Debate Expert: Chris Burk
Debate Central is very excited to partner with Chris Burk, Director of Debate at the University of Texas at Dallas, one of the fastest rising programs in college debate.
There two ways our partnership benefits you:
Evidence on the CX Topic
Throughout the season Chris will post evidence on the topic! He will begin posting evidence on the space toipc soon! View his evidence here. Please suggest the issues you want him to cover on our bulletin board.
Advice on Debate
Chris will answer your questions on debate. Below are answers to your questions!
Question: I just started a debate team at my school. There are only a few members and we don’t have a coach. How can we compete against bigger programs?
Answer: There’s no doubt that starting a new debate program can be challenging, especially when doing so without an official coach. The environment for new small programs, however, has changed in just the past few years. Debaters at small programs should ensure that they take advantage of the all of the free on-line resources available. Obviously debate-central.org provides a ton of free useful resources, including lectures, files, and forums. Many other debate resources are available for free to those who can access the internet. The best example is the Open Evidence Project of the National Debate Coaches Association (NDCA). Hundreds of files generated at major summer debate camps are available for download at no charge. Debaters can find these files here: http://www.debatecoaches.org/openevidence/
The NDCA also provides many other on-line resources, including streaming videos of lectures by prominent debate coaches. Debate-central and cross-x.com also provide forums that students can use for free.
Second, emerging debate programs should ask for assistance. Forensic organizations, high school and college debate coaches, and college debaters in the local area may be willing to assist for little or no cost. There’s no harm in asking for help and guidance.
Third, debaters from new programs should recognize that specialization is often the best option. It’s impossible to be a master of every possible debate argument, even for experienced high school debaters at prominent programs. Learning how to be successful running a few arguments allows debaters to develop a deeper knowledge of the position and to craft a broad assorted of pre-written blocks on potential answers. Becoming well versed in a few files also helps debaters learn how to debate. Rather than constantly attempting to generate and learn the content of new files through massive research efforts, debaters at smaller programs should find a few useful files and focusing on becoming especially skilled at running those arguments.
Question: Should I consider paperless debating?
Answer: Yes, if the rules at tournaments in your circuit allow for the use of computers during a debate and if you can afford the necessary technology. Debate continues to evolve as technology evolves. Evidence no longer gets typed by hand onto 3″ x 5″ note cards, for example. It’s often a good idea for debaters to adopt the new techniques even if they are a bit confusing to use at first. Paperless debating is a rather new process and continues to be refined.
In paperless debating, debaters transport all or nearly all of their files within hard drives on lap top computers. Each member of the team would carry at least one such computer. Instead of moving large tubs full of paper, the debaters merely carry a few portable notebook computers and perhaps a small portable printer. When a debater needs to give a speech, he or she opens the electronic files on his or her computer and then copies the needed cards into a new document. And then the document is saved to a small flashdive and/or pasted into an email to send to the other team. Then the debater merely reads the needed cards directly from the computer screen instead of reading cards from printed pages.
There are several major benefits. First, the big bulky tubs can be eliminated. The physical burden of debating is much less when heavy tubs are eliminated. Teams travelling on airplanes to tournaments will also no longer need to experience the expense of checking multiple boxes. Rental vehicle costs can also be reduced since the extra cargo space needed to transport tubs is no longer needed.
There are also a few potential downsides to paperless debating. First, the use of computers during a debate round is not universally accepted. Some debate organizations, tournaments, and even some judges prohibit the use of computers during an actual debate. Second, paperless debating requires the use of expensive multiple notebook computers. Not every debater can afford it. And the constant use and transportation of notebook computers exposes them a higher risk of damage and theft. Thirds, the debaters and coaches must shift how they created, edit and utilize all files. It can be challenging to learn how to use a new template and how to efficiently craft the in-round documents for every speech. Fourth, debaters must convert all needed files into the proper electronic form and then save them to an easily accessible and highly reliable storage system. This can be a tedious and time consuming process.
