Etch by Ethos on Prezi

In addition, we’re looking for a permanent staff of interns for Etch!

If you’re interested in joining the team and being apart of this monumentous project, then email us . . . → Read More: Etch Announcement!]]> Here is the much anticipated (and promised) Etch announcement!

In addition, we’re looking for a permanent staff of interns for Etch!

If you’re interested in joining the team and being apart of this monumentous project, then email us at etch@ethosdebate.com with the following:

Your name

Your debate years and placings (TP, LD, and/or Parli)

The amount of time you’re willing to commit monthly

Any debate articles or briefs you may have written (can be res-specific)

There is room for freelance contributions, so if you have an article you’d like to submit, or a mini-brief you’d like to submit, please do and we’ll look it over!

We’ll look forward to any and all interest.

[Click on the title for poster.]

The truth is, people mean several different things when they say “Kritical Aff”. Do you know someone who says they are trying one? . . . → Read More: What’s a Kritical Aff]]> I received a question over the weekend: What’s a Kritical aff and how does it work? I decided to respond to the whole debate community as the issue is so commonly misunderstood.

The truth is, people mean several different things when they say “Kritical Aff”. Do you know someone who says they are trying one? My experience is 90% of the time they actually aren’t (in the sense that it doesn’t take any extra understanding to defeat it — disads and solvency work just fine).

(pulsarwallpapers.com)

So first off, here’s a shell of the K. It’s essentially a . . . → Read More: Quick Kritik Responses: An Example]]> Today’s post is an example of a Kritik and some potential responses. The K itself is geared at a higher level of both debate theory and political theory understanding and the responses also debate at a higher level of debate theory.

(pulsarwallpapers.com)

So first off, here’s a shell of the K. It’s essentially a threat construction/threat hype K and is aimed at the NTPA Ethos case for this year.

Framework
− Representations Key

Links
− “Proliferation”: affirmative “solving” spread of nuclear weapons
− “Terrorism”: focused on preventing nuclear “terrorism” and prosecuting “terrorists,” despite having a definition much too ambiguous and lacking clear determination i.e. what even constitutes a terrorist?

Internal Links
− “Proliferation”: A misfocus of national and international priorities
− “Terrorism”: An overhyped threat i.e. threat construction

Impacts
− “Proliferation”: Using rhetoric like “proliferation” and crafting policies aimed at raising awareness and combating the alleged threat actually, in turn, CREATE the very environment necessary for the thriving of proliferation
− “Terrorism”:

a) The very threat of terrorism is self-generating based on the notion of having terror, BECAUSE of them.

b) By attacking terrorist and the notion of terrorism we portray them as less than human and demonize the threat which is wrong

Alternative
− “Proliferation”: Rather than trying to combat other people having weapons we should instead try to disarm ourselves and reduce our own weapons
− “Terrorism”: We should reject policies with ambiguous terminology based upon fear-mongering rhetoric

Solvency
- Awareness: By raising criticism we can effectively combat the construction of threats and therefore you should vote negative, because that’s what we’re doing in this debate round

And now for the responses! It’s fully scripted, locked-and-loaded, and ready to fire.

Framework

- Don’t vote: My opponent gave you no reason to show that my language and the language of evidence used to discuss this issue should mean I lose the debate round. When he’s not debating my policy anymore, guess what, he’s not defeating the resolution, and that’s what you should judge on. Why not dock my speaker points? Write in the opinion section? Turn me in to the tournament director? Do nothing? My opponent just wants to win — that’s the only reason you could ever vote on this issue. Look at the resolution — if we justified it, end of story.

- It’s not a Kritik: There’s nothing a-priori about this argument. My opponent doesn’t try to show why it should be evaluated apart from the case. Without doing that, it must be simply weighed as part of the case. As we will see, my impacts outweigh (wait for it under impacts).

- Actions are MORE key: I agree that representations are important. There’s no getting around that. But what we actually do is always more important. Why? Two reasons:

a) People will forever interpret their own motives and ideas into what we do. Look at Truman dropping the bomb on Japan. Look at Obama running for president. The action is one thing, but what people choose to see it as representing is just uncontrollable.

b) I say threat construction is bad and so is dehumanization. Now, for the rest of the round, my motives are clear. He’s attacking my motives. But what harm is done to you, now that you know the motives of my language? None.

Links, Internal Links, and Impacts, oh my!

- Plan not defeated: My opponent just whines about my language. He doesn’t provide a plan about WHAT WE SHOULD DO in the context of my case. After hearing this argument, should we pass the plan or not? Guess what, his impacts don’t even address it. He linked the impacts to my language, not my plan. So my plan isn’t bad. So it’s good. He doesn’t have one. That’s worse.

- Non-unique: There is so much language and threatcon in the world exactly along these lines. My opponent should have shown how my language in this round or even if I was speaking on the floor of Congress at the very moment is somehow worse than the other language going on. Besides not warranting a vote, whether or not you vote for me, the threatcon continues and if my opponent is right (he’s not) the impacts happen. In other words, I have no unique bearing on the impact. That means this argument doesn’t function as a reason to reject my case.

