Skip to content
October 8, 2012 / compassioninpolitics

How to kick out of an argument in policy debate (disadvantage, counterplan, or critique)

For kicking out of DAs on the negative I would suggest there are 5 routes:
1. Concede the no links
2. Concede the no internal links
3. Counterplan solves or counterplan links (so captures the link turns) or solves the link turns. Also, sometimes–sometimes the counterplan solves the add-on. This is often a super quick way to do this.
4. Answer the offense (link turns, impact turns, add-on advantages).
a) There are specific ways to answer link turns & impact turns that I won’t go into here–except to say using uniqueness to box them out or to prove them to be empirically denied/false (this works best with impact turns). Hopefully if they are impact turning you’ve laid down some pretty good defense already–or will do so in this speech, but without.
b] 2NC counterplan to solve the impact turns or to solve the impact that you are a loss for
5. Even-if thinking/even-if explanation
a) This isn’t necessary, but it can help. Usually this is minimizing their risk and or impact–and amplifying yours.
b] Also, you have the option of functionally doing the same thing on your top level overview/impact analysis.
One way is if you OWN the case impact or you OWN the ballpark impact in the debate (aka the nexus question). You can make it go away. But this is difficult unless you are winning both timeframe and probability and even if you are, because any smart team will turn their add ons into a way to access every single one of your impacts.

* I don’t think there is 1 single way to kick out, but this should work 90 to 95% of the time.

Kicking out of a counterplan:
1. We are no longer advocating the counterplan–You just concede the permutation–its non-competitive, remember it was dispositional or conditional (whichever it happened to be).
2. Answer their theory objections. Also turn their theory objections into a reason to reject the team.

Kicking out of a critique:
1. No link
2. Concede the perm, but make sure they can’t advocate it.
3. Concede policy framework good. Protect yourself ideally.

In the case of most all of the above–particularly the counterplan and the critique–you probably can give a reason why your other stuff matters more anyway. Or some sort of even-if story.

If you happen to be going for topicality–you may want to answer every piece of theory in the round and provide an overview as to why topicality trump other theory arguments–because that framed and set the stage for the entire debate.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: