team was

not properly prepared or cohesive. A team is an extension of the school that signed up the team

for a tournament. When a team does poorly it reflects back onto the school and it damages its

national recognition in the program. This manual is for Berkner High School and their coach as

a guide to help form cohesive debate teams, and to properly prepare for debate tournaments.

This ensures the school is well represented and the students are put in the best position to

succeed.

This manual will start with information on problems within the current debate circuit, and

will show how they are holding back the students and the schools potential. We will go into how

to form a proper debate team thereby making sure both students’ talents are fully utilized. I will

then go into a simple, but efficient process which will have teams prepared for both the

affirmative and negative sides of CX. Lastly, there will be a few tips on what students can

expect and utilize in any tournament situation.

Chapter 1 Problems with Current Debate

Chapter 1 Problems with Current Debate 3Problems with Current DebateSummary of problems teams, and students have Cross-Examination debate is a competition in which two teams, of two members each, either affirm or negate a resolution. In an ideal situation the best team will win; however, this is not always the case. A great team might be un-prepared in some aspect that may catch them off guard, and cause them to be eliminated. Every problem that can happen cannot be eliminated. After all we are human, and there will always been the human error element. A majority of problems can be eliminated with proper preparation, and putting students in the best situation to maximize their talents. The following is a list of common problems, or mistakes students and teams make that can be fixed with this manual.

Team problems:

Student’s talents don’t mix well. 1st speaker is not able to flow. 2nd speaker cannot impact calculus. 1st speaker cannot speak quickly. Team is deficient in time management. Team is poor at stating warrants and sign posting

Individual problems:

Student can’t debate theory. Student cannot analyze arguments effectively. Student cannot spread, or keep up with spreading. Student does not know how to cut their own evidence. Students are not familiar with their affirmative. Students don’t have prepared evidence for negative. Students don’t know how to flow, and extend cards.

Team Problems Nearly all of the problems that occur because of a team are caused by two students who were paired together, don’t mix well. The issue of forming cohesive teams will be addressed in a later chapter, but I will go over how team problems occur, and why they can cost a student good rounds.

Each student has talents in different areas, and it is important that the right talent combinations are placed together within a team. This team talent combination is the most common problem that occurs within the team dynamic. There may have two students who are second speakers in regards to their talents, but one must be the first speaker and vice versa. If your first speaker is not able to flow than that will cause your team to drop arguments and lose a round. One dropped argument can cost you a round. If your second speaker cannot give a good impact calculus in the rebuttals then he/she is not able to present the proper points to the judge. Even if your team had the better arguments, the judge may not vote for you, and may vote for the team that could present their points better in the rebuttals. Many other problems can occur and cost teams rounds. Team chemistry is a must so that the team is strong and is covered in every area of a round. Teams may also be inefficient when it comes to time management. This issue occurs frequently in rounds, and occurs when teams are under prepared and scramble to put

4 How to form compatible teams and prepare for cross-examination debate

together counter arguments. Time management is important because when in a round, you are given 8 minutes of prep. This prep time typically needed for the rebuttal. If time is wasted, then a speech can be rushed, and a team might drop an argument. A team must also be able to sign posts clearly for judges. If a judge does not understand what you are saying, they may disregard it, and that could be the point that wins a round.

Individual ProblemsIndividual problems usually occur because a student is un-prepared in a particular

aspect of debate. This is the case for both students in a team, especially in high school debate. Students are given their affirmative and negative cards, and typically don’t do their own research into what their cards mean, or make cards of their own. This is harmful because if a student does not know the ins and outs of what they are debating then a better prepared team with a better argument can spell doom for that student, no matter how talented they may be.

In debate it is one team’s arguments against another’s, and who defends and attacks their opponents points the best will win. What a lot of students don’t utilize is the many ways to defeat an argument. The one that is prominent and relates to everything within a round is theory. Very few students are strong in theory, and when a student encounters theory, they don’t really have a defense for it. This loss of theory can cause their points to be shot down. A students will also frequently run into the spread strategy. The spread strategy is when a team runs through a lot of evidence very quickly in an effort to overload the other team. If a student is not used to flowing during a spread, or is able to keep up with the spread, they can lose a round by dropping arguments. This is critical because those employing the spread may not be the better team but they just speak much faster. A student may have a problem when it comes to analytics and oral skill. The student may get out excellent arguments, but if he/she isn’t good at analyzing and pointing out why their points are better to the judge, the judge may vote for the other team even if their points weren’t as good.

These common mistakes and problems plague almost every team in the debate world, but these problems are easily fixable, and this manual will now go into the steps to help solve these problems, and allow Berkner to put their best and brightest in a position to do well.

Chapter 2 Forming a Cohesive Debate Team

Chapter 2 Forming a Cohesive Debate Team 7Forming a Cohesive Debate TeamSummary Every school and their coach forms their debate squads differently, but forming a cohesive team is the strongest building block for future success. If two students pair together and then don’t maximize their potential then it makes it that much harder for that team to compete, especially against very strong teams. Finding the balance between two students isn’t as hard as it may sound. I will get into how to put together the most cohesive, competitive teams while utilizing the talents that your students possess.

Evaluate talent Debate is a sport/competition, and just like any other, it requires certain talents. Like other competitive events, a participant may not have all the skills required to compete, but may have enough in a certain area to be competitive. For example, in basketball, a player may not be very good at offense but he/she is an expert at defense, and that is still very valuable to win. The same can be applied to debate. A student may not be strong in some areas, but with the right partner the two can have the right mixture of offense and defense to win. That is why the first step of having the coach evaluate student talent is critical. Being able to pair the right two students together can make all the difference.

Jumping back to the basketball example, basketball managers and owners scout, or evaluate talent of, young players to determine what they are good at, and if they would fit well on their team. Typically they look at speed, height, athleticism, jumping ability, offensive game, and defensive abilities, just to name a few. This can be applied to the talent evaluating of each of your students in debate. I mentioned earlier that a team consists of two students. One is the first speaker, and the other is called the second speaker. Each one needs to have strengths in certain areas, and depending on what each student’s talents are can determine which speaker they should be. The skills that each speaker demands are as follows.

First Speaker should include the following skills:

Ability to flow, or write quickly. Ability to speak rapidly. Can quickly process information, and determine what’s important. A great card cutter. Can sign post when speaking. Can put together a speech quickly using limited time. Well versed in the stock issues of debate. Is able to remember tag lines, and extend cards.

Second Speaker should include the following skill:

Well versed in the theory of debate. Be able to speak quickly. Very knowledgeable of his/hers cards in order to defend points and do a line by line. Able to do a successful impact calculus. Excellent oral speaker. Superb analytical skills drawing on knowledge from cards in the round and information

outside of the round.

8 How to form compatible teams and prepare for cross-examination debate

Can quickly develop counter arguments. Can flow out the offense both teams have. Needs to know how each argument is structured and how to defeat it ex. (Dis-ad, Aff, CP,

T.)

The first and second speakers are not limited to these skills but need to possess them in some rough form. (A student won’t be perfect at it when they first start but they need to have the potential for one of these two positions and then they can begin to refine those skills.)

Evaluating the talent itself isn’t difficult. The coach or coaches will use a simple one on one cx debate format. This is a relaxed format where they will give the two students everything they will need, and have them debate it out to the best of their ability. It is key to let them figure things out and not to help them much while evaluating their raw skill. The one on one debate mainly test reading and speaking speed, the ability to flow, sign posting, use of prep time, remembering and extending cards, and the knowledge of debate arguments and stock issues. Another great way to test skill is to have a one on one public forum debate. In this type of debate, the coach will need to provide the proper information to the new student. This will test oral skill, the ability to quickly form counter points, and the proficiency to sway the judge.

First SpeakerWhen you’re evaluating the skills of students to determine who should be what and who

should be their partner, this is specifically what you will be looking for in a first speaker.

At the end of the one on one cx debate round, take a look at their flow. (A flow is notes taken by a debater during each speech of a round containing key points and information as well as warrants of cards.) The flow should be somewhat organized into the 8 speeches of the round, and contain relevant information. This is a strong indicator that this student may be best suited as a first speaker. During the round, if the student was a quick speaker, and was clear in their words with no problems reading through any of the cards, that is another indicator. If the debater was also able to recall information, and cite why it was important then he/she should most likely be first speaker.

