Skip to content
January 2, 2014 / compassioninpolitics

Advice for the 1ar on answering arguments & extending arguments

1) Order: Usually topicality, then what the 2nc went for, what the 1nr went for.
2) Time. I usually think about 1 minute per piece of paper as a very rough default. But if you’re just right on an issue….don’t be excessive.
3) Answer the vital new stuff–aka 1) offense as well as the case debate–new comparisons on the counterplan or new key explanations on the critique.
Most of the new stuff will already be answered in the
4) Go off 2ac structure….unless its their “truly new argument in the block”–even then you are cross applying from before.
5) On the case debate. You want to provide 3 answers at the top which answer everything (you can provide more)–but this can protect you if you either accidently drop it or run out of time.
6) There are pretty much 4 roles of the 1ar, extend, group, cross-apply, and answer the new stuff. Technically there is a 5th and 6th role–to re-frame debates a bit on the overview. But you may not have time.

1) Pick offense & extend it.
2) Shadow extend some defense.
3) I think you can extend through a wall of answers, if those answers are really non-responsive.
4) Obviously answer any issue flagged or claimed as an “independent voting issue” or just as a “voting issue.”

Try or die is your friend on disads and the case debate.

Their new arguments are irrelevant because….or “Group their new arguments on X argument–they are irrelevant for 3 reasons: 1) 2) 3) ”

Start setting up even-if comparisons…..or they may win this…but thats irrelevant because.

Big Rule of Thumb for the 1ar: Don’t over-explain. Explain enough to make it clear and go on.

Three rules of thumb:
1. Know your routes to extinction–ie the 3 different ways you access extinction
2. Know the ways you access solvency
3. Know the distinctions that make a difference about your affirmative. Whats your special sause? Whats your trick that makes 50% of the negative claims go away?

I had a trick that helped me a bunch I think. I flowed in all black in college. I think took out red for my 1ar…..I circle and extended what I needed to extend. And then on more complicated stuff I wrote exactly what I needed to say:
1) overviews
2) other stuff that I thought was important
3) the new stuff they run (often on the case debate).

On the affirmative….your evidence and scenarios are just going to be better if you are in a debate with the negative going for Case + DA. You need to point that out. Prefer our evidence because….

You need to set some of these evidence challenges or evidence presses up in cross-ex (generally after you’ve handled everything else). 50% of the time…the negative evidence is talking about something else or describing something thats going on now.

Ask your 2ac what case evidence they want in your 1ar… they can go for it…..particularly on the solvency debate.

If you haven’t read my post on try or die…..I recommend reading it. It will explain that without a counterplan…..the negative is almost always dead in the water from a policy perspective. (assuming the aff has picked an aff that gives them a bit of an advantage).


Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: