Grouping Strategies Debate Issues Grouping Method Grouping that's not Grouping Dangers in Grouping

Debate Issues:

Because of the limited amount of time available in the rebuttals, it is impossible to cover every issue brought up in a good round (usually 16-24 issues). Inexperience will force many debaters to either (1) drop one or more issues or (2) barely mention them leaving several issues alive, strong, and dangerous. Either situation will give a strategic advantage to the opponents.

Return to top
Return to main directory

Grouping:

Grouping is a strategy that takes two or more issues and groups (combines) them into a single rebuttal argument. An experienced team will be able to reduce the number of issues, i.e. 24, into 6 or 7 rebuttal arguments. If a team can do this, they will have 40-50 seconds to deal with each argument compared to 12 seconds without grouping.

Return to top
Return to main directory

Method:

• First, debaters must resist the tendency to go one on one with evidence. For example, if the Affirmative gives a card that says A is true, the Negative will present a card that says A is false. (In a tight round, the Affirmative will have the advantage because it has had time to prepare its case and its evidence will be better than the negative's. Or, if the negative is able to gain control in the 1NC, the Affirmative will drop its case in order to refute the Negative's evidence. Another possibility is that both teams will leave several open doors allowing the judge to make the decision based on any number of other considerations.)
• Second, debaters must understand the arguments presented in the round. For example, if the Negative attacks topicality, presents an alternate definition, gives a standard, and explains their argument; the Affirmative must understand which part of the argument is dangerous - the definition, the standard, or the explanation. An affirmative team need not refute the entire argument, only the part that does the damage. (In this case, the Affirmative may choose not to present another definition or standard in their 2AC but simply explain how their case meets the negative's definition.)
• Third, debaters must understand how arguments are linked - how one argument is related or depends upon another. For example, if the Affirmative claims four advantages, the Affirmative must prove solvency before those advantages will carry any weight. (If the negative can prove that the Affirmative cannot enforce their plan, then they only have to state that the advantages fall because the plan will not work.)
• Fourth, debaters must understand how standards affect a debate. There are preset standards for time limits, procedures, topicality, disadvantages, and evidence. Within a debate round, debaters can also establish other standards, for example significance. (An Affirmative might establish a standard of risk. In a normal debate, if the DA produces a cost of $10 million and the advantage will produce a savings of $10 million, the Negative will win because the Affirmative carries the burden of proof. Instead of attempting to break the DA, the Affirmative may demonstrate that the advantage has a 90% likelihood of occurring while the disadvantage has only a 20% chance of taking place. The Affirmative will win because the risk of the DA occurring is less than the risk of the advantage.)
• Finally, a team may then group opposing arguments into (1) stock issues, (2) links, or (3) standards. (For example, the Negative asserts three topicality violations. The Affirmative notices that they use a "standard dictionary" for each of their definitions. The Affirmative may then group all three topicality attacks into one rebuttal argument and assert that the Affirmative's position is superior because they employ a "field context" standard. The Affirmative has effectively reduced the number of arguments it must deliver from 3 to 1.)

Return to top
Return to main directory

Grouping that's Not Grouping:

Some debaters think they are grouping issues when they are only organizing. For example, placing all harms under the label of significance and then addressing each harm individually is not grouping and does not save time.

Return to top
Return to main directory

Dangers in Grouping:

Not all arguments can be grouped; some individual issues are too dangerous or are not linked to other issues. Inappropriately grouping issues can result in inadequately addressed issues which can result in loss of the round.

Return to top
Return to main directory