On the other side, if the debater struggled during the rebuttal rounds of a debate, where they couldn’t read new cards and needed to use analytics, then he/she would be better suited as first speaker. If the student did a poor job trying to defeat an argument but just tried to read more evidence, this is a strong indicator that the student should not be second speaker. A clear-cut indication that the student should be first speaker would be if they were observed struggled in the public forum round and where complete analytics and oral skill must be used.

Second SpeakerThe second speaker has things in common with the first speaker, but you will basically be

looking for the opposite of what the first speaker needs.

The second speaker also needs to be able to speak quickly in the cx round, but they might struggle some with getting it all out at first. She/he will attempt to “prove wrong” as many points as they can, even if it is off the top of their head, with no evidence. The student will be able to promote their plan with passion trying to prove they are right. When a first speaker might

Chapter 2 Forming a Cohesive Debate Team 9

be scrambling for evidence to counter an argument, a good indicator that a student is a second speaker, is if they are extremely quick in developing counter arguments without a lot of evidence. A second speaker will also do superb in the public forum round showing great inaptitude for oral speaking and analytical debating.

On the contrary, a student who would be a good second speaker might struggle in the constructive rounds, where you have to put together cards and reading a speech. The student might forget arguments and drop them because their flow is sloppy, or they might forget to extend points they made earlier thereby dropping their own arguments. Typically, the second speaker will be the better debater while the first speaker is much more organized.

During practice rounds, you might have two first speakers against each other or two second speakers competing against each other. This is fine because you won’t know what type or speaker the student is best at since you are in the process of evaluating their talents. Usually, they will both struggle in the same areas during the debate if they both have skills typically for a first speaker and so on.

Once a new team is formedOnce you have evaluated the skills of your new debate students, and they have been

classified as a first or second speaker, then they can be placed in their teams of two. There will some students who are stronger than others and you will want to make sure they are together as to not stunt their growth. By the time you place all your students in teams, you will have evaluated them enough to know where each one’s strengths lie. You’re going to want to keep that in mind as well their weaknesses so that each student in a team covers up as many weaknesses as possible. For example, if you have one student that is excellent at analytics and oral skill but weak when it comes to flowing arguments, and you have another student that is strong in flowing, then you will want to put them together,. This insures that they can eliminate each other’s problems. You may also have some students that can do it all. This is a luxury because they are the perfect glue. They can be paired with any partner and they will take care of the weaknesses of the other person.

Now that everyone is in a team, you can begin to build chemistry and that team dynamic. The coach will need to have all his new teams compete against each other in a non-competitive atmosphere, but full-on cx debates. Try to have your good teams debate each other, and your lesser, or developing teams compete against each (hurting self-esteem never helps). Have the teams cut their own cards (find their own evidence). This helps by having the team know their own evidence and be able to find it and quote it quickly if needed. Better teams may be able to make their own affirmatives, and negative strategies. Don’t expect developing teams to be able to do that just yet. By having them cut a few cards of evidence, this can go a long way in helping them develop. Provide them with major arguments that your squad as a whole has developed to supplement the rest.

With your teams practicing and cutting evidence the next step would be to sign them up for tournaments. Nothing brings a team closer together than competing. Try to put your teams in tournaments that are at their skill level whether that be VCX (Varsity CX) or NCX (Novice CX). Don’t be afraid to put them in harder tournaments quickly. It helps them learn faster. Don’t worry if they lose often. Losing is a part of the activity. The coach and the senior teams

10 How to form compatible teams and prepare for cross-examination debate

will need to support them as much as they can, and enforce that it’s meant to be a fun activity. Eventually they will get better with practice, and start to win.

If a team is having major chemistry problems then it may be best to separate the team and form a new one. This does happens and is not a serious thing. You should be sure to eliminate the problem quickly before it boils over.

All these steps and information will ensure that you form the best teams which are compatible in relation to student’s skills. Continue to have them compete and practice together and their personalities will mesh, and form into a extremely strong union.

Chapter 3 Preparing your

Affirmative Case

Chapter 3 Preparing your Affirmative Case 13Preparing your Affirmative CaseSummary When in a debate round, you can be one of two possible sides. You can either be the affirmative, where you affirm the resolution (which is given at the beginning of every debate season), or you could be the negative, where you negate the affirmative. This chapter will focus on preparing an affirmative case in order to avoid making senseless mistakes that can cost a round.

