1. Introduction to CX Debate: Part II
Stefanie Rodarte-Suto
Canyon High School

2. Negative Negative Ground AFFIRMATIVE Ground
Resolved:
The United States federal government
should substantially reduce
Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales
of arms
from the United States.
AFFIRMATIVE
Ground
Negative
Negates/opposes the resolution, preferring the Status Quo
Clash with affirmative propositions, showing why the status quo is preferable to change. doing so meets the negative “burden of rejoinder”. Presumption lies with the negative.
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales of arms from the United States.
Affirmative sets the focus of the round
Because Negative is defending the SQ, they don’t (necessarily) need a plan
Instead, they will develop a strategy using a combination of arguments to clash with the affirmative

3. Negative Positions (On Case)
“On case”: Direct refutation of Aff case
Neg attacks:
Harms/Significance
Inherency
Solvency
Plan
Advantages

4. Negative Positions (On Case)
Negative Ground
Resolved:
The United States federal government
should substantially reduce
Direct Commercial and/or Foreign Military Sales
of arms
from the United States.
AFFIRMATIVE
Ground
Negative Positions (On Case) X X X
Topicality: Negative will identify how the Affirmative has violated one or more terms in the resolution and is beyond their territory (ground)
Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales of arms from the United States. X X X

5. Topicality A priori: First Priority Structure includes: Extra Topical
Definition: present a definition of a term in the resolution
Violation: Identifies how the Aff violates the term according to Neg definition
Standards: Identifies the importance of the issue in the round: Why should we care about staying within the topic?
Voter: Identifies the argument as an issue the judge should vote on (against the Aff) in this round.
Extra Topical
Effects Topical
Not Topical – concept that the affirmative is not debating the topic. (ex. The USFG should substantially reduce poverty in the US. Aff teaches farmers in Ethiopia how to farm and create income to reduce poverty there)
Effects Topical – concept that the affirmative doesn’t directly do what the topic calls for them to do. (ex. The USFG should substantially reduce poverty in the US. Aff gives tax cuts to the business owners which, the aff proves, will cause lower prices and increase wages)
Extra Topical – concept that the affirmative plan does more than what the topic requires. (ex. The USFG should substantially reduce poverty in the US. Aff provides more food stamps to Americans living in poverty and decreases the mortgage interest rates for the middle class

6. Negative Positions (Off Case)
Disadvantage (DA): Affirmative plan creates more harm than they claim to solve.
Counterplan (CP): Negative plan that in some way is non topical and competitive with 1AC.
Critique (Kritik, K): Neg argues that Aff does something or bases their entire framework on assumptions that are fundamentally wrong or creates a mindset that is wrong or inherently dangerous to society.

7. Disadvantage (DA)
Uniqueness: Neg must show that the disadvantage is unique to the Aff
*Brink: We are okay right now, but that we are on the brink of crisis and any push will send us over that tipping point.
Link: Neg must show the specific affirmative action which causes the impact to occur.
Impact: the harms which would occur if the plan were to be adopted. (Weighing mechanism against Case Advantages)
*Internal Links: Evidence to help connect the story logically.
Uniqueness--the negative must show that the disadvantage is unique to the affirmative (If the harm is occurring now, the affirmative cannot be held liable for it. The disad may, however, be linear. This means that the affirmative makes a current problem worse.). Uniqueness evidence usually indicates that, absent the affirmative plan, the impact will not happen in the status quo.
An important consideration when arguing disadvantages is the relationship between disads and other arguments in the round. Since many links to disadvantages are generically related to the topic, many negative arguments (like counterplan and critical arguments) may also link to the disadvantages and create strategic problems for the negative.

8. Counterplan (CP)
Neg acknowledges the SQ is flawed, but they have a plan that will offer more benefits than the 1AC
Text of Plan (much more brief than the 1AC)
Non-topical: explanation of resolutional terms violated.
Competitive: Statement/Evidence identifying how the CP competes with the 1AC
(must do or offer something similar- otherwise, the Aff can argue that there’s no reason we can’t implement both)
Net Beneficial: CP avoids any DAs or Ks run by the Neg
Many counterplans today are considered to be “plan inclusive” or PICs. These counterplans may do all of the affirmative plan except one thing, or may do plan along with another action. Counterplans can be run in different ways. They may be offered in the round as unconditional (meaning that the negative will advocate the policy of the counterplan throughout the round), dispositional (the negative may disregard the counterplan after responding to turn arguments), or conditional (the negative offers the counterplan as a test of the resolution and is not bound to advocacy of the counterplan; the negative may advocate the policy or jettison the counterplan at any time).

9. Kritik (Critique), K
We Need to rethink our approach to specific ideas, language, or actions
“Real World Impact”
Link: what action the affirmative takes that is objectionable (or objectionable language used)
Implication: explains the philosophical mindset violated by the affirmative and why violating it is bad
Alternative—explains how we can rethink or take alternative action to avoid the implications of the kritik
(Note: This type of argument is theoretical in nature and, although
gaining more widespread acceptance, may not be accepted as legitimate
argumentation by many judges. You should usually ask the judge’s
philosophy about critical arguments before the round begins.)
Alternative: (Not all kritiks have alternatives; some are nihilistic in nature, just questioning our motives without taking action. However, many judges will find a kritik unacceptable if there is no alternative.)
Many will call for the judge to use her ballot to object to the K.

10. Evidence & Preparation

11. Getting Started Research the Topic:
Discuss the topic and the meaning of wording
Read the original topic paper/materials
Research by reading through related current events
Utilize some of the FREE online resources provided
National Debate Coaches Association: Open Evidence Project
Determine your preferred 1AC case area and begin gathering research.

12. Types of Evidence Facts Statistics Legal reports
Quality opinions (known field expert)

13. Where to Find Evidence Purchase briefs Original Research
Baylor Briefs
Communican
Forensic Files
Champion Briefs
Champcraft
West Coast Debate
Original Research
Books
Periodicals
Legal publications/Court Decisions
Government documents
Newspapers
Free resources
Open Evidence Project
Debate Central

14. Search Tip Use Google’s Find tool: find:website “search term”
Google will search the complete website for the term

15. Preparing Evidence

17. Citations
Citation Machine
Easy Bib

18. Tag Lines Tag line Tag line/label
Complete source citation
“Evidence…”
Tag line/label
Should convey through word economy what the evidence below is conveying.
Don’t overstate evidence “power tag”

19. Round Etiquette

20. Entering the Room Only after a judge is present
Turn off cell phones and any wi-fi capabilities
Prepare your materials to get started
*During the round, you may not access anything online
Anything you read from a digital copy must be provided to the other team or the judge upon request

22. Cross Examination Objective: Clarify points made in previous speeches
Expose errors
Obtain admissions about inadequacies
Set-up your own arguments
Save prep time for your partner
Demonstrate poise and command of the situation
UIL requires CLOSED CX
Both students should face and give eye contact to the judge
Remain respectful
*Tip: If you don’t speak next, then you’re the one conducting CX!

23. CX Tools & Resources