Before We Start…  Debate functions on two basic levels: pre-fiat and post-fiat.  Pre-fiat: everything that really has not much to do with the case, the “real” world as opposed to the “debate” world  Rules (Theory)  Discourse  Real-world impacts  Post-fiat: the case world  Topicality (often bleeds into the pre-fiat area)  A-priori arguments  Standards/Framework  Contention-level  These are listed in their order of “importance” in a debate round – which ones must be evaluated first  Gateway issues

With that in mind…  Rebuttal arguments function within these different realms  The most common places where rebuttals happen are at the pre-fiat “rules” level and the post-fiat “standards” and “contention” levels  When giving rebuttals, it is important that you understand the way these levels function  A priori arguments have become increasingly common, and if you miss them, it’s game over  You can’t miss theory or discourse, either. Even if you win case level stuff, it’s all over if you miss them

Basic Terminology of Debate Argumentation  Claim  Warrant  Analytic  Empiric  Card  Implication/Impact  Assertion  Internal Link  Uniqueness  Weighing

Basics of Rebuttal Strategy  Offense vs. Defense  Offense  You and your opponent each have a certain number of cookies. The person who wins the round is the person who has the most delicious cookies at the end. Offense is gaining a cookie.  Obviously, this is a very rough example. Some cookies are more delicious than others.  An offensive argument is one which is a FUNCTIONAL, PROACTIVE REASON to vote for you.  Defense  If you smash your opponent’s cookie so that it no longer exists, that is a defensive argument.  Can defense win you a round?  Not by itself – defense can destroy your opponent’s offense but can’t actually garner offense for you.

So, what is the best way to win a round?  Generate offense to both your framework and your opponent’s  Simultaneously, destroy their offense to the frameworks, or if you can’t do that, outweigh  Also simultaneously, nuke their framework  Things NOT to do:  Only focus on your value/criterion  Make defensive arguments all over the flow  Ignore theory, pre-fiat implications, and a prioris  Let them win EITHER framework

Basic Rebuttal Strategies  TURNS:  Link turn: takes a piece of offense they have working for them and turns it to your side.  Like stealing their cookie.  Example: “My evidence indicates that there would actually be less crime if we continue to try juveniles as juveniles, contrary to what my opponent is stating.”  Impact turn: takes a piece of offense they have working for them and makes it a bad thing.  Like poisoning their cookie.  Example: “My opponent claims that he would be preventing more people from going to prison, but my evidence indicates that this would be bad because that would increase crime.”  WARNING: don’t poison the cookie and then take it for yourself!

Basic Rebuttal Strategies  Outweigh  Magnitude: the implication of my argument carries far greater weight than my opponent’s  Like showing them that you have a more delicious cookie.  Example: “My opponent claims that if we don’t affirm, we will cause small civil wars, but if you affirm, you will cause far more death by leading to a nuclear conflict. Therefore I outweigh on magnitude.”  Timeframe: my implications happen sooner than my opponent’s do  Like telling them your cookie will be out of the oven sooner.  Example: “My opponent claims that people’s rights will be violated in the long term if you negate, but I outweigh on timeframe because people will have their rights violated in the short term by causing the mass death that I discuss in the NC.”

 Timeframe, type 2: arguing that even though there may be short term harms, the long-term implications of your argument are much greater  Like proving your cookie has a longer shelf life.  Example: “Even if you buy that there will be all sorts of horrible harms now, I outweigh on timeframe because by stopping the implications of my case, the world will be a much better place in the future and far fewer people will die.”  Probability: your implications are more likely to happen than your opponent’s  Like proving your cookie has a greater chance of being delicious.  Example: “I outweigh on probability because whereas my opponent is concerned with the remote possibility of a nuclear war, people are already losing their rights and will be far more likely to continue to lose their rights in the future.” More on Outweighing

Final Type of Outweighing  Strength of link: more nuanced than the others, and similar to a link turn. Essentially you are saying you have a better link to a certain impact OR to their framework.  Like saying you have more right to that cookie than they do.  You have proof that it is more likely to happen in your side:  Example: “My opponent claims that affirming will cause terrorism, but I outweigh on strength of link: my evidence indicates that terrorism is far more likely to happen when you negate.”  You have better/more evidence:  “Remember that my opponent only supports his claims about terrorism with analytics, I outweigh on strength of link because I have carded evidence which supports my side. You’ll always prefer evidence from experts to the analytics of a high school student.”