About the AffirmativeThere can be many affirmative cases for the one resolution a year. Each can focus on a

different aspect as long as it affirms or supports the resolution. When on the affirmative side, the first speaker gets through what your affirmative purposes in the first constructive speech. After that the negative will then employ their negative strategy in which is basically why your affirmative won’t work. It is then up to the second speaker to counter those negative points, and then the affirmative side will begin trying to sway the judges in the rebuttals on why the affirmative is good, and why their counter arguments to the negative defeat the bad. What most students don’t realize and is the most critical mistake made by teams on the affirmative side is that the affirmative is the strongest point that will be made in the round.

Structure of the Affirmative All affirmative cases have a basic structure, and it is critical that the students on a team know that structure. An affirmative starts with its inherency. The inherency is the reason why the plan hasn’t been put in effect. Then it moves to the plan itself which usually starts with “Thus the plan: The U.S. should do etc…” Next is the harms. The harms are what the plan is solving for. The harms usually include something that will destroy the world if not solved like nuclear war, and the affirmative will have several cards saying several harms and why they will happen. After that is solvency. Solvency is basically stating that your affirmative will solve for all of your harms and then some, and evidence as to why it is the best option to solve for all your harms. Lastly is timeframe. Timeframe is how soon your plan will solve for all of those harms. An affirmative may also include a few other parts depending on the affirmative. There are add-ons which state other things your affirmative will solve for. It can also include a theory aspect such as a D-rule.

Steps to prepare your AffirmativeOnce a student knows the structure of an affirmative, they can begin to properly prepare

on how to run the affirmative. The affirmative is the easier side to debate because after it is read in the first constructive or 1AC you will spend the rest of the round defending it from any negative strategy put forward by the opposing side. If you are very familiar with your affirmative, it makes it easy to defend it, and win the round. The following steps are what you should do to prepare an affirmative case.

1. Make sure it is inherent: When making inherency for an affirmative, the point is that it has never been done before, and why. You must make sure it is inherent, and then no negative team can say it isn’t.

2. When stating your plan make sure it is topical: Negative teams can claim a plan is not topical by defining a word in your plan and providing a definition, and saying you don’t meet its meaning and that you are not being topical for that word. In order to make sure your plan is

14 How to form compatible teams and prepare for cross-examination debate

topical make sure you have a definition for every word in your plan, so that you can counter any topical argument a negative team could possible throw at an affirmative.

3. Know the harms to your affirmative, and have backup evidence: A negative team might try to attack your affirmative by saying your harms will not happen. What you will need to have is back up evidence further proving your harms will happen.

4. Have back-up solvency evidence: Many negative teams will attack an affirmatives solvency saying that it won’t solve, or that it has already been solved. This is when knowing your solvency and having back-up evidence will solve. You will need to re-iterate that it hasn’t been solved yet, and the back-up evidence will solidify that your plan will solve.

5. Memorize the warrants to your affirmative cards: Cards are evidence you will read, and each gives the jest of what the card is about in the tag line. The tag line is the main idea of the card like “Nuclear war will kill everyone”, and the warrants are also in the tag line. They are the author, or the person who said that and the date they said it, and you will need to memorize your warrants, or have them written down so you can easily extend your evidence.

6. Know the weaknesses of your affirmative: The affirmative can’t solve for everything, and every affirmative has a weakness. Don’t try to hide the weakness, but instead know the weaknesses of your affirmative, so that you can anticipate potential arguments that can be made by the other team. For example, if you know your affirmative plan can cost a lot of money then anticipate the other team to run a spending argument, and make sure you are prepared with evidence to say that it is false.

7. Have add-ons ready for your case: An add-on is a second advantage that your case will solve for. Typically they are read by the second speaker during the second constructive speech or 2AC. An add-on can only strengthen your case, and you will need them if the negative team runs a counter plan. The add-on will ensure your case is better by giving it more net-benefits.

8. Know how to do an impact calculus: An impact calculus is the last speech in a round given by the second speaker in the second affirmative rebuttal or the 2AR. It is a speech that draws on all the information that has been presented in the round, and must be complete oral skill and analytical comprehension. It weighs three things, timeframe, magnitude, and probability. Timeframe is simple because it is when your plan will solve, and is always on one card. Magnitude it the magnitude of what you are solving, so if your harms are proven then you will win on magnitude because it is usually complete and utter destruction. Probability is the probability that your affirmative will solve the harms presented in the round. If you defend your solvency then your affirmative will have 100% probability of solving. An impact calculus will win or lose a close round.