What if opponents or the judge wish see your cards? This can be a tricky process and some tournament rules will shape how this process can occur. However, common practice is that an opponent can reasonable request to review a piece of evidence read by a debater in a round. One option for those debating paperless is to bring a third notebook computer. The paperless team can download the cards that they plan to read or have read onto the third computer and then allow the opponent or the judge to view file on that third “viewing” computer. Or, if the opponent or judge seeking to view pieces of evidence already has his or her computer, then the debater can simply email the requested materials or transfer the materials via flashdrive. If all else fails, then a team can print the requested materials onto paper and share the printed copies with the requesting party.
Here are a few helpful websites for those considering a shift to paperless debating:
http://paperlessdebate.wikispaces.com/
www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2009-April/078374.html
Question: Is 50 state fiat legit?
Answer: This question refers to what is commonly known as the states (plural) counterplan. In the most common formulation of the states counterplan, the negative team proposes a counterplan where every single state government enacts a policy change that is exactly similar to the policy change enacted by the United States federal government in the Affirmative plan. So if the Affirmative plan called for the U.S. federal government to enact a law that prohibits the sale of all tobacco products, then the states counterplan would simply have each of the fifty states enact a law that would prohibit the sale of all tobacco products. The wording of the counterplan text would be almost exactly the same as the plan text except for the agent of action.
So now that it is clear what the issue might be, let’s go back to the original question concerning the legitimacy of this type of counterplan. In many circuits, the states counterplan has been a core element in the negative arsenal for over two decades. Generation after generation of high school debaters have learned how to run and how to answer the states counterplan. If counterplans in general are legitimate, then the states counterplan is probably the prime example of an effective counterplan for negatives to use. If 50 state fiat were illegitimate, then a major element of the negative’s arsenal on a domestic topic would be eliminated.
There has been a recent attempt by a small cadre of judges & coaches to eliminate the states counterplan. They contend that the prevalence of the states counterplan in negative strategies has mutated how domestic topics are debated. When considering the strategic value of a potential affirmative, the first question is often “how would this affirmative case answer the states counterplan?” And if the affirmative case does not have a good set of answers, then the affirmative will be removed from consideration. According to those who object to the states counterplan, this type of approach to deciding which affirmatives will be run and therefore which issues will be debated skews domestic topics. Many important domestic policies and domestic issues get too little attention in debate rounds because the states counterplan makes these affirmatives not strategic. And this same cadre argues that the states counterplan has little basis in topic literature since it is very rare that all fifty state governments actually pass laws that are exactly the same. Such counterplans are, in other words, not a true reflection of policy matters in the ‘real world’ and are not based in the academic literature. So the solution, according these detractors, is to deem the state counterplan illegitimate.
Question: After working for two years I have started a Debate Club at my school and was recently able to find a faculty advisor. Our high school hasn’t had debate club for over six years, so naturally my advisor and I are looking for any information that we can find on how to run a debate club and how to get started with competitions with other schools. Any information or links that you could provide would be extremely helpful.
Answer: It definitely can be challenge to revive a debate team or start a new one. I strongly suggest that you examine the wide variety of resources available to you at the http://www.debate-central.org/ and http://www.cross-x.com/ websites. You might start with the two introductory essays provided by Debate Central on the Africa topic. You should also read some of the articles presented in the ‘research links’ section of Debate Central. The ‘forums’ section of both website are especially useful for contacting other debaters and communicating with them about all aspects of debate.
I also suggest that your school join the main speech & debate organizations and ask them for help in getting started. The National Forensics League (NFL) is the main national organization, and your school should definitely join immediately. Its website (http://www.nflonline.org/Main/HomePage) gives more information about the organization and how to join. The Rostrum, NFL’s monthly publication, contains a ton of information regarding forensics activities, summer institutes, and much more. I also suggest that your team join the National Debate Coaches’ Association (NDCA). It’s a relatively new organization but it can provide some detailed information on tournaments in your area. The NDCA website is http://ndca.debateteams.net/ and it gives directions for accessing a massive amount of free files generated at summer debate institutes. It also might benefit you to join the main speech & debate organization in your state. Most are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Forensics_League. Joining the one in your state will help you contact other teams and register for tournaments in your local area.
Some coaches and judges you encounter will definitely offer to assist you, your teammates, and your new advisor. While not every coach in your local area will have the expertise or the time to give advice on building your new team, just keep meeting new people and asking for help. If you are polite, respectful, and intellectually curious then many experienced coaches will definitely be willing to support the growth of a new program.
You can also investigate which colleges in your area support active debate teams. Some college debaters might be willing to volunteer to help a new team get started. Others might need a modest payment. Experienced college debaters might be the single best resources for a new debate team. Many successful high school teams receive significant support from former teammates who have continued debate in college and this type of assistance can be quite helpful. West Coasting Publishing has compiled basic information on most college teams into one comprehensive list. It can be found here: http://www.wcdebate.com/7others/colleges.htm
Finally, the best way to learn any form of debate is to compete at tournaments. Find a few tournaments in your area and compete in the novice division. Don’t give up! And be sure to ask each of your judges for feedback (if this is allowed in your region). Do not leave the tournament immediately after you’re done with your events; stay at the tournament so you can watch the later debate rounds in the varsity division. The esoteric terminology, the unusual speaking styles, and the reliance on prepared files of the varsity debaters will probably be rather surprising initially. But if you and your teammates devote some time and energy to learning debate then you will begin to absorb it quickly. Debate evolves rapidly and even experienced college debaters and coaches are constantly learning about new issues. So embrace the thrill of learning something new and enjoy!
Question: Do you know of any briefs for the UIL LD topic?
Answer: Debate Central posts resources on each NFL and UIL LD topic. In our Research Topics section (http://www.debate-central.org/research/) we provide links to articles that will help you gain a deeper understanding of the topic. We post a topic background paper that discusses the major issues you are likely to debate and also post a “Card of the Week” on the LD topic. The “Card of the Week” focuses on a specific argument and gives you suggestions on how to use it in a debate round. All of these resources can be found in our Research Topics section (http://www.debate-central.org/research). The Baylor Briefs also provide UIL LD resources for a fee.
Question: Other than nit-picking is there another term for the practice of distracting, confusing or otherwise belittling one’s opponent by picking on some obvious, yet minor point of error?
Answer: I suggest that you try “irrelevant” when confronted with such a situation. If the error involves an issue that is relatively minor, then you could concede the point and then point out that the entire issue is relatively minor. Make arguments why the point is minor and don’t dwell on it. And then shift your focus to an issue that is very important in the round and make arguments why this second issue is much more important to determining the outcome of the entire round. Hopefully your judge will see it your way, even if your opponents continue to harp on the little mistake.
Question: What CX questions should the affirmative can ask the negative?
Answer: Cross-examination of the 1NC should almost always begin with a few basic questions. If a counterplan or a kritik alternative has been presented by the Negative, then the first question should be to determine the status of the counterplan. Simply, the question can be “What is the status of the counterplan?” The negative team should give a relatively direct answer. They typically will say “unconditional,” or “conditional” or “dispositional.” If you need more clarification beyond that, then you can ask what he/she means by that term. If a counterplan has been presented, then the aff should also be sure to ask which of the other negatives arguments are “net benefits” to the counterplan.
The aff can also ask for clarification of particular negative arguments. You might ask about the nature of each link and internal link of each disadvantage. How does this argument link to the affirmative plan? And how does that link lead to the impact? The aff can also ask questions regarding the dates of the negative evidence, especially any brink or uniqueness arguments.
Finally, the aff should be sure to understand the negative arguments in general. Obviously it is much more difficult to generate effective answers when negatives arguments are too complex or were presented too quickly. Cross-examination is crucial for breaking down the most complex arguments or clarifying arguments of speakers who were unclear.
QUESTION: How do you start a debate team?