More Basic Rebuttal Strategies  Not true: just like it sounds; proving your opponent wrong.  Indicting the claim  Indicting the warrant  Questioning evidence  Powertagged  Author takeouts  Outdated evidence  Warrantless cards  Small print  Questioning analytics  Using empirics and cards  Counter-analytics  Indicting the implication  Probability of impact  Weak internal link  Links to standard

More Basic Rebuttal Strategies  Non-unique: the argument is not unique to your opponent’s case; OR, the argument is not unique because it’s already happening in the status quo  First type  Like saying you have the same cookie that they do.  Example: “My opponent’s impact of terrorism is non-unique because terrorism will also happen on my side.”  Second type  Like saying your opponent isn’t special because everyone has the same cookie.  Example: “Rights to privacy are already being violated in the status quo so my opponent’s claim is non-unique.”

Other Important Things to Note  Do I need to answer every argument?  NO! You should almost NEVER do this! Take care of only the things that could win or lose you the round  But I need to talk about their value, right?  Maybe. A huge mistake most debaters make is they spend a ton of time arguing about whose value is better instead of focusing on issues that win or lose the round. Just tell the judge why your value has a better link – if you follow my instructions, your value will either have the only link to the EM or you will both agree on a value premise.  If I make one argument against one of their arguments, I’ve taken care of that argument, right?  Probably not. Is it defensive? Don’t be afraid to make multiple arguments against one argument. Having as much offense as possible is always a good idea.

Speech by Speech  Each speech is different, and each has different goals and objectives. It is important to understand the nature and goals of each speech in order to construct the most effective rebuttal possible.  Disclaimer: obviously, every round is different, and you should be thinking about ways to win each round given the strategically relevant circumstances of that round.

Negative Speeches  What are the goals of the negative debater?  Win Framework – the cornerstone of any strategy  Do you have the same framework?  Win the internal link debate to the framework  Turns  Control of Internal Link  Obliterate AC links  Different framework?  Indict the meta-ethical underpinnings of the AC framework  Control the internal link to the EM  Root cause  Precede/Necessary arguments  BUT ALSO – win the internal link debate to the AC framework as well  “Even if you don’t buy that…”

Goals of the Negative  If you run theory…  Indict the AC’s interpretation on multiple levels  Education  Fairness  Spend a good amount of time on the standards debate – try to bury them in stuff to answer  Extending theory…  Meta-weigh the AC out of the round – make comparative arguments  Use your err arguments to your advantage  Answer RVIs extensively  Don’t be afraid to spend a lot of time on theory in the 2N – remember that YOU have the time advantage in the theory debate, not them, and you can fairly easily handle them if you make smart arguments that are comparative.

Goals of the Negative  Contention-level debate  Spreading  Making multiple arguments against each argument  Strategic because it conceals your good, game-winning arguments in a morass of defensive arguments and increases the likelihood that your opponent will miss something important or spend his time elsewhere  If you spread, which arguments are the most important?  TURNS and other offense  Framing the important issues in your favor  Indicating that a certain argument is just not relevant to the discussion, or focusing time on arguments that you know you will win  Don’t let the Aff try to frame in the 1AR – spend a lot of time on your winning argument and continue to emphasize the triviality of their important issues.

