By Mark Veeder-SCFI 2013

-How to properly construct an AC and NC -Getting the most out of cross-ex -How to structure a rebuttal

 6 minutes  As much offense as possible that does not depend on the neg strategy.  Few options ▪ Two deontological violations ▪ Two advantages ▪ Three contentions  Good evidence  Has a definite purpose  Multiple Uses ▪ Example-A Deontology card that argues our own experiences cloud our judgments ▪ Any non-universal criterion opens the way for arbitrary decisions ▪ Can’t predict things accurately

 Multiple versions of your aff  Adaptation  Responses to likely neg arguments  Spikes  Pre-empts to common arguments  Use sparingly  What do your opponents often go for  Theory-Use warrants  Never end your speech early  Can always add more explanation  Know long how it is, before the tournament

 Be willing to change and revise your aff.  Every round you learn something  What arguments did you emphasize in the 1AR and the 2AR?  What were the weak points?  How does your aff fit together?  Update during the season  Better evidence  More recent evidence

 Clarification first  Simple questions  Do you defend a specific advocacy?  Why is reason the basis of morality?  What form does surveillance take?  Don’t ask long questions  Gets confusing to follow your train of thought  Increases the probability of arguments  Lead them into your argument  Would people know about the invasion of their digital privacy?  Don’t orate, ask questions.  Do not argue!

 Concede to simple answers  Answer honestly  “I don’t know” can be an acceptable answer  Explain well  Know your argument  Reference evidence  Don’t orate, answer questions

 Have multiple cases  Adaptation for judges  Cases crafted for the aff  Have them timed before the tournament  Have cases that can be ran together

 7 minutes  Should not need much prep  Read your case, then attack the opponents  Reasons why the aff’s FW is bad  Reasons why their contentions are wrong and if they are true, they lead to bad things  Accept things you don’t need to debate  Their definitions  Their criterion, standard or value criteron possibly

 Multiple Routes  Offense under the opponents framework, and a counter FW ▪ They are running util: read a disadvantage, and a counter FW ▪ Innovation DA, and a deontology FW ▪ Case turns and a counter FW ▪ Theory and a counter FW ▪ A kritik and a DA that can be ran without contradicting ▪ Capitalism kritik with an international modeling disad ▪ Kritik with a counter FW ▪ Gendered language, with Deontology ▪ DA under the aff’s framework, and a counter framework ▪ Economy disadvantage, and deontology  Two forms of offense under their case ▪ Two disadvantages  Reasons why the aff’s FW is bad  Classic mistake: Only reading a counter FW ▪ Allows the 1AR too focus only on one issue  Don’t forget defense!  Avoid repetition

 yer_embedded&v=Ng1wVkqJV38

 4 minutes  Alright to use some prep for this speech  Hardest speech in debate  What you drop can be exploited by the NR  Need to be efficient  Prioritize offense, but still read defense

 Respond to theory or T  Game over  Respond to framework arguments  Why what they said against your FW is wrong  Extend your FW ▪ Tag, warrant, author, and date. ▪ Reference all of these  Respond to contention arguments  Cyber terrorism not a threat, explain why it is.  Read offense under their FW  They read rights based arguments, your aff protects rights ▪ Surveillance prevent hackers from stealing your private data

 Prewritten blocks  Arguments that you are expecting here ▪ Rights, econ DA, etc. ▪ Answers to  Can work with any judge ▪ If you have a judge that doesn’t like evidence or pre-written blocks, just write them on your flow during prep  Prewritten extensions  Explains your evidence or overall argument  Becomes much more efficient  Use evidence  For extensions  For blocks  Only make arguments once  Utilize the same argument in multiple places  Use your AC, should have evidence or arguments that answers theirs ▪ Don’t let them distract you  Have an idea of what you want to be going for  Set yourself up for that  Make choices

 6 minutes  Make a decision  Should highlight what you are going for  Should be framed in a way that the aff won’t be able to access.  Tell a story  Everything should tie together

 1. Overview  I win because ▪ First reason ▪ Second reason ▪ Be sure to reference specific arguments  2. extend the NC  A) extend V&VC ▪ Refute answers to your V&VC  B) Extend contentions ▪ Refute answers to your own contentions  3. Answers to the AC  A) answer V&VC ▪ Refute their defenses of their V&VC  B. Answer contentions ▪ Refute their defenses of contentions  4. Preempt the 2AR  Refute possible 2AR voters  Make even if statements (Even if I am losing on X argument, I can still win on Y argument) ▪ Even if I am losing the framework debate and you are using theirs, I can still win under theirs because of the turns I read

 Prewritten blocks  Prewritten extensions  Referencing specific arguments or evidence  Prioritize issues  Don’t just say here are the 3 voters  Connect the arguments together  Evidence comparison

 3 minutes  Should not be line by line  Story  Global overview  Explain the round  Reference specific arguments

 Go for less  Go for specifics  Evidence comparison  Prioritize arguments