Strategies Review

Preemption

1. Definition: Providing answers to negative arguments before those arguments are presented.
2. Purpose: To use the greater availability of time during the Affirmative construction to present evidence and explanation in order to reduce the burden placed upon the first affirmative rebuttal.
3. Preparation: When completing the affirmative analysis, the debater should examine the proposition in its negated form in order to evaluate possible negative attacks on the affirmative position. Additionally, once the affirmative case has been constructed, the affirmative should run several negative cases against their own affirmative in order to discover possible weaknesses and loopholes.
4. Development: Once a debater has determined what weaknesses the affirmative case possesses, he should strengthen and append existing arguments in order to preempt the most common and plausible negative attacks.
5. Example: In the sample affirmative case , the affirmative anticipated that the negative would probably raise safety as a concern over genetic manipulation. The affirmative preempted this attack by including a brief argument over safety in their construction. Additionally, the affirmative recognized that many negatives and perhaps the judge might view genetic manipulation as "playing God." This possible problem, again, was preempted by adding an explanation about how scientific progress has become acceptable as alternative to the cruelty of the 'natural order'.
6. Extensions: It is probably unwise to include a fully developed argument in the construction against all possible negative attacks - it is impossible to anticipate every conceivable negative response to a specific affirmative. The brief arguments presented in the construction can be developed and extended in the rebuttals as necessary.
7. Cautions: If too many preemptive arguments are included in the construction, the debater may encounter a couple of problems:
   • The construction will sound like a rebuttal and limit the time necessary to establish a solid foundation for a prima facie case.
   • A wise negative will step around the preempted issues and attack other areas thus rendering the affirmative preemptive efforts a waste of time and energy.

Return to top of page

Flowing

Outlines: Maintaining accurate notes of the issues raised within a debate round is of the utmost importance. Issues that are not addressed in one manner or another are considered dropped issues and may benefit an opponent in three ways:

1. Several judges automatically grant a loss to a debater who drops a significant issue in order to teach the debater the importance of covering all issues.
2. A debater who drops an issue may be perceived as the weaker debater since he is unable to keep track of the issues.
3. Most importantly, credit for the issue is granted to the opponent and the issue will weigh heavily in the final outcome.

Flow Sheet: A flowsheet is simply a sheet of paper (legal pad) divided into columns and captioned with each of the five speeches. Within the columns, the debater records major issues and arguments raised in each speech, pairing those arguments that are directly related and/or refutation of existing issues. Issues that are unclear or missed during the construction, should be clarified during C-X.

Pre-flows: Pre-flows are outlines of the issues that will be raised during the affirmative construction. Since the affirmative debater already knows his case before the round starts, this outline should be completed before a tournament begins.

Return to top of page

Cross Applying Values/Criteria

1. Definition: Using evidence and explanation to demonstrate that your position better fulfills your opponent's value and/or criteria than his own position.
2. Purpose: To seize an opponent's value and/or criteria by exploiting an adversary's tunnel vision - the tendency for individuals to see only one course of action in a situation.
3. Preparation: Many debaters will stake out affirmative and negative territories when they begin analyzing the proposition. They develop their cases in the belief that affirmatives will argue A is true and negatives will argue B is true. They anticipate that debate will revolve around proving A to be true and B to be false or B to be true and A to be false. However, a well informed and well-prepared debater will be able to argue that while A is true, B is also true, and B better fulfills A's value and/or criteria.
4. Development: In preparation for this type of debate, a debater will examine all plausible values and criteria for a given proposition, and then determine how his own position can meet and exceed the standards required of other values and criteria.
5. Example: In the sample negative, the negative seizes the affirmative's criterion of Ultimate Effects, redefines the criteria into a more desirable form , and then demonstrates how the negative's value better fulfills that criterion by producing more desirable effects.
6. Extensions: The initial cross applying should take place in either the negative construction or the first affirmative rebuttal. Initially, the argument does not have to be as extensive as found in the sample case - it may only be a brief explanation of how one position better fulfills the requirements of the other. In such cases, a debater should emphasize the argument extensively in their final rebuttal.
7. Cautions: Cross applying values and criteria can be one of the most effective tools in debating values; however, there are two possible pitfalls of which a debater must be aware:
   • Value debate should provide a judge with two clearly competing values from which to choose. If a debater decides to cross apply values/criteria there must be a clear difference between the two positions - the judge must choose one or the other - both cannot be accepted at the same time.
   • The argument must be presented either in the negative construction or the first affirmative rebuttal; or, if delivered in a final rebuttal, closely linked to another existing argument. Otherwise, a debater may be in danger of presenting a new issue in a rebuttal, and that is considered an unfair debate practice.

Return to top of page

Weighing Mechanisms

1. Definition: The criteria used in such a manner as the merits of one position are shown to outweigh or contain greater importance than the merits of another.
2. Purpose: To summarize a debate round by examining the issues on both sides, pointing out the weaknesses of the opponent's arguments, highlighting the strengths of his arguments, and demonstrating why he should win the round.
3. Preparation: When developing a position, the debater should be careful to select a criterion that will best represent how the values within a proposition should be measured - both affirmative and negative. The criteria should never be chosen because of convenience or simple familiarity. The debater may then proceed to develop a case that demonstrates that his value is the best means to fulfill that criteria and thus either support or deny the proposition.
4. Development: A debater's main objection during the first portion of the debate (AC, NC, 1AR, and first ½ of NR) is to strengthen the foundation for his value/criteria system and to point out flaws and weaknesses in his opponent's value and criteria. During the final summation, a debater should employ the criteria as a means to weigh (or measure) which value system demonstrates the greatest weight or merit.
5. Example: In the sample negative, the negative attempts to illustrate (1) that the potential for disaster resulting from unregulated scientific progress is great, (2) that current attitudes tend to balance the need for scientific progress and the need to safeguard against adverse implications, and, thus, (3) when the two sides are weighed using the criteria Ultimate Effects, the negative position wins because the merits of balance outweigh the potential for disaster.
6. Extensions: Employing the weighing mechanism is the climax for all arguments forwarded in a round. Direct refutation issues work towards diminishing the weight of an opponent's position, and repair is used to increase the weight one's own position. Employing a weighing mechanism at the end of a round illustrates the strength of one side over the opposition's, it highlights the important issues, and guides the judge into making a decision in favor of the position with the greatest merit.
7. Cautions: Use of a weighing mechanism forces a debater to recognize the merits of his opponent's value and position in a realistic manner. Frequently debaters are afraid to admit that his opponent has made a valid point. A debater who asserts that the value of Life has no merit is not being realistic and, therefore, loses credibility with the judge. A debater must be willing to admit that A is true and then proceed to demonstrate that A is not as true as my opponent would have you believe and that B is also true and ultimately more important than A.

Return to top of page