1NC Strategy  You don’t necessarily have to go in order in the line-by-line  It is strategic to put your most important argument last, and focus on the thing that you think they will go for the most first  Spreading is very strategic  You can answer an argument with several arguments – like we discussed, this is strategic  Hiding your good arguments is also strategic. But the awesome thing is that you can make any argument a big argument – even one of your red herring arguments.  Try to read as many turns as possible  Develop and guide the narrative for the round early on  Decide exactly what you are going to go for in the 2N

2N Strategy  The aff will be forced to condense in the 1AR because of the time – this means there is likely something on the flow that is under covered  This is where putting your most important argument last is a good strategy – more likely that they will under cover it  Spend a lot of time extending things that were under covered and form the core of your voting narrative, OR if they haven’t under covered things, act like they did  The 1AR will try to guide the narrative of the round and tell the judge that certain things you isolate are unimportant – don’t let them  Even if they gave the best 1AR ever, act like they didn’t  “Game over,” “Mishandled,” “Sign the ballot now”  Extend!

Goals of the Affirmative  It is much more difficult to affirm because of the time limits – the way to fight this is to condense and guide the narrative of the round.  The neg will make a lot of defensive arguments to try to distract you. Do you need to answer all of these?  No. As the affirmative, it is strategic to condense and crystallize. Focus only on arguments that will win or lose the round for you.  Guide the narrative – tell the judge what the important issues are  All about attitude  Word economy is critical as the affirmative. Remove “ums” “likes” and other useless words  Extensions are critical

Goals of the Affirmative  Framework  Extend defense giving you the framework debate. Remember that you as the affirmative have the unique opportunity to include preemptions in the framework itself when you read the 1AC – read framework that defines them out of the round  Think Korsgaard or Nagel  Win turns to the NC framework!  Extend at least one piece of solid offense to your framework.  One is really all you need  The best one to extend is the under covered one  Don’t be afraid to use forceful language that gives you the “swagger” effect  “Sign the ballot now”

Goals of the Affirmative  Theory  RVIs  Most theory sucks, and is a big stretch to their voters. Don’t be afraid to gain offense off of theory by running an RVI!  Turning the standards and voters are the best types of RVIs  There’s a stigma against RVIs, so don’t be afraid to not label it as such – calling it a turn on the neg’s theory voters is also a good idea  Spend no more than a minute on theory in the 1AR.  Condense and make solid defensive arguments rather than letting the neg define the theory debate for you – refuse to fight the neg on their terms  “I meet” and “Counter-interp”

Goals of the Affirmative  Contention level  Minimal defense, maximum offense  Extensions, extensions, extensions!  Answer turns soundly, other defense you probably don’t need, but use discretion  Don’t go for every link to your standard – only go for the under covered ones. Remember that you only need one link to win the round  The same concept goes for answering the NC – make a few, really potent offensive arguments like turns to dilute the NC while saving as much time as possible  Control the narrative  Don’t fight the neg on their terms

1AR Strategy  Divert the neg from their narrative – make their issues look less and less important and yours more and more important  Strong rhetoric, confidence  Focusing on the most important issues late in the speech  Figure out exactly what you’re going to go for in the 2AR and guide the speech with that knowledge.  Focus on offense  Don’t make excessive defensive arguments  Extend!  Turns on the NC  Watch your time  Time allocation is key – leave time for extensions and strong offense at the end

2AR Strategy  Crystallize and Clarify  You should have set up your voting story in the 1AR – execute it in the 2AR  Extend!  You should be winning both the NC and AC standard – have two separate voting stories for each framework (assuming the frameworks are different)  Don’t be afraid to give a little overview about how the round is breaking down before going in to extend and give voting issues – it makes the round clearer for the judge  This also allows you to guide the narrative in your favor, especially if the neg in the 2N didn’t give a little overview  Remember that YOU have the last speech – your speech is the last thing that your judge will hear, which gives you the unique opportunity to frame the round in your favor for the judge. Do this by being clear, strong, and organized.