introducing structure into the round
Here’s the second post in the Domination series, Let’s Make Debate Less Horrible.
The more you know.
• Please lay out some burdens analysis in your first speech. What do you think the resolution requires you to do, and what options does the negative have? Oh, and don’t just say “I have to prove that [insert resolution here]” Actual burdens analysis. Be specific.
• This is the first speech, please keep things clear, or both sides will have a hard time debating. Get the basics down. Can we reduce your case to a simple logical statement? Is that statement consistent with your definitions and interpretation of the resolution? Do you provide clear explanation of your argument?
• Provide a clear structure in your aff case. Basic English composition skills, friends. Your three contentions should be similar in size, taglines should be parallel in wording, and ideas should logically flow.
• There are several ways you can organize your neg speech:
1. Run the neg case, cover the aff case
2. Cover the aff, then run the neg.
3. Only cover the aff case
4. Only run the negative case
5. A combination of the last two. A post on that strategy is forthcoming.
• If you use 1 or 2, collapse your value discussion. For 1, stick your value arguments in the line-by-line refutation of the aff value; for 2, stick value comparison arguments under analysis of your value in the negative case.
• Don’t be afraid to reorganize so you can cover what you what to cover first. In case you run out of time, you’ll have covered what’s most important to you. Don’t change the order unnecessarily.
• Don’t jump around. This can be easier if you know exactly what you what you’re going to say, which is helped if you have good flowing skills and the ability to write down all the arguments you have before getting up to speak.
• Signpost. If you must jump around, tell us where.
Get your organization on.