9. AN AFFIRMATIVE OUTWEIGHS ANYTHING IN A ROUND: An affirmative is the strongest thing that will be said in a round. It seems to take debaters a lot of loses to learn this, but the affirmative has the benefit of the doubt in any round, and it will outweigh any negative scenarios that the other team can present. If you say that the affirmative outweighs at

Chapter 3 Preparing your Affirmative Case 15

the end of all your affirmative speeches and really hammer that home in the impact calculus then you will win almost all of the rounds in which you are put on the affirmative side of debate.

These steps at first might look like a lot, but they are really not. If the team cuts some of their own cards, or finds their own evidence then much of this is easy and will not take a lot of time. These steps will ensure that you have a complete affirmative that you will be able to defend from almost anything a team can throw at you.

Chapter 4 Preparing your Negative Strategy

Chapter 4 Preparing Your Negative Strategy 19Preparing your Negative Strategy Summary

We have gone through the affirmative side of debate, now we will go into the negative side. The negative side is a more complicated than the affirmative because your negative strategy will change every round where you are negative. This chapter will focus on how to develop a negative strategy for any affirmative because a poor negative strategy will cost any team a win.

About the Negative Being negative is more of a challenge than being affirmative. If you are affirmative, then you will run your affirmative case every time and be used to it. On the negative side, there is a different negative strategy for every affirmative case you will encounter. Being negative also means you do not have the benefit of the doubt from the judge, and you will spend the entire debate round trying to prove to the judge that the affirmative is flawed and that they should not vote for it. When developing a negative strategy, there are several arguments you can include such as, a topicality (T), on case, disadvantage (Dis-ad), counter plan (CP), or a kritik (K). Varying these up is one of the biggest advantages a negative team can have because it forces an affirmative team to be prepared. I will go into each one to cover what each has to offer in a negative strategy.

TopicalityA topicality is probably the weakest argument you can have in a negative strategy.

Referring back to chapter 3, the second part of the affirmative structure is when the plan is stated. That is when the topicality comes into play. It is when you pick a word out of the affirmatives plan, and offer a definition of what that word means, and then you say why the affirmative doesn’t meet that definition making them un-topical. The good thing about a topicality is if the affirmative really isn’t topical then you have won the round. The bad news is that it is a rare occurrence and the affirmative will just read a counter definition, say why it is topical, and that will do away with your topicality argument. Topicality is a very short argument, generally takes about 30 seconds to read, and is used to test if the affirmative is topical.

On CaseOn case are arguments that directly attack the structure of the affirmative. Generally, on

case is directed towards the inherency, harms, or solvency of the affirmative, and can range from evidence stating that something in the affirmative is wrong or un-true to turning something in the case stating that someone has already solved that or by solving that you will cause this problem. On case is usually the last thing read during a negative strategy and because of that if a team isn’t very fast they don’t always get to the on case. Also a team has to have specific evidence to the affirmatives case to run on case on it. Due to that, it tends to be the least used because unprepared teams won’t have specific on case ready. On case is very good to utilize. If you do have evidence against an affirmative, and the affirmative team isn’t prepared than your on case can severely through them off. In the best cases, your on case will be able to eliminate their solvency, or their harms making their entire affirmative useless. One great way to use on case is in a solvency dump. You can utilize it only if you know how to spread, but a solvency dump is when you read tons of on case against their solvency. You will read so many different scenarios at such a high speed on why their plan won’t solve. When the affirmative team goes up to

20 How to form compatible teams and prepare for cross-examination debate

answer, they are likely to drop one of the cards you read as to why they can’t solve with their plan, and then you can eliminate their solvency.

Disadvantage (Dis-Ad)A dis-ad is the bread and butter of most negative strategies. A dis-ad has a standard

structure. First it requires a link. A link is something in the affirmative case that connects the dis-ad to that specific affirmative. For example, if the affirmative case requires spending then you can run a spending dis-ad and the link to the dis-ad would be the spending required by the affirmative. Next is the uniqueness of a dis-ad. Uniqueness is why the dis-ad would be triggered by the affirmative. If I refer to the spending dis-ad I used earlier than the uniqueness would be something like “current spending is straddling a recession but massive spending can tip it over the edge.” Lastly is what is called impacts. Impacts are the awful things that the dis-ad will cause because it is triggered by the affirmative. Back to the spending dis-ad example the impact would be something along these lines. “The recession triggered by the spending will send our economy in a downward spiral ultimately leading to a third world war.” A well-made dis-ad can be extremely hard for an affirmative team to beat, but the dis-ad has to outweigh the affirmative in magnitude.

Counter Plan (CP)A counter plan can be tricky to use but in the right situation can be the most effective

argument to utilize. A counter plan is when you decide to use the affirmative for yourself but with a different agent. An agent is who is passing the plan, which is usually the U.S. Federal Government. However, when you run a counter plan you run the plan but use a different agent such as the U.N. or an executive order. Another key difference is net benefits. The affirmative will get the nod from the judge, so you can’t just take their plan. Net benefits is what sets it apart, and they are typically gained because you are using a different agent. For example if you pass the affirmative using an executive order than your net benefit could be an increase in hegemony that the affirmative doesn’t have. A counter plan can be very dangerous in that you will be using the affirmative plan, but at the same time you will be running other arguments in the negative strategy. In order not to contradict yourself, if you are winning the counter plan then that is what you will go for, but if you are losing the counter plan then push it aside and go for one of your other arguments.

KritiksKritiks are essentially an argument based on theory. Kritiks are the hardest argument to

run because they are very complicated. A lot of judges won’t even allow Kritiks because they don’t like them, and the other half of judges that do allow Kritiks are very familiar with them, so if one is run poorly they won’t be happy about it. Kritiks contain a link just like a dis-ad, and the Kritik will need to connect to the affirmative in some way. For example a common Kritik is the Capitalism K, and the link is if the affirmative promotes capitalism in any way. The Kritik will then go into why the specific element is evil. This will be all theory and opinion of philosophers and can get confusing. Next are the impacts. In the Capitalism K one of the impacts is that Capitalism promotes war by expansion leading to inevitable destruction. Lastly the biggest part of a Kritik is the alternative. The alternative is what we should do instead of what the plan suggests. For the Capitalism K the alternative is to reject all Capitalism and to engage in a state of anarchy. In order to run a Kritik, you need to be well versed in theory and philosophy, so that

Chapter 4 Preparing Your Negative Strategy 21

you can explain it. You must also be comfortable with Kritiks before you run one in an actual round. I wouldn’t recommend running a Kritik unless you are an experienced team.

General steps to prepare a Negative StrategyWe have gone over all the possible arguments that can be in a negative strategy. I will go

over a few easy steps to prepare a simple negative strategy for any affirmative.

1. Check the debate wiki: The debate wiki is a wiki page that has information on every school, and their teams. It will also have the affirmative for every school as well. Check ahead of time so you can prepare a negative strategy for that school before every tournament.

2. Determine the key points to an affirmative: When looking at an affirmative find the key points. Its inherency, harms, and solvency.

3. Find the weaknesses: Once you know the key points of an affirmative you can determine the weaknesses, and key in on them.

4. Form a basic structure: Once you know the weaknesses for an affirmative from a basic structure. This usually consists of one topicality to test if an affirmative is topical. One generic dis-ad that deals with current events usually in politics, and a counter plan.

5. Add to your basic structure: You can use your basic structure for just about any affirmative, but when you know the weakness of an affirmative you will need to incorporate specific arguments for that affirmative. Whether it be on case, or possible a dis-ad. You will need a case specific argument with your basic structure to pressure the affirmative team to know their affirmative.

6. Memorize your warrants: Memorize the warrants to your major negative cards, so that you can easily extend them in a round.

7. Have some back-up evidence: When the affirmative team tries to defeat your arguments make sure you have some back-up evidence. Mainly to defend the link and uniqueness of your dis-ads, the agent of your counter plan, or to bolster you’re on case arguments.

8. Remember you goal: Remember the negative has to prove that voting for the affirmative would be bad. In order to do that you have to win enough of the negative so that it outweighs the affirmative, so make sure to stress that your impacts outweigh for any negative argument you are winning.

These steps will ensure that you can have a general negative for any affirmative as long as you check the affirmatives beforehand. Have a general basic structure you can use at any time. Break down the affirmative, and figure out its strong points so you can target those with your on case arguments. Develop an argument that hits its weaknesses, and make sure you have back-up evidence for your arguments. By doing this, you will always have a negative strategy ready for any affirmative which will make it that much easier to win a debate round.

Chapter 5 Final steps to be ready for Any Tournament

Chapter 5 Final steps to be ready for Any Tournament25

Final steps to be ready for Any TournamentSummary

With a team formed, an affirmative case prepared, and a go to negative strategy ready the last step is to compete in a tournament. A tournament is where you will test your skills, and gain experience. Almost all CX tournaments have the same format. There will be 4 rounds, and a team will be affirmative twice, and negative twice. Depending on how many teams there are in a tournament, the elimination rounds will start. Only the teams with the best records after the 4 opening rounds will get to compete in the elimination rounds. In the elimination rounds, it becomes a single elimination were you either win, or lose and get knocked out. That process will continue until there is only one team left standing. In a tournament, you are not only competing to win the trophy, but you will also get National Forensic League points or state points. The state points are needed to qualify to compete in your state tournament to determine best in state, and of course there is the national tournament. You will have to earn a spot at the national qualifier tournament.

Tips for any Tournament Every tournament has its similarities and differences, but there are some tips when it

comes to competing in a tournament that can give any team a slight advantage which can go a long way. The following is a list of tips that can be used to be ready at any tournament.

Paradigm: When entering a round always ask for judge’s paradigm. With the paradigm you will know which arguments the judge would most likely vote on. They will either be a stock issues judge, tab judge, or policy maker judge. Stock issues judges want arguments that focus only on the stock issues or main structure of the affirmative. Tab judges come in with no opinion and want a debtor to tell them how to vote and why. A policy judge will usually vote for the side that solves or stops the most deaths.

Check the sign up for the tournament: By knowing who is in the same tournament makes it that much easier to prepare a negative strategy for each school

Use a computer: Using a computer makes it much easier to pull up, read, and flow during a round, and will save a lot of time.

Utilize extra time: You will usually have about an hour between each round. Use that time to prep out some arguments instead of goofing around.

Sign post when speaking: Sign posting is when you slow down on the tag lines for the judges so that they can write them down.

Keep track of your prep time: There are 4 constructive speeches and 4 rebuttals in the order of 1AC, 1NC, 2AC, 2NC, 1NR, 1AR, 2NR, 2AR and you have 8 minutes of prep total for all of those speeches, so make sure you use it wisely.

Speak for the entire time: Judges like it when a student speaks for the entire speech. The constructive speeches are 8 minutes each, and the rebuttals are 5 minutes each.

Be smart in you Cross-Examination: After each constructive speech there is a cross-examination portion where the person who just spoke will be cross-examined by the other team, and it is 3 minutes long each. This is critical because when you are being cross-examined you don’t want to give anything away. When answering a question, talk for as long as you can to waste time.

26 How to form compatible teams and prepare for cross-examination debate

Set up arguments when cross-examining: When you are negative you can really utilize the Cross-examination period. If you can get the affirmative team to openly say a link to one of your negative arguments before you read it, then it makes it difficult for them to defeat that argument. For example, if you ask the other team if their plan will cost a lot of money, and they say yes, then you already have your link for the spending dis-ad.

Split the block: The negative has a time when they need to do the 2NC and then the 1NR immediately after. This is called the block with back to back speeches. A negative team should absolutely utilize the block. This is the only time where you don’t need to talk about everything in a round without dropping arguments. A negative team can take half their arguments and go into detail about them in each speech with the extra time. For example, the 2NC can be about a dis-ad and on case, while the 1NR can be about a counter plan instead of talking about them all in one speech.

Open CX: If you have a partner that is not very good in CX then ask the judge if open CX is ok. Open CX is when all four students can cross-examine at the same time. It is helpful so that you can answer questions for you weaker partner.

Connect with the judge in the rebuttals: In the rebuttals, when talking about the impacts of the round make the judge emotionally involved. You can do this by saying that the judge will die if this impact happens. This will make the judge think because they don’t want to die, and may weigh your impacts as more important.

Learn from a loss: If you do lose, learn from it. Get evidence to counter the argument that beat you so that if you ever run into that argument again you will not lose to.

Have fun: Remember to have fun and enjoy yourself. It may be a competition but enjoy the experience.

By using all of these tips during a tournament you will be able to make the most out of every tournament.

