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.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
A Case against Spreading in LD
September 1, 2009
Because one of my normal tournament stops, USC, is now picking up a Finals TOC bid, it would appear spreading is going to become a more controversial topic when it comes to LD. I’ve lost all interest in TOC, however, it looks like we’re going to go head to head for most of the season. I intentionally stayed away from TOC tournaments because spreading has reached the same level as Policy spreading which is ludicrous. If spreaders win, it only makes matters worse. The only people that can change this are the debaters themselves because it appears the coaches feel this is an advantage which means it’s not going away anytime soon. This article is going to try and provide you with reasons why you should rethink spreading in LD.
It’s well documented that Policy is dropping rapidly. It would seem that only the Policy people understand why they need to spread at such a ridiculous rate. It’s never going to end because once a Policy debater becomes a coach, he’ll insist that his students spread as well. For this very reason, I don’t coach Policy because I know that for my kids to stand a chance they will have to spread. This is what needs to be understood. I stay away from Policy because it’s already understood that you must spread in order to do well in that category. Therefore, I coach LD where the speaking is at least articulate and you don’t have to take deep breaths in order to complete a thought. However, because Policy is dying out, Policy debaters are now moving to LD and treating it like Policy. If you’re going to do LD, then you need to play by LD rules. Nowhere does it say that you can’t spread in LD, but Policy and LD are two different styles of debating and spreading doesn’t work for LD. If you are an LD debater, you need to understand that Policy spreading needs to stop because you can’t spread abstract thoughts.
Policy is factually based vs. LD that is philosophically based. You can’t spread the ideas of Kant and have the judge catch everything. Abstract thoughts need time to be digested slowly in order to truly understand the concept. When it comes out with rapid fire there is no way a judge has time to internalize what he has just heard. All you need to do is compare the Final 2008 LD round of the NFL and the Final 2008 TOC round. In my opinion, the NFL final round was better because there was an actual debate taking place that could be understood by the average person. Watch the TOC final and tell me how many average people could actually follow what was going on. Infact, the AFF seemed to be off topic but because she was Policy spreading it took a while to actually break down her case. I would be embarrassed to be an organization with a final round where there really was no debate. Policy strategy doesn’t work for LD, especially if you have a judge like me that wants to see an actual debate.
I’m somewhat of a hypocrite on this topic because although I can’t stand spreading, I’d prefer a policy judge over any other type of judge simply because they can flow better. But when it comes to choosing a winner, Policy judges really don’t have a clue on how to do it except by keeping track of the number of cards read by each side. Card stacking may work in Policy, but it shouldn’t in LD simply because you can group all of those cards together and make one big argument. Dates don’t matter either because you are arguing ideology not facts. So when someone can read 30 cards in their 6 minute speech that shouldn’t guarantee a win simply because the other side didn’t have time to argue all 30 cards. If the other side at least acknowledges that there were 30 cards and can group them into categories and make arguments against those categories, I would find that totally acceptable. I don’t believe you can spread a person out in LD like you can in Policy. The Policy people of course would disagree and therein lies the problem.
It would really be nice if the TOC organization made a stand against spreading and put a stop to this nonsense. LD was at one time a forum where parents or any person off the streets could judge and at least somewhat follow what was going on. Eventually, it’s just going to begin dwindling like Policy because it will be hard to find judges that can actually follow what the students are saying. All it takes is one non spreader to start winning and things will begin to change.
Because one of my normal tournament stops, USC, is now picking up a Finals TOC bid, it would appear spreading is going to become a more controversial topic when it comes to LD. I’ve lost all interest in TOC, however, it looks like we’re going to go head to head for most of the season. I intentionally stayed away from TOC tournaments because spreading has reached the same level as Policy spreading which is ludicrous. If spreaders win, it only makes matters worse. The only people that can change this are the debaters themselves because it appears the coaches feel this is an advantage which means it’s not going away anytime soon. This article is going to try and provide you with reasons why you should rethink spreading in LD.
It’s well documented that Policy is dropping rapidly. It would seem that only the Policy people understand why they need to spread at such a ridiculous rate. It’s never going to end because once a Policy debater becomes a coach, he’ll insist that his students spread as well. For this very reason, I don’t coach Policy because I know that for my kids to stand a chance they will have to spread. This is what needs to be understood. I stay away from Policy because it’s already understood that you must spread in order to do well in that category. Therefore, I coach LD where the speaking is at least articulate and you don’t have to take deep breaths in order to complete a thought. However, because Policy is dying out, Policy debaters are now moving to LD and treating it like Policy. If you’re going to do LD, then you need to play by LD rules. Nowhere does it say that you can’t spread in LD, but Policy and LD are two different styles of debating and spreading doesn’t work for LD. If you are an LD debater, you need to understand that Policy spreading needs to stop because you can’t spread abstract thoughts.
Policy is factually based vs. LD that is philosophically based. You can’t spread the ideas of Kant and have the judge catch everything. Abstract thoughts need time to be digested slowly in order to truly understand the concept. When it comes out with rapid fire there is no way a judge has time to internalize what he has just heard. All you need to do is compare the Final 2008 LD round of the NFL and the Final 2008 TOC round. In my opinion, the NFL final round was better because there was an actual debate taking place that could be understood by the average person. Watch the TOC final and tell me how many average people could actually follow what was going on. Infact, the AFF seemed to be off topic but because she was Policy spreading it took a while to actually break down her case. I would be embarrassed to be an organization with a final round where there really was no debate. Policy strategy doesn’t work for LD, especially if you have a judge like me that wants to see an actual debate.
I’m somewhat of a hypocrite on this topic because although I can’t stand spreading, I’d prefer a policy judge over any other type of judge simply because they can flow better. But when it comes to choosing a winner, Policy judges really don’t have a clue on how to do it except by keeping track of the number of cards read by each side. Card stacking may work in Policy, but it shouldn’t in LD simply because you can group all of those cards together and make one big argument. Dates don’t matter either because you are arguing ideology not facts. So when someone can read 30 cards in their 6 minute speech that shouldn’t guarantee a win simply because the other side didn’t have time to argue all 30 cards. If the other side at least acknowledges that there were 30 cards and can group them into categories and make arguments against those categories, I would find that totally acceptable. I don’t believe you can spread a person out in LD like you can in Policy. The Policy people of course would disagree and therein lies the problem.
It would really be nice if the TOC organization made a stand against spreading and put a stop to this nonsense. LD was at one time a forum where parents or any person off the streets could judge and at least somewhat follow what was going on. Eventually, it’s just going to begin dwindling like Policy because it will be hard to find judges that can actually follow what the students are saying. All it takes is one non spreader to start winning and things will begin to change.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Utilize a Strategy
September 1, 2008
This article may seem like bragging but I need to in order to get the point across. To be successful at anything you need a strategy. If the strategy works, it becomes a formula for success and then you will either get the copycats who will try to capitalize on your success until the formula wears out or some outside force will try and end your success. It’s true in Hollywood, business, sports, and of course debating. To prove it, I’ll use myself as an example.
First let’s look at bowling. My average is 220. So odds are I can beat you scratch if you want to go 2 out of 3. All I have to do to get a 200 is make sure I repeat the same movements from start to finish with every throw. As long as I do that, I can reach 200 80% of the time. Of course all good bowlers have different techniques, but the results are the same. To be successful, there has to be repetition. The goal is trying to find the delivery or strategy that works. My strategy has allowed me to bowl a perfect game (300) 3 times, and get 11 strikes in a row 4 times during league play. Here’s the problem. If the league sees that you consistently bowl well, they change the oil pattern so that your average will never be too high. So even though I have the same throw, I have to continually find new targets to aim at if I hope to keep getting strikes.
Next, let’s look at golf. Because I realized that in order for me to bowl well I needed be repetitive, I figured why not try the same thing for golf. I’m basically self taught but had a plethora of swings for different types of clubs. I had a different swing for irons, fairway woods, and the driver. Obviously, my handicap was very high because it’s hard to be consistent when having to think about 3 different swings during a round of golf. Thus, during the summer I diligently worked on one consistent swing for all my clubs and my handicap dropped dramatically. I can consistently shoot between 80-84 on any course simply because I can hit the ball solidly every time and can at least be around the green in regulation to give myself a chance at par. Here’s the problem. Because these new young players are driving the ball farther, they continually try to make the courses longer and longer which makes it much more difficult for me since I’m not a long driver. However, since I’m consistent, the plus side is I can usually beat the big hitters which makes them mad.
Now, let’s look at debate. You have to figure out a strategy that works for you and try and utilize it every time. You need a system for the affirmative and negative cases. Either you try to develop a winning strategy for yourself or you copy someone else’s winning strategy. Just in case you weren’t aware, I’ve already provided you with a winning strategy if you read my articles on how to build cases. However, if someone on your team is consistently winning, you need to figure out what they are doing that’s right, and what you are doing that’s wrong. The hardest part about debate is that it is subjective which means that someone else can determine your outcome. So even if you have a winning strategy, it may not work depending on the judges - but don’t let that discourage you. You should still be able to win about 65% of the time if you have a strategy that’s a proven winner. As long as my debaters stay with my strategy or develop a better one, we will always be in the mix and have a chance at winning every round. Here’s the problem. You can never get big headed in subjective events because you can lose simply because you are you. It would be nice to be able to have a pool of truly unbiased judges because then I feel we would have a huge advantage over other schools. However, the reality is that we are all being judged by our competitors so don’t let losing discourage you from seeking a strategy and staying with it. By having a strategy, you at least make your opponent sweat a little which can be fun in itself, especially if it’s a TOC debater.
This article may seem like bragging but I need to in order to get the point across. To be successful at anything you need a strategy. If the strategy works, it becomes a formula for success and then you will either get the copycats who will try to capitalize on your success until the formula wears out or some outside force will try and end your success. It’s true in Hollywood, business, sports, and of course debating. To prove it, I’ll use myself as an example.
First let’s look at bowling. My average is 220. So odds are I can beat you scratch if you want to go 2 out of 3. All I have to do to get a 200 is make sure I repeat the same movements from start to finish with every throw. As long as I do that, I can reach 200 80% of the time. Of course all good bowlers have different techniques, but the results are the same. To be successful, there has to be repetition. The goal is trying to find the delivery or strategy that works. My strategy has allowed me to bowl a perfect game (300) 3 times, and get 11 strikes in a row 4 times during league play. Here’s the problem. If the league sees that you consistently bowl well, they change the oil pattern so that your average will never be too high. So even though I have the same throw, I have to continually find new targets to aim at if I hope to keep getting strikes.
Next, let’s look at golf. Because I realized that in order for me to bowl well I needed be repetitive, I figured why not try the same thing for golf. I’m basically self taught but had a plethora of swings for different types of clubs. I had a different swing for irons, fairway woods, and the driver. Obviously, my handicap was very high because it’s hard to be consistent when having to think about 3 different swings during a round of golf. Thus, during the summer I diligently worked on one consistent swing for all my clubs and my handicap dropped dramatically. I can consistently shoot between 80-84 on any course simply because I can hit the ball solidly every time and can at least be around the green in regulation to give myself a chance at par. Here’s the problem. Because these new young players are driving the ball farther, they continually try to make the courses longer and longer which makes it much more difficult for me since I’m not a long driver. However, since I’m consistent, the plus side is I can usually beat the big hitters which makes them mad.
Now, let’s look at debate. You have to figure out a strategy that works for you and try and utilize it every time. You need a system for the affirmative and negative cases. Either you try to develop a winning strategy for yourself or you copy someone else’s winning strategy. Just in case you weren’t aware, I’ve already provided you with a winning strategy if you read my articles on how to build cases. However, if someone on your team is consistently winning, you need to figure out what they are doing that’s right, and what you are doing that’s wrong. The hardest part about debate is that it is subjective which means that someone else can determine your outcome. So even if you have a winning strategy, it may not work depending on the judges - but don’t let that discourage you. You should still be able to win about 65% of the time if you have a strategy that’s a proven winner. As long as my debaters stay with my strategy or develop a better one, we will always be in the mix and have a chance at winning every round. Here’s the problem. You can never get big headed in subjective events because you can lose simply because you are you. It would be nice to be able to have a pool of truly unbiased judges because then I feel we would have a huge advantage over other schools. However, the reality is that we are all being judged by our competitors so don’t let losing discourage you from seeking a strategy and staying with it. By having a strategy, you at least make your opponent sweat a little which can be fun in itself, especially if it’s a TOC debater.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Debate Camp
June 1, 2008
The school year is already over for some and just about to end for others. If you are thinking about Debate Camp, it might be a good idea if you are into winning. If you really want to improve your odds of winning the TOC or Nationals, you really have no choice but to attend a prominent debate camp. I personally have issues with debate camps, but the facts don’t lie – if you want to win, you have to attend. Because of the money that can be made with holding these camps, they are very competitive. This means that their best form of advertising is by recognizing former students that have won major tournaments. Just look at some of the debate camp websites and view their list of students who have won some major tournament somewhere in the country. What this tells you is that it benefits a camp when their students can win a tournament. What if most of the judges at a tournament you attend are from a certain camp? Get it? You don’t stand a chance of winning a round when being judged by debate camp facilitators and your opponent attended the same debate camp.
What you need to do is figure out which debate camp has the most influence in your area and then sign up. Then, you have to make a noticeable difference. You have to stand out and make the instructors take note of how good you are. Once the rumors start, you can win rounds before you even begin debating simply because your opponent heard that you were a standout at a particular debate camp. If the debate camp is going to use you, make it reciprocal. Use debate camp to network and make people know not only who you are, but how hard you are willing to work to prepare a case.
There really is no point of going to debate camp if your only goal is to have fun and get away from your parents. Why? You can find plenty of trouble if you have no focus. Also, don’t forget, debaters are the most influential people in our society and most of them become prominent people in life. If you do negative things while attending debate camp it can come back to haunt you later in life when you decide you want to run for an office or perhaps become a debate coach somewhere. I hope you get the point.
To conclude, while attending debate camp, have a focus. Know what you want to accomplish and spend your time wisely trying to accomplish it. Most instructors truly want to teach and would like nothing better than to have students that really want to learn. Those students are the ones that make a difference and it will pay dividends down the road either in the form of winning a tournament or being successful in life.
The school year is already over for some and just about to end for others. If you are thinking about Debate Camp, it might be a good idea if you are into winning. If you really want to improve your odds of winning the TOC or Nationals, you really have no choice but to attend a prominent debate camp. I personally have issues with debate camps, but the facts don’t lie – if you want to win, you have to attend. Because of the money that can be made with holding these camps, they are very competitive. This means that their best form of advertising is by recognizing former students that have won major tournaments. Just look at some of the debate camp websites and view their list of students who have won some major tournament somewhere in the country. What this tells you is that it benefits a camp when their students can win a tournament. What if most of the judges at a tournament you attend are from a certain camp? Get it? You don’t stand a chance of winning a round when being judged by debate camp facilitators and your opponent attended the same debate camp.
What you need to do is figure out which debate camp has the most influence in your area and then sign up. Then, you have to make a noticeable difference. You have to stand out and make the instructors take note of how good you are. Once the rumors start, you can win rounds before you even begin debating simply because your opponent heard that you were a standout at a particular debate camp. If the debate camp is going to use you, make it reciprocal. Use debate camp to network and make people know not only who you are, but how hard you are willing to work to prepare a case.
There really is no point of going to debate camp if your only goal is to have fun and get away from your parents. Why? You can find plenty of trouble if you have no focus. Also, don’t forget, debaters are the most influential people in our society and most of them become prominent people in life. If you do negative things while attending debate camp it can come back to haunt you later in life when you decide you want to run for an office or perhaps become a debate coach somewhere. I hope you get the point.
To conclude, while attending debate camp, have a focus. Know what you want to accomplish and spend your time wisely trying to accomplish it. Most instructors truly want to teach and would like nothing better than to have students that really want to learn. Those students are the ones that make a difference and it will pay dividends down the road either in the form of winning a tournament or being successful in life.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
NFL Championship Topic Analysis
May 2, 2008
Resolved: Limiting economic inequality ought to be a more important social goal than maximizing economic freedom.
Since we didn’t participate in NFL this year, finally, I can actually analyze a topic and give you some insight on how to win. If you utilize my strategy you will have a 75% chance of winning your rounds and increase your odds of advancing to the elimination rounds. If you happen to do really well at nationals with my help, don’t forget to give me credit. I’m hoping this gets posted after all of the major briefs have already been packed and shipped out. This is because sometimes the briefs are off topic or a little misleading. However, since the majority of us are usually apathetic, few debaters will actually take the time to really research – instead they will rely on the misleading briefs and try and make it work. The case outlines I’m providing for you will give you a good shot at doing well because they are providing realistic outcomes.
When I do this for my team, I refuse to do the research for them. I’ll gladly supply them briefs but there is no way I will actually write a case for any of my debaters. My gift is that I understand what it takes to give you the best chance of winning. Whenever you are faced with making up an Affirmative and Negative case, you have to understand two things: 1) The cases need realistic benefits and must be inoffensive, and 2) They have to be able to beat each other. Whichever side you are on, you have to really believe that what you are saying is true because then you will look believable to the judges as the debate progresses and you should be able to withstand the daunting CX in a positive light. Research is the key because it’s the rebuttals that are going to win you the round, not the cases.
Topic Analysis
This topic is fairly easy. It’s basically stating that universally it would be better to be economically equal as opposed to being economically inequal. Thus, on a broader scale you are debating Socialism vs. Capitalism. Even if you don’t listen to me, if you focus your Aff case on why Socialism has its good points and your Neg case on why Capitalism is good – you’ll already increase your odds of winning without even reading further.
Affirmative Case
Since it’s asking for a social goal you can base your Paramount Value on Societal Good or Societal Welfare. The Criterion can be Equality or Maximizing Equality since the topic is asking to limit inequality. I always believe the simpler the better so that the judge has an idea of what they are about to hear. Now if you read my article on how to build a case, you will realize the case is already made. You can do your own definitions. The key words for you in the resolution are Social Goal. Remember this because when you promote economic freedom you are promoting selfishness which can be detrimental to achieving societal welfare.
Contention I – Societal welfare depends on the welfare of every class in the society.
In this contention you need to make the judge aware that if people are suffering then you don’t have societal welfare. Do your research and give examples of the struggling middle class trying to make ends meet. Then do the same thing for the lower class. For example, $4 for a gallon of gas means more to the middle and lower class than it does to the upper class. By the way you aren’t limited to the United States so you can show the problem in other countries as well. The goal is to show that with economic inequality you don’t have societal welfare.
Contention II - Maximizing economic freedom leads to selfishness.
This one should be easy because all you need to do is give examples of where greedy people can hurt a society. Enron is a great example but it would be nice if you could find others less popular. Look to athletes and compare their salaries with the average college graduate. How do you think it makes the college graduate feel? Also, take a look at these foreclosures. Why do you think there are so many? Do your research and you’ll find it’s because selfish people were buying and selling at outrageous prices for the sake of being economically free. It’s a never ending cycle of the rich using the disadvantage to get richer. Also, see if there is a correlation between the crime rate and economic disparity.
Contention III – Focusing on limiting economic inequality will promote societal welfare.
The wealth needs to be shared equitably. This is not happening so it’s up to you find examples of where the economically rich spread the wealth and improve morale. Perhaps a corporation that has profit sharing could be a start. Bill Gates is always a popular example but you need to focus on the results of the profit sharing. Perhaps having more means you’ll spend more as well. The goal here is to get the judge to understand that being less disadvantage financially could lead to a better society thus promoting societal welfare. Because there is no guarantee that the rich will spread the wealth, the government needs to do something to aid the process. The result could be a more productive society promoting societal welfare. Your task is to find examples proving this point.
Negative Case
In my opinion the Aff has the advantage because there is a huge disparity between the upper class and the middle class in the United States. Taxes hurt the middle class more than the upper class reducing any pay raise, if any, they may acquire. Odds are the majority of your judges are going to be in the middle class so you have to make sure your Neg case is something they can buy into without being offended. Why should we maximize economic freedom? It could lead to Progress or Advancement. Either one works. The Paramount Value can be Advancement and the Criterion could be Assiduity which means hard work and perseverance. The key words for you are Self Motivation because that’s what you need to try and be the best. Anything that could lead to an apathetic society shouldn’t be a social goal.
Contention I – Competition leads to Advancement.
In a capitalistic society, in order to be the best you have to continually stay on top of your competition. In doing so, your product has to be better than your opposition. The driving force behind this is profit seeking. Corporations have share holders they have to make happy. To prove this, find examples where through competition we have made major advancements. Medical advances would be ideal because that could relate to the judge as far as new medical cures are being discovered. I’m sure you can find plenty of technological advances to use – just make sure the ones you use made a major contribution to our society. The goal is to show that maximizing profit can lead to societal good by always striving to put out the most advanced products, which indirectly is your ultimate goal.
Contention II – Maximizing economic freedom leads to Assiduity.
Once again, in a capitalistic society, you have to work hard to gain an edge. You can’t be complacent. You might want to use an example of how Socialist are apathetic and have the opportunity to get something for doing nothing. You should be rewarded for your hard work, and in this society that reward is profit. Once you start being forced to share the profits, you might not be as hungry to gain an edge as you once were. Since it’s a universal topic, just look to the fact that the United States is one of the Super Powers and the leader when it comes to advancements. All societies have problems but on a larger scale it’s worth it to maximize economic freedom in order to continue to advance at the highest level. The goal is to get the judge to understand that the wealthy earned that right and we all have the opportunity to become wealthy by working hard. Don’t forget that the capitalistic country doesn’t have to be the United States. It can also be a utopian society where everyone actually has an equal chance to become wealthy.
If you noticed, I laid a case out for you but did not make it word for word. Therefore, if one were to use these ideas, there will obviously be several variations. If you do your research and follow these tag lines, you will put yourself in a good position to advance to the out rounds. Each case makes it very clear why you need to vote for it. The key is research and analysis. Also, I wish I could help you during the CX but it’s your job to understand the case well enough to stand up to the CX. Also, these are straight up cases with no gimmicks or hidden cards. All you need for each contention is one or two really good examples and thoroughly research them so you can refute whatever your opponent throws at you. Also, think about changing your examples from round to round if you have more than two. Good luck!
Resolved: Limiting economic inequality ought to be a more important social goal than maximizing economic freedom.
Since we didn’t participate in NFL this year, finally, I can actually analyze a topic and give you some insight on how to win. If you utilize my strategy you will have a 75% chance of winning your rounds and increase your odds of advancing to the elimination rounds. If you happen to do really well at nationals with my help, don’t forget to give me credit. I’m hoping this gets posted after all of the major briefs have already been packed and shipped out. This is because sometimes the briefs are off topic or a little misleading. However, since the majority of us are usually apathetic, few debaters will actually take the time to really research – instead they will rely on the misleading briefs and try and make it work. The case outlines I’m providing for you will give you a good shot at doing well because they are providing realistic outcomes.
When I do this for my team, I refuse to do the research for them. I’ll gladly supply them briefs but there is no way I will actually write a case for any of my debaters. My gift is that I understand what it takes to give you the best chance of winning. Whenever you are faced with making up an Affirmative and Negative case, you have to understand two things: 1) The cases need realistic benefits and must be inoffensive, and 2) They have to be able to beat each other. Whichever side you are on, you have to really believe that what you are saying is true because then you will look believable to the judges as the debate progresses and you should be able to withstand the daunting CX in a positive light. Research is the key because it’s the rebuttals that are going to win you the round, not the cases.
Topic Analysis
This topic is fairly easy. It’s basically stating that universally it would be better to be economically equal as opposed to being economically inequal. Thus, on a broader scale you are debating Socialism vs. Capitalism. Even if you don’t listen to me, if you focus your Aff case on why Socialism has its good points and your Neg case on why Capitalism is good – you’ll already increase your odds of winning without even reading further.
Affirmative Case
Since it’s asking for a social goal you can base your Paramount Value on Societal Good or Societal Welfare. The Criterion can be Equality or Maximizing Equality since the topic is asking to limit inequality. I always believe the simpler the better so that the judge has an idea of what they are about to hear. Now if you read my article on how to build a case, you will realize the case is already made. You can do your own definitions. The key words for you in the resolution are Social Goal. Remember this because when you promote economic freedom you are promoting selfishness which can be detrimental to achieving societal welfare.
Contention I – Societal welfare depends on the welfare of every class in the society.
