Speaking Responsibilities Lecture
1AC -
Fast, Clear
What should 2A be doing:
-Both people should have the speech pre-flowed if you insist on having the 1AC flowed at all; should not be wasting time flowing the 1AC
What should Negative be doing:
-1N needs to flow parts of arguments that are important - terminal impacts that need to be weighed and responded to, underviewss that pre-empt neg arg’s like the K , etc.
-2N should be standing next to the 1A - not reading over shoulder, but reading evidence and cross-hatching important cards to prepare for CX
1NC -
Fast, Clear
Follow orders from 2N
What should 2N be doing:
-Both people should have an idea of the arguments without flowing them
-Should flow case arg’s for self and for partner
What should the Aff be doing:
-1A should be listening for orders from the 2A to write answers or pull evidence; should also be thinking about questions to ask 1N - read over 1N evidence as it is put down to look for details to use during CX; report to 2A any relevant details
-Sympathize with 1N, but realize that 1A is superior b/c rebuttal matters
-2A should be pulling blocks and writing answers
-Both parties must flow tags and details of case arg’s
2AC -
Fast, Clear
Split second pause before switching positions - watch judge to make sure she/he is keeping up with you
Cover all negative arguments
Default Order - T, Case, CP (DA’s or K’s)
What should the 1A be doing:
-FLOWING for self and 2A
-Watching time for partner to make sure that nothing is dropped; this does NOT mean yell at your partner to move on constantly
What should the negative be doing:
-FLOWING ALL ANSWERS, especially the 2N b/c 1N could flow only answers to positions she/he knows that they are taking
-If there is time, neg can pull answers to the aff args, but do NOT do this if you drop args b/c you have not learned to listen and pull arg’s at the same time
2NC -
Fast, Clear
Break up arg’s with 1NR - do not repeat answers
Follow 2AC structure to answer line-by-line
Only put overview if necessary for one of the following:
-cut down on repetition on line-by-line
-need to make global arguments/impact analysis critical to debate
Must at least reference every 2AC argument
Read evidence in response; should not be all analytics
Analytics should be based on comparisons to 2AC evidence using cards read in 1NC, including discussions of warrants, and any of the following relevant arguments:
-Dates of evidence
-Qualifications of authors
-Empirical examples that prove/disprove arguments
If you find that you need the 1NR to take something from your speech, ask for prep time immediately at the close of your speech before CX to give the 1NR time to process and add details to speech
*Efficiency Note: Use embedded clash - do NOT repeat all of the 2AC’s arguments, reference numbers and then say argument within your own answer, e.g., instead of saying “on the #1 - they say non-unique b/c previous PEPFAR funding - a) extend the 1NC uniqueness which says that now is the key time,” you should say “one the #1, the uniqueness assumes that PEPFAR funding has already been allocated, now is the brink - any new spending will signal investors to stop trading in expectations of a rising deficit” This means you get less unnecessary lead up and more warrants, which the judge will actually listen to
What should the 1N be doing:
-Prepping only
What should the affirmative be doing:
-2A should be flowing the 2NC arguments
-1A should be writing own arguments as they 2N is speaking
1NR -
Fast, Clear
See notes from 2NC
Out of the block
What should the 2N be doing:
-Flowing 1NR arguments
What should the affirmative be doing:
-2A should be flowing the 1NR arguments
-1A should be writing own arguments as they 1NR is speaking
1AR -
Fast!!!! And Clear
First, the 1AR is a bridge from the 2AC to the 2AR - must make sure the 2AR has the appropriate offense and defense set-up to win the debate
Should follow the 2AC structure on off-case and should follow the 1NC structure on on-case
Should add in slightly new arguments; attach to previous arguments so that it can appear more like a logical extension
What should the 2A be doing:
-Flowing 1AR arguments
-Watching time to make sure 1AR is covering
-Mindful of what arguments and evidence is being read/extended to tell a coherent 2AR story
What should the negative be doing:
-1N should be sitting next to the 1AR to get cards
-2N should be writing own arguments as the 1AR is speaking
-2N should be deciding what positions she/he wants to go for given the 1AR responses
2NR -
-Fast, Clear
-Weighing impacts for your arguments
-Choosing specific strategies
-Kicking out of any unnecessary positions - DA’s, CP’s, K’s
-Addressing positions that you think that you can lose on and then explaining why you still win the debate - admit weaknesses, answer weaknesses, and promote strengths
What should the 1N be doing:
-Watching time to make sure 2N is covering
What should the affirmative be doing:
-Flowing and writing answers to arguments
-Thinking about how to set-up global framework for judges’ ballot - did the neg. Assume the squo, the CP, or an alt in the last speech? If the neg. chose to go for a CP or an alt, what does the alt or CP solve for? Is there a large solvency deficit?