ConclusionWith proper teams formed, a good affirmative prepared, a negative strategy on standby,

and confident for any tournament, the students will be ready. They will be able to represent Berkner well as they are prepared and are confident teams in any situation. No longer will senseless mistakes plague a team repeatedly, and vast improvements in the debate squad will be visible. That will only bring praise to the school and its programs!

Index1st speaker, 32nd speaker, 3add-on, 16aff, 15, 16, 17, 23affirm, v, 3, 15affirmative, v, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23,

24, 27, 28alternative, 23analyze, 3

analyzing, 4arguments, v, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 21, 22,

23, 24, 27, 28back up, 16Berkner High School, vcard, 9, 16, 17cards, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 22, 24case, 3, 4, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28coach, v, 9, 10, 12

Chapter 5 Final steps to be ready for Any Tournament25

cohesive, v, 3, 9combination, 4common, 3, 4, 5, 11, 23competition, v, 3, 9, 28competitive, 9, 12constructive, 11, 15, 16, 27, 28counter plan, 16, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28Cross-examination, v, 28Cross-Examination, 3, 28cross-examined, 28cut, 3, 12debate, 1, v, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 21,

23, 24, 29debate team, vdebaters, 17definition, 16, 21disadvantage, 21drop, 4, 11, 22dropped, 4eliminate, 12, 22eliminated, 3evidence, 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 21, 24, 28extend, 3, 9, 10, 11, 16, 24extension, vfamiliar, 3, 15, 23first speaker, 4, 9, 10, 11flow, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 27form, 1, v, 10, 12forming, 3, 9harms, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23impact calculus, 3, 4, 10, 16, 17impacts, 22, 23, 24, 28inherent, 16judge, 4, 5, 10, 21, 22, 27, 28key points, 23kritik, 21link, 22, 23, 24, 28lose, v, 4, 12, 17, 27, 28magnitude, 17, 22manual, v, 3, 5national, v, 27negate, v, 3, 15negative, vi, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24,

27, 28negative strategy, 15, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28

net-benefits, 16on case, 21open CX, 28oral skill, 4, 10, 11, 12, 17outweighs, 17, 24paradigm, 27points, 4, 10, 11, 15, 23, 24, 27policy maker, 27prepared, v, 3, 4, 16, 21, 22, 27, 28Probability, 17problems, iii, v, 3, 4, 5, 10, 12properly, v, 15rebuttals, 4, 15, 27, 28recognition, vresolution, v, 3, 15rounds, 3, 4, 11, 17, 27school, v, 9, 23, 27, 29second, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 21sign posting, 3, 10simple, v, 10, 17, 23situation, vi, 3, 22, 29skills, 9, 10, 11, 12, 27solvency, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23solvency dump, 22speak, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11speakers, 4, 10, 11spread, 3, 4, 22stock issues, 9, 10, 27students, iii, v, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15, 28succeed., vtab, 27tag lines, 9, 27talents, v, 3, 4, 9, 11teams, 1, iii, v, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 22,

23, 27, 28theory, 3, 4, 10, 15, 23time, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 17, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27,

28time management, 3, 4Timeframe, 15, 17topical, 16, 21, 23topicality, 21, 23tournament., v, 23, 27, 28tournaments, v, 12, 27two, v, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15

28 How to form compatible teams and prepare for cross-examination debate

Uniqueness, 22utilize, vi, 4, 22, 28

warrants, 3, 10, 16, 24wins., v, 4

Photo Citation Page 29Picture Citations

Walknboston (photographer), March 27, 2008, Gavel [photo], Boston, Massachusetts, http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkn/3314689121/in/photostream

Alfred Charles Snyder (professor), june 26th 2012, National Forensics League [photo], Ripon Wisconsin, http://globaldebateblog.blogspot.com/2012/06/national-forensic-league-successfully.html

Tyler Durden, ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD, 10,22,2012, Words [photo], http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-22/debate-post-mortem-obamas-bin-laden-romneys-bad-guys-and-mali-manipulators-moar-cent

National Forensics league, April 8th 2012, stick men debating [photo], http://tkmiller97.wordpress.com/

Joshua (debater), October 31, 2012, Debate-1 [photo], http://westland.flexacademies.com/archives/category/debate/

VeeKay (blogger), two men debating [photo], http://atomicimpulse.blogspot.com/2011/04/classic-debate.html