Skip to content
December 12, 2012 / compassioninpolitics

Excellence in Performance for Policy Debate

Excellence in Performance

1AC:
• High impact
• Diverse advantages (including multiple route to extinction or a ballot)
• Pre-empts arguments (case, disad, topicality, kritic, counterplan)
• Multiple solvency mechanisms if possible
• Sets up inevitability/try or die
• Makes distinctions/juxtapositions (or at least sets them up)

1NC:
• Diversity of offcase/Full court press
• Diversity of oncase (ideally both Offense & Defense and the debater knows the difference)
• Oncase–advantage specific/impact specific and solvency dump [PIMPs = common sense arguments or arguments their evidence is making]
• Combination of carded & analytic arguments on the case

Cross-examination of 1NC:
• Clarify/Unpack
• Specify the results of the precedent on topicality
• Identify the net benefits on counterplan–and what it doesn’t claim to solve
• Identity weakness
• Identify lack of specificity (disads & case arguments & K alternative)
• Identity evidence thats un-underlined which indicts itself
• Identify questionable warrants and authors (particularly if you are going to be reading better ones)

2AC:
• Frontlines for major arguments
• Combination of offense and defense
• Combination of carded and analytic
• Adequate coverage, but no real over-coverage/Balanced time allotment
• Cross apply ***
• Extend dropped arguments, particularly on the case
• Use specificity to your advantage on the case
• Inevitability & Try or Die
• Table/Stool Analogy OR Argument Chain Analogy (Swingset)
• Follow model on Counterplan & Critique frontlines

——-
What does extension look like on the negative. Sandbagging

What does a good final
1) Overview
2) Knows how to kick out of arguments
3) Puts pressure on
4) Extends & Cross applies key evidence
5) Impact comparison *****

“This is the only hope of them winning.”
Answers the winning arguments by the other team.
Even-if Stories

Explains why their impact or impact type is the most important.
Minimizes opponent impact filters or overall credibility.
Leverages impact filters to explain their impacts as best.

Direct comparison on the most important pieces of evidence on a question in the debate (ie hegemony good versus hegemony bad). Note–this goes beyond the evidence itself. Its the context of the evidence.

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: