CASE DEBATING

• CP not essential – can be misguiding

• Can get you better speaker points
o Research - centered
• Consult CP doesn’t allow you to beat better teams
• Can beat top teams with great case strategy
• Compliment CP strategy
o Adv cp requires you to debate the other adv. Of the aff
o Prep & execution
 Research
• Half of debate repeats itself
o Heg, terminal impacts, etc.
• Focus on one or two core affirmatives
o Deal with each advantage
• Viability of generic link args
• Impact related defense
o Include impact-level defense argument to win against try or die
o Extinction not
 Writing case negs
• Requires intensive research
• Hone in on aff flaws
• Good case strat
o Don’t answer like DA
 Aff chooses direction of adv.
 i/l level
• aff ignores things that need to be addressed
• define the scope they need to solve is greater than the solvency
they access
 Don’t just read “aff doesn’t solve”
• Define key motivations, assumptions, scope
o Don’t just read 4 no solve cards – waste of time
o No solvency, DPRK doesn’t think US attack imminent,
Kim Jung Il wants for other purpose (ie economy)
o Econ/ other impact
• Judges air affirmative automatically
• Read every card in aff
o Look for alt causes cites from same ev
o Look for powertags, hidden contradictions
o Incoherent advantages
o Hold their ev to high standard
 Complete, coherent argument
 Scope of i/l
 Magnitude of solvency
 Alt cause – barriers to solvency
 Debating in – round
• Good debates come down to best evidence
o Read all of their 1ac av
o Determine if adv. Has real-world problem
o Determine if the impact will still occur post – plan
o Construct 2NC during 1AC
o Requires effective cross-ex
  Especially if it’s an analytical argument
 Don’t allow aff to wiggle out of point – make clear
o Don’t focus entirely on indicting the quality of their ev
• Later on in the debate
o 1NC
 Write out core args for 1NC during/ right after CX
 Put on top of AT adv
 DA turns case – viable option
 Link everything back to CX
o 2NC
 Be selective – find key args and crush them on it (3 args for flow –
explain and read cards)
 Be comparative on why your ev o/w aff assumptions
• Why their ev is worse – what it doesn’t say
• Make the judge question if the card says what the aff needs it to
say
 Impact defense as quick way out
• Weigh your impact(s) against their adv.
o Add-ons are stupid
 Last – chance, worse ev and mechanism – easy to find flaws
 Depend on earlier solvency mechanism – continue solvency indicts
 1NR impact – turning of add-ons
 Depend on

o 2NR
 Define what their ev says, what it doesn’t scope
 Impact calculus
 Speak louder, slower to cement your point

o
•
•

o
•