ANSWER:It definitely can be challenge to revive a debate team or start a new one. I strongly suggest that you examine the wide variety of resources available to you at the http://www.debate-central.org/ and http://www.cross-x.com/ websites. You might start with the two introductory essays provided by Debate Central on the Africa topic. You should also read some of the articles presented in the ‘research links’ section of Debate Central. The ‘forums’ section of both website are especially useful for contacting other debaters and communicating with them about all aspects of debate.
I also suggest that your school join the main speech & debate organizations and ask them for help in getting started. The National Forensics League (NFL) is the main national organization, and your school should definitely join immediately. Its website (http://www.nflonline.org/Main/HomePage) gives more information about the organization and how to join. The Rostrum, NFL’s monthly publication, contains a ton of information regarding forensics activities, summer institutes, and much more. I also suggest that your team join the National Debate Coaches’ Association (NDCA). It’s a relatively new organization but it can provide some detailed information on tournaments in your area. The NDCA website is http://ndca.debateteams.net/ and it gives directions for accessing a massive amount of free files generated at summer debate institutes. It also might benefit you to join the main speech & debate organization in your state. Most are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Forensics_League. Joining the one in your state will help you contact other teams and register for tournaments in your local area.
Some coaches and judges you encounter will definitely offer to assist you, your teammates, and your new advisor. While not every coach in your local area will have the expertise or the time to give advice on building your new team, just keep meeting new people and asking for help. If you are polite, respectful, and intellectually curious then many experienced coaches will definitely be willing to support the growth of a new program.
You can also investigate which colleges in your area support active debate teams. Some college debaters might be willing to volunteer to help a new team get started. Others might need a modest payment. Experienced college debaters might be the single best resources for a new debate team. Many successful high school teams receive significant support from former teammates who have continued debate in college and this type of assistance can be quite helpful. West Coasting Publishing has compiled basic information on most college teams into one comprehensive list. It can be found here: http://www.wcdebate.com/7others/colleges.htm
Finally, the best way to learn any form of debate is to compete at tournaments. Find a few tournaments in your area and compete in the novice division. Don’t give up! And be sure to ask each of your judges for feedback (if this is allowed in your region). Do not leave the tournament immediately after you’re done with your events; stay at the tournament so you can watch the later debate rounds in the varsity division. The esoteric terminology, the unusual speaking styles, and the reliance on prepared files of the varsity debaters will probably be rather surprising initially. But if you and your teammates devote some time and energy to learning debate then you will begin to absorb it quickly. Debate evolves rapidly and even experienced college debaters and coaches are constantly learning about new issues. So embrace the thrill of learning something new and enjoy!
QUESTION: I am looking for a template for a 2A to respond to a negative topicality attack. Do you have something that could be used as a block or response?
ANSWER: The best answers to topicality arguments hinge on two main considerations: (a) the specifics of the topicality argument, and (b) the plan text. Generic topicality answers that neither refute the specific topicality attack nor directly relate to the plan might be able to defeat weak topicality arguments but they will almost never defeat high quality ones.
However, the affirmative team can follow a basic outline when answering topicality and fill in the details. The first answer to any topicality argument should almost always be “we meet.” The aff team should claim that the action specified by the plan text does meet the specific violation presented by the negative. Even if the affirmative answer is a stretch, the affirmative should absolutely try to find some way that the plan really does meet the violation. Second, the affirmative should present a counter-interpretation. This counter-interpretation should include a counter-definition of a word or phrase in the resolution that the neg has mentioned. The counter-interpretation should, however, not stop there. It should continue with arguments that this interpretation would create a better overall understanding of the topic, that it is superior to the negative’s interpretation. Perhaps it would be more limited. Perhaps it would be more predictable. Perhaps the counter-definition comes from a source that is superior in some way. The affirmative should prepare counter-interpretations for each word or phrase of the resolution for their own particular plan text. Third, the affirmative should always remember to argue that the plan does meet this counter-interpretation. Fourth, the affirmative should present a variety of arguments against the negative interpretation. Perhaps it would be over-limiting and only allow a handful of affirmative cases. There are many other possible arguments against the neg interpretation.
Affirmative teams should take special note of any ‘hidden’ violations or additional voting issues. Some negative teams are sneaky with their topicality arguments and embedded more than one violation or more than one voting issue in what seems to be one plain topicality argument. Affirmative teams that suspect that the negative team might be doing something sneaky should ask questions in cross-examination about the exact number of violations and the exact number of voting issues presented by the negative team.
Affirmatives teams should prepare for topicality arguments in advantage and write sets of arguments for any possible topicality argument. A well-prepared affirmative team should never be completely surprised by any topicality argument. The resolution is already known and the affirmative team gets to write their own plan. So any affirmative team can prepare some good topicality answers if they take the time to prepare.
QUESTION: How can affirmatives answer agent counterplans?
ANSWER: Soft Power is a rather generic argument that can be used by almost any affirmative on this year’s topic. “Soft Power” is definitely one line of argument that can help affirmative teams when debating agent or actor counterplans. Debate-Central already has a pretty good file on this in the ‘evidence’ section and it’s available for free. Many other “Soft Power” files were generated at many summer camps and those files can be accessed through the file-sharing project of the National Debate Coaches Association (NDCA). Please the new NDCA for more information about that.
Soft Power argues that the affirmative’s increase in public health assistance to sub-Saharan Africa would improve the global image of the United States. Currently the U.S. has a rather poor image around the world. People and governments around the world have become angry with the U.S. government because of the invasion of Iraq and other U.S. actions that seem to be unilateral, selfish, and aggressive. Foreign assistance for public health to sub-Saharan Africa would help to reserve that poor image and increase positive feelings toward the U.S. This increase in American ‘soft power’ could bring many positive impacts.
More specific answers to agent or actor counterplans will depend upon the exact nature of the affirmative plan and the affirmative advantages. The aff team can make arguments that the counterplan cannot solve the advantages as well as the aff since the U.S. could provide some specific expertise or some specific type of technology that no other agent could provide. And the affirmative can also run disadvantages the agent or actor of the counterplan. Just as the negative can run a U.S politics disadvantage or a U.S. spending disadvantage against the aff since the aff team uses the U.S Federal Government as the actor, the aff can run politics or spending or other disadvantages to the counterplan agent. So if the counterplan has the Japanese government act, then the aff team could run a Japanese politics disadvantage that links to the counterplan.
QUESTION: Is there a term for the practice of distracting, confusing or otherwise belittling one’s opponent by picking on some obvious, yet minor point of error?
ANSWER: I suggest that you try “irrelevant” when confronted with such a situation. If the error involves an issue that is relatively minor, then you could concede the point and then point out that the entire issue is relatively minor. Make arguments why the point is minor and don’t dwell on it. And then shift your focus to an issue that is very important in the round and make arguments why this second issue is much more important to determining the outcome of the entire round. Hopefully your judge will see it your way, even if your opponents continue to harp on the little mistake.
QUESTION: What CX questions should the affirmative ask the negative?
ANSWER: Cross-examination of the 1NC should almost always begin with a few basic questions. If a counterplan or a kritik alternative has been presented by the Negative, then the first question should be to determine the status of the counterplan. Simply, the question can be “What is the status of the counterplan?” The negative team should give a relatively direct answer. They typically will say “unconditional,” or “conditional” or “dispositional.” If you need more clarification beyond that, then you can ask what he/she means by that term. If a counterplan has been presented, then the aff should also be sure to ask which of the other negatives arguments are “net benefits” to the counterplan.
The aff can also ask for clarification of particular negative arguments. You might ask about the nature of each link and internal link of each disadvantage. How does this argument link to the affirmative plan? And how does that link lead to the impact? The aff can also ask questions regarding the dates of the negative evidence, especially any brink or uniqueness arguments.
Finally, the aff should be sure to understand the negative arguments in general. Obviously it is much more difficult to generate effective answers when negatives arguments are too complex or were presented too quickly. Cross-examination is crucial for breaking down the most complex arguments or clarifying arguments of speakers who were unclear.
Question: Is education a social service?
Answer: Probably, but it is a matter for debate. A good starting point for answering this question is determining the proper scope for the term “social services” and then determining if education falls within those boundaries. In other words, this is a topicality debate. So, what is a social service? An on-line version of the Oxford English Dictionary provides one possible answer. It defines social service as “A service provided or undertaken for the benefit of the community, esp. one provided by the state, as education, health care, housing, etc.” (“Social Service.” March 2009, http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50229750?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=social+service&first=1&max_to_show=10 ).
So education is explicitly included in this particular definition. Debaters should also recognize that education itself can be a rather broad term. Many types of job training and adult literary could be considered as specific types of education, for example.
Question: What is a courts counterplan and how can I answer it?
Answer: The courts counterplan is a type of agent counterplan. Typically, the affirmative plan might indicate the legislative branch (the Congress) or executive branch (the President or some federal agency) will enact some policy change. The courts counterplan, on the other hand, has the judicial branch (the courts) enact a very similar policy change. The plan and the counterplan would result in policy changes that are essentially the same in practice. The focus on the debate can then become the various agents involved and the net benefits of court action relative to action by the legislative or executive branch.
There are actually a few different forms of the position. A common type of courts counterplan has the United States Supreme Court enact the policy change. There’s a large body of evidence on the strength of the Supreme Court that can serve as solvency evidence for the counterplan. And, of course, many politics disadvantages can serve as net benefits to the Supreme Court counterplan. Another type of the courts counterplan has the lower federal courts enact the policy change. There’s evidence that these courts are actually better suited to ensuring successful policy change and spurring social change while avoiding public backlash and political controversy. And another type of the courts counterplan has the highest courts in each of the 50 states enact the policy change. This version is thus combines elements of the lower federal courts counterplan and the regular states counterplan.
Finally, there is a type of courts counterplan that has a judicial branch actor enact a policy that differs from the affirmative plan but attempts to solve all or nearly all of the affirmative’s advantages through a different mechanism. For example, the affirmative case might claim to reduce the spread of avian flu by having the U.S Congress increase funding to community health centers. The counterplan might have the U.S. federal courts rule that universal health care is a fundamental constitutional right and therefore the U.S. federal court would be obligated to ensure that health care become available to everyone.
Answering the court counterplans is first a matter of dissecting the nature of the counterplan being run. It’s quite difficult to properly answer a counterplan when you’re not sure what the counterplan actually does. So the affirmative team should use enough CX time and prep time prior to the 2AC to ensure that the counterplan and the net benefits are completely understood. The Affirmative team should also remember to ask the status of the counterplan.
Second, constructing a set answering to the courts counterplan should recall the acronym S.P.O.T. The “S” stands for solvency. The “P” represents permutation while the “O” represents offense. And the “T” is for theory. The set of 2AC answers to almost every possible counterplan will contain elements of S.P.O.T. To attack the solvency of the courts counterplan, affirmative team should ensure that they have specific solvency cards for the legislative and/or judicial branch and be able to explain why court action would be less effective than action by other branches. The Aff can also read specific solvency attacks on the relevant court(s) if available and explain why various institutions and social groups would fail to comply the judicial branch rulings of the CP. Permutations and challenges to the counterplan’s competition can also be very useful, especially if the Affirmative plan did not specify an agent. If the Affirmative plan merely said United States federal government, then a strong argument can be made that the courts counterplan is not competitive with the plan. For offense against the courts counterplan, the Aff team might run a legitimacy disadvantage, an active disadvantage, a court political capital disad, or even flypaper argument based on idea presented by Rosenberg in his ‘Hollow Hope ‘ book. And finally, the affirmative team can challenge the counterplan on theoretical grounds, including conditionality, if applicable.