2AR -
Fast, Clear
Weighing impacts of arguments
Set-up strengths of the affirmative and then address weaknesses of the negative in reference to the affirmative policy option
What should the 1A be doing:
-Watching time and making sure no necessary arguments are dropped
What should the negative be doing:
-Should be flowing and following 2AR to help evaluate/understand judge’s decision at the end
-Relaxing
Additional Notes:
-Need your cards back-
1) If 1AR needs evidence to prep speech, ask for evidence before the 2NC/1NR.
2) If need more prep time, ask for the evidence right before your speech.
3) Negative should have 2AC evidence immediately during or after speech to use
for neg block.
4) Negative should get their evidence back before the 1AR.
-If you find that you constantly lose your opponent’s evidence amongst your own,
designate a tub top as the space to put your opponent’s evidence so if they ask for
it to frazzle you before speaking or to get more prep, you can point to the tub top
and tell them to retrieve it themselves instead of making you look for it.
-After the round, advice:
1) Do not argue with the judge - you will not get a 3NR/3AR
2)
-See CX lecture for further details about CX
CX Lecture
Basic Principles for Asker-
1) Should be based in arguments that the team just spoke about except can ask arg of 2NC that 1NR may be addressing if necessary
2) Besides 1-2 exploratory questions if necessary, asker should already have a clear idea of how other team will answer the CX question
3) Questions should be crafted narrowly using evidence for support; not open-ended invitations for opponent to ramble about their position. Start with a short statement about evidence and then move to question based on your original statement - e.g., Your uniqueness evidence says that Democrats are rejecting the South Korea Free Trade Agreement because of the new amendments to the agreement; the plan does not affect these amendments - why would the democrats perceive our plan as a concession while the amendments your evidence assumes are still in tact?
4) Questions should be cleverly crafted to sound like trying to get another arg. that gets other team to give an expressive answer in your favor, e.g., when trying to get a development link to poverty advantage - do NOT ask “does plan solve for poverty in Africa to develop it to meet a particular standard of living?”; instead ask “Your evidence says there is a lack of infrastructure in Africa, how do you overcome this barrier to solve your poverty advantage?” This question sounds like lead in to case arg, but instead is a way to get the aff to discuss the way the aff solves poverty to reach a particular standard of living = link.
5) Always maintain appropriate eye contact with the judge
6) Position your body next to and slightly ahead of your opponent
7) Should be extremely assertive; this does NOT mean be a jerk
8) Should listen to answer - when people ask a question and then ignore the other team’s response, I often wonder why they asked the question in the first place. Listening makes your question look purposeful as opposed to irrelevant.
9) Should relax and let personality show.
Basic Principles for Asked -
1) Asked should never admit anything that has not already been stated in a speech
2) Remain calm and collected
3) Move from your spot if you feel like the asker is moving too far ahead of you towards the judge
4) Should let personality show
5) Answer questions calmly and intelligently; don’t be afraid to ask for clarification if question is extremely muddled - judge is probably thinking the same thing.
Traditional Order:
1) 2N CX of 1A
2) 1A CX of 1N
3) 1N CX of 2A
4) 2A CX of 2N
Tag Team CX:
Do:
Answer arg’s and ask questions that are especially important to the debate even if it is not your CX (assuming the judge is not overly conservative)
Don’t:
Monopolize your partner’s CX whether asking or answering questions if you partner knows the answers or questions that need to be asked. It is much better that both people of the partnership appear competent.
CX Activity:
Read the scenarios and evidence assigned to your pair. Write down 3 questions based on this evidence. When you have completed your 5 questions - raise your hand. Each pair will act out their CX with one person doing the asking and the other doing the answering.
Scenario #1
The 2N is cross-examining the 1AC who is running GHS. Assuming the aff read the GHS aff and the negative is planning on running the Development Kritik - see link below, write 2-3 questions to get the link to the kritik.
Development
The Link- The discourse of development is inseparable from its reality—the language we use when discussing the Third World is inextricably tied to the history of violent colonialism, which the aff’s speech act only reproduces.
Arturo Escobar, professor of anthropology at Smith College, 1995 (Encountering Development: the Making and Unmaking of the Third World, p.214-215)
The development discourse, as this book has shown, has been the central and most ubiquitous operator of the politics of representation and identity in much of Asia, Africa, and Latin America have witnessed a succession of regimes of representation—originating in colonialism and European modernity but often appropriated as national projects in post- independence Latin America and postcolonial Africa and Asia—each with its accompanying regime of violence. As places of encounter and suppression of local cultures, women, identities, and histories, these regimes of representation are originary sites of violence (Rojas de Ferro 1994). As a regime of representation of this sort, development has been linked to an economy of production and desire, but also of closure, difference, and violence. To be sure, this violence is also mimetic violence, a source of self-formation. Terror and violence circulate and become, themselves, spaces of cultural production (Girard 1977 and Taussig 1987). But the modernized violence introduced with colonialism and development is itself a source of identity. From the will to civilization in the nineteenth century to today, violence has been engendered through representation.
The very existence of the Third World has in fact been wagered, managed, and negotiated around this politics of representation. As an effect of the discursive practices of development, the Third World is a contested reality whose current status is up for scrutiny and negotiation. For some, the Third World can be made a symbol of planetary intellectual responsibility …it can be read as text of survival (Nandy 1989, 275). After the demise of the Second World, the Third and First worlds necessarily have to realign their places and the space of ordering themselves. Yet it is clear that the Third World has become the other of the First worlds necessarily have to realign their places and the space of ordering themselves. Yet it is clear that the Third World has become the other of the First with even greater poignancy. To survive, the Third World must necessarily have negative and positive connotations; negative when viewed in a verbal ranking system… positive when understood socio-politically as a subversive, ‘non-aligned’ force (Trinh 1989, 97). The term will continue to have currency for quite some time, because it is still an essential construct for those in power. But it can also be made the object of different reimaginings. “The Third World is what holds in trust the rejected selves of the First and [formerly] Second Worlds…before envisioning the global civilization of the future, one must first own up the responsibility of creating a space at the margins of the present global civilization for a new, plural, political ecology of knowledge” (Nandy 1989, 273, 266).
As we will see, however, the Third World should in no way be seen as a reservoir of “traditions.” The selves of the Third World are manifold and multiple, including selves that are becoming increasingly illegible according to any known idiom of modernity, given the growing fragmentation, polarization, violence, and uprootedness that are taking hold of various social groups in a number of regions. It is also possible; even likely, that radically reconstituted identities might emerge form some of those spaces that are traversed by most disarticulating forces and tensions. But it is too soon even to imagine the forms of representation that this process might promote. Instead, at present one seems to be led to paying attention to forms of resistance to development that are clearly legible, and to the reconstruction of cultural orders that might be happening at the level of popular groups and social movements.
Scenario #2
The 1N is cross-examining the 2AC. Assuming the negative ran the Panama FTA politics DA and the 2AC read the answers outlined below and is running the GHS aff, write 3 questions you would ask the 2AC to prove the aff .
Affrmative is running the GHS Aff. with pandemics and SP as the advantages.
2AC A2: Politics
1) Uniqueness overwhelms the link - the uniqueness evidence indicates that both the democrats and the republicans are against the Panama FTA now
2) Turn - Democrats like the plan; they support aid to stop pandemics.
3) Non-unique - Panama FTA will not pass.
4) Case outweighs - the pandemic impact, the bioterror impacts and the SP impacts outweigh risk of the DA.
5) Non-unique - Pepfar funding has already been allocated and empirically denies the impact.
Negative:
Uniqueness - Panama FTA will pass - provision concessions to Dems got them on board
AFX, “Bush administration, industry meet as Panama, Peru trade deals delayed”, 7/10/07
Senior members of the Bush administration and several US industry representatives were meeting today in Washington in order to devise a plan under which stalled free trade agreements (FTAs) with Panama and Peru might be quickly approved by Congress. The meeting was hastily convened just days after Rep. Sander Levin, who controls the Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, said Panama and Peru must fully implement the terms of their FTAs with the US before the US Congress considers each agreement. Levin told his Democratic colleagues in a July 6 email that delaying a US vote on the FTAs is warranted because the US has previously waited for its trading partners to approve agreements before the US acted. Levin said this was the case with Guatemala and the Dominican Republic. But the administration and industry groups argue that this is a radical change from a May agreement with Congress under which the FTAs should have been considered for a vote this month. One industry representative said the Peru FTA was already scheduled for a July vote, but now this has been pulled from the legislative calendar. In a July 9 letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, National Association of Manufacturers President John Engler said the decision to delay the vote on the two FTAs goes against a bipartisan agreement to approve the FTAs quickly. Under that agreement, the administration and US companies agreed to tougher labor and environmental provisions in the FTAs, in return for Democratic support for these agreements. ‘I am extremely disappointed to see that, despite the support that the NAM and others in the business community have put forth, that additional roadblocks are being placed in front of specific agreements,’ Engler wrote. ‘It is essential that you stick to your original bargain and that we have a July vote on the Peru FTA, and a Panama vote as soon as possible.’ Engler also said Congress should approve FTAs with Colombia and Korea, although Democrats have said for the last few months that more labor improvements would be needed in Colombia, and increased access in Korea for US automobiles would be required. US Trade Representative Susan Schwab urged Pelosi in a July 6 letter to allow the FTAs to move as quickly as possible this year. ‘The Administration looks forward to working with you to make the vision of the May 10 agreement a reality, and rebuilding bipartisan support for opening markets around the world,’ Schwab told Pelosi.