Affirmative Casing Strategies

Characteristics of Great ACs 1.Argument Quality 2.Persuasive Rhetoric 3.Strategic vision

Argument Quality 1. Write cases that are grounded in topic literature. 2. Jam pack the AC with multiple arguments. This doesn’t mean speed, it means efficiency, stacking, and vision. a. Definitions have framing/observations b. Values/Standards have justifications/pre- empts c. The case has a link story with defensive spikes and terminal offense d. The evidence in the case is from valid sources with reliable and defendable data.

Persuasive Rhetoric 1.A Novice level debater will over-simplify concepts, an intermediate debater will try to sound smart by using jargon, but an advanced debater will use intuitive appeal that moves beyond jargon but still displays intellect. 2.This happens by using quippy phrases: a.A quippy phrase is like a good song, it should be memorable after hearing it only once. b.QP: short, quotable, memorable, slogan c.“race to the bottom” “people need a way, not a handout” “one man’s hero is another man’s terrorist” “it is better to fall forward than to fall backward”

Strategic Vision 1.Look at the AC from the perspective of the 1NC. 2.Look from the perspective of the 1AR. 3.Look from the perspective of the 2AR/judge. 4.Strategy matters at every level in every circuit. 5.Choose a framework that allows you to make relevant arguments

Choosing a strategic framework Heavily defend a framework which you could use to eliminate certain negative arguments from the ballot story Try to anticipate your opponents framework and write yours so you may not have to extend your framework in the 1AR Write your contentions before your framework so you can design your framework to have strong links with your impacts If its worth reading, its worth cutting.

How to set a better strategy 1.The following is a list of stereotypical types of debaters and their pitfalls when they debate: its weakness is not being prepared for technical debaters. a.“Traditional” debaters often connect to a variety of judges, writes cases with V/VC and 2/3 contentions, its weakness is not being prepared for technical debaters. its weakness is not understanding terms they are using or the NC can win lots of impact turns to the AC, making a 1AR almost impossible. b.“Policy debater” will use net benefits, consequentialism, tons of impacts, tons of policy jargon, its weakness is not understanding terms they are using or the NC can win lots of impact turns to the AC, making a 1AR almost impossible.

Better strategy, 2 its weakness is that they have only framework to go for, the case debate tends to be weak. c. The “moral philosopher” usually has lots of framework and goes deep on Kant, Nozick, Rawls, etc…its weakness is that they have only framework to go for, the case debate tends to be weak. its weakness is that they often aren’t sufficiently linked to the topic or the debater doesn’t understand the philosophy they are reading. d. Kritik debater runs different philosophies, often they rely on high knowledge of a particular philosophy, its weakness is that they often aren’t sufficiently linked to the topic or the debater doesn’t understand the philosophy they are reading.

Better Strategy, 3 its weakness is that the judge may not vote on the dropped args, meaning there’s been less case development and you may get low speaks. e. Wannabe tricky debater - they have frameworks with lots of tricks and spikes, lots of a prioris, will try to extend one thing and win, its weakness is that the judge may not vote on the dropped args, meaning there’s been less case development and you may get low speaks.

What case should I write? 1.The one with the most literature 2.The one with the most intuitive appeal 3.The one the negative is scared of 4.The one that you are passionate about 5.In other words, write a case that covers good ground, intuition and literature, not based on the “type” of debater you think you are!!!!!

Types of AC structures: 1.The top-heavy case a.Uses strong v/c analysis to exclude the neg, gives philosophical basis that can intimidate opponents coupled with framing. b.Its strength is that it can suck up most offense by filtering all impacts through the framework, minimizing how much of the flow needs to be covered.

AC Structures, 2 2. Stacking a. Has lots of offensive arguments to extend b. tells multiple link stories c. Strengths: works well with solid (but shorter) framing at the top to give the case multiple options in the debate & checks back the time constraints of the 1AC.

AC Structures, 3 3. Positional a. Focuses on one issue and goes particularly deep on one argument of the AC. b. requires some framing to justify depth strengths: can link out of neg args that are generic to the topic, dilutes some of the neg offense, gives you better access to the res bc you are best read on your issue. c. strengths: can link out of neg args that are generic to the topic, dilutes some of the neg offense, gives you better access to the res bc you are best read on your issue.