The JRob Technique - I Dare You!

October 2, 2009

If you are preparing for State or Nationals – remember that for those tournaments you still need to be somewhat of a traditionalist where you try and be articulate and argue everything. However, for TOC, if you are tired of Off Cases, critiques, Overviews, and Underviews, I have a strategy I dare you to try. If you are not winning anyway it can’t hurt. I’ve seen this strategy done before on the Negative side but never the Affirmative side but I think it can be utilized on both sides. Of course it can be perfected but I am just throwing this out to see if anyone has enough nerve to try it.

The problem I have with some TOC rounds is that there never really is a debate. It’s usually two debaters spitting out ideas with no real clash. Also, there really is no way to figure out what the judge is looking for until the round is over. For example, you lost because you spent too much time on the critique when you should have focused on the standard. Here’s a way to fix it. I’ll start with the AFF and then the Neg.

For the AFF, during your 6 minute Constructive you simply read your case like normal. Then the Neg will recite their case and somewhat rebut your case. Then it’s time for the JRob technique. During your 4 minute 1AR you simply focus on voting issues. You force the Neg to argue the points you feel are important. For this to work best, you need to choose 2 Neg arguments and 2 Aff arguments you feel are really important and drop everything else. Tell the judge, if you dare, that if your opponent can win those arguments then they can win the round. Once done, all that matters are those 4 arguments and the off cases or critiques no longer come into play unless it’s one of your 4 arguments. This, in my opinion, is the only way to slow the debate down and actually force your opponent to debate an issue. Also, it should make it easier for the judge to decide the winner because they know what arguments to focus on. When the Neg does their NR, they must focus on the arguments you listed. Drops no longer matter because you made it clear that the debate rests on those 4 arguments. During your 2AR you simply rebut your opponents arguments. If I’m judging, and the Neg refused to buy into this concept, the Aff would win because the Neg was trying to escape debating. The point being that with this technique the AFF forces his opponent to debate specific arguments rather than just spewing out rhetoric. Also, you could choose more than 4 arguments to define the round but it’s important that at least 2 or 3 arguments come off of the Neg case so you avoid being abusive.

For the Neg, you would do this strategy during the NR. During your NC, you should deliver your case and try to rebut the Aff’s case. Unless the Aff uses my strategy and gives you voting issues in the 1AR, then you are free to spend the entire 6 minutes solely on voting issues that you feel the round should evolve around. Make the judge aware that these are the arguments you feel are the most important and should be addressed in the Aff’s 2AR. I think 5-7 arguments are sufficient because you want to allow the Aff time to address them. This is not about trying to spread your opponent out; it’s about trying to have an actual debate. Just like the Aff, you want to at least choose 2-3 arguments from both cases to avoid being abusive. If I’m judging and the Aff refuses to address those arguments but brings up some of his own in the 2AR, you would win the round.

For both techniques, it needs to be clear for both your opponent and judges that you feel that everything should be based on the designated arguments you have chosen and whoever argues them better should win the round. Obviously, you have to be very confident in your debating skills to try this technique because you are forcing your opponent to actually debate. Also, all of the arguments should still center around the standard (criteria) and the paramount value. If you try it, I hope it works out for you and watch out because you never know when one of my students may try this.