In this contention you need to make the judge aware that if people are suffering then you don’t have societal welfare. Do your research and give examples of the struggling middle class trying to make ends meet. Then do the same thing for the lower class. For example, $4 for a gallon of gas means more to the middle and lower class than it does to the upper class. By the way you aren’t limited to the United States so you can show the problem in other countries as well. The goal is to show that with economic inequality you don’t have societal welfare.
Contention II - Maximizing economic freedom leads to selfishness.
This one should be easy because all you need to do is give examples of where greedy people can hurt a society. Enron is a great example but it would be nice if you could find others less popular. Look to athletes and compare their salaries with the average college graduate. How do you think it makes the college graduate feel? Also, take a look at these foreclosures. Why do you think there are so many? Do your research and you’ll find it’s because selfish people were buying and selling at outrageous prices for the sake of being economically free. It’s a never ending cycle of the rich using the disadvantage to get richer. Also, see if there is a correlation between the crime rate and economic disparity.
Contention III – Focusing on limiting economic inequality will promote societal welfare.
The wealth needs to be shared equitably. This is not happening so it’s up to you find examples of where the economically rich spread the wealth and improve morale. Perhaps a corporation that has profit sharing could be a start. Bill Gates is always a popular example but you need to focus on the results of the profit sharing. Perhaps having more means you’ll spend more as well. The goal here is to get the judge to understand that being less disadvantage financially could lead to a better society thus promoting societal welfare. Because there is no guarantee that the rich will spread the wealth, the government needs to do something to aid the process. The result could be a more productive society promoting societal welfare. Your task is to find examples proving this point.
Negative Case
In my opinion the Aff has the advantage because there is a huge disparity between the upper class and the middle class in the United States. Taxes hurt the middle class more than the upper class reducing any pay raise, if any, they may acquire. Odds are the majority of your judges are going to be in the middle class so you have to make sure your Neg case is something they can buy into without being offended. Why should we maximize economic freedom? It could lead to Progress or Advancement. Either one works. The Paramount Value can be Advancement and the Criterion could be Assiduity which means hard work and perseverance. The key words for you are Self Motivation because that’s what you need to try and be the best. Anything that could lead to an apathetic society shouldn’t be a social goal.
Contention I – Competition leads to Advancement.
In a capitalistic society, in order to be the best you have to continually stay on top of your competition. In doing so, your product has to be better than your opposition. The driving force behind this is profit seeking. Corporations have share holders they have to make happy. To prove this, find examples where through competition we have made major advancements. Medical advances would be ideal because that could relate to the judge as far as new medical cures are being discovered. I’m sure you can find plenty of technological advances to use – just make sure the ones you use made a major contribution to our society. The goal is to show that maximizing profit can lead to societal good by always striving to put out the most advanced products, which indirectly is your ultimate goal.
Contention II – Maximizing economic freedom leads to Assiduity.
Once again, in a capitalistic society, you have to work hard to gain an edge. You can’t be complacent. You might want to use an example of how Socialist are apathetic and have the opportunity to get something for doing nothing. You should be rewarded for your hard work, and in this society that reward is profit. Once you start being forced to share the profits, you might not be as hungry to gain an edge as you once were. Since it’s a universal topic, just look to the fact that the United States is one of the Super Powers and the leader when it comes to advancements. All societies have problems but on a larger scale it’s worth it to maximize economic freedom in order to continue to advance at the highest level. The goal is to get the judge to understand that the wealthy earned that right and we all have the opportunity to become wealthy by working hard. Don’t forget that the capitalistic country doesn’t have to be the United States. It can also be a utopian society where everyone actually has an equal chance to become wealthy.
If you noticed, I laid a case out for you but did not make it word for word. Therefore, if one were to use these ideas, there will obviously be several variations. If you do your research and follow these tag lines, you will put yourself in a good position to advance to the out rounds. Each case makes it very clear why you need to vote for it. The key is research and analysis. Also, I wish I could help you during the CX but it’s your job to understand the case well enough to stand up to the CX. Also, these are straight up cases with no gimmicks or hidden cards. All you need for each contention is one or two really good examples and thoroughly research them so you can refute whatever your opponent throws at you. Also, think about changing your examples from round to round if you have more than two. Good luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