- No counter-plan: If my opponent really were serious, he’d run a counterplan that prevents the impacts of pro-disarm policies and policies that say the word terrorism. Since he doesn’t, he doesn’t solve for any of it. The REASON he doesn’t is because it would be painfully obvious that he’s not attacking my plan, since his counterplan would be my mandates plus some other ones that used different language. The end result wouldn’t be different.

Kritical Turn

- The Link Turn: If you buy the logic of his argument that this is a K, you still have to vote against the negative team. By the exact same linguistic analysis (cross apply the framework and solvency), my opponent actually short circuits policymaking altogether.

- Link: His solvency point is “exposing bad rhetoric wins”.

- Internal links:

a) There is ALWAYS bad rhetoric, unless you shut off the news, the money, and the electoral system. Dictatorship is probably not an option here. If 300 million Americans can speak, the language will be bad. I guarantee it. We should be concerned about outcomes, not feelings.

b) My opponent says bad rhetoric = never act. He’s saying don’t vote for my plan because of bad rhetoric.

- Impact: We never act. Now think of everything bad that has ever happened. It is a result of actions. The way we stop those bad things, from WWII to secret wiretapping, is also by acting. Since the words used to express action can always have some complaint against them, my opponent ends all good things forever. That’s the logical conclusion of his argument. Doing this is so much worse than dehumanizing terrorists. SO much worse.

So. This kind of argument is silly. But if you don’t think it is all that silly, my opponent’s actual argument is even sillier. It means we don’t act until we get our language down correct. That’ll be the day

The 1AC is important. But I’m sure you already knew that – or at least, think you know that. Which is why I’m sitting here wondering why almost everybody thinks of the 1AC as “an eight minute speech with a plan text”. Those . . . → Read More: Three Ways to Improve Your 1AC]]> Thanks to our dual sourcebook manager, Lydia Bode, for writing today’s post.

The 1AC is important. But I’m sure you already knew that – or at least, think you know that. Which is why I’m sitting here wondering why almost everybody thinks of the 1AC as “an eight minute speech with a plan text”. Those who run counter plans might add “the first speech of the round” to their description of the 1AC, just so it doesn’t get confused with a 1NC.

(sfkids.org)

We view 1ACs as boring. Nobody really pays much attention to them, unless the judge happens to be flowing or the negative team has never heard the case before. 1A’s launch into a well-rehearsed, traditional eight minute speech. 2A’s skim over their favorite cards, doodle on their legal pads, and glance at the negative team to see if they’re paying attention. The 1N skims through negative files, planning the next speech. The 2N keeps one ear attuned for words like “funding”, “might”, and dates of evidence that make for a killer cross-x. He may or may not remember to ask for the 1AC, but as long as the 1A says “I don’t know” or “I guess so” more than once, the cross examination will be considered a success.

What’s the problem here? The 1AC was wasted time. The affirmative might as well have just read their plan text and sat down. The structure was traditional and boring. At least a third of the content was pointless. The evidence will likely never be mentioned again. For all intents and purposes, the 1AC is a plan text and the 1NC is the first “real speech” of the round.

Aside from spending three paragraphs on an introduction, what’s my point? Wake up, affirmatives. 1A’s, don’t make yourself rehearse a speech full of “observations” and one-liners from those experts in the field. Don’t make the judge wince at the thought of writing out all your definitions and give up on flowing altogether. Don’t give the negative 8 minutes to sip energy drinks and strategize. This speech matters, make it count.

Three tips on how to do this:

1. Identify what you want to talk about, and talk about it.

Those of you who think you can check this off the list because you picked a case topic, you can’t . If you attended ethos camps or follow the blog, you’ll know how important it is to have a “big idea” behind all your arguments. Let’s apply that concept to the 1AC. Anything that does not drive home your big idea needs to go.

Do you really need your definitions? Unless your case is sketchy on topicality and you’re hoping the negative won’t notice your creative take on “reform”, please take this section out of your case.

Do you really need your goal? Yes I did just say this! And here’s why: some goals make the case. They are the big idea. Some affirmatives skate through their rounds on their value framework, outweighing all the other arguments and establishing impressive moral imperatives and policy standards that practically guarantee an affirmative ballot. Other affirmatives wish their cases were like that, so they insert a wordy paragraph about “the most important issue in the round” and “the measuring sticks that determine which side is better,” hoping that judges “will consider it when making their decisions at the end of the round.” Did they really just say it’s the most important issue in the round? Because nine times out of ten, it won’t be. Nine times out of ten that goal won’t resurface again until the 2AR, when the speaker makes some vague reference to the “importance of upholding international security” or how “we have to save lives.” And if it does come up before then, it is probably when the 1N spends 10 seconds presenting net benefits as a counter goal. The affirmative will accept this (Of course, because they have much more important things to argue about then their goal! [this, by the way, is an excellent indication that your goal contributes nothing to your case]) and the goals disappear from the round (and the flow).

Do you need observations? I tend to think no (it’s like saying the first section contains a section with subsections. That’s great that you have sections with sections and subsections, but you jolly well could have just jumped into the first section and called it a justification or a plan or a background point). But some people have grown attached to them and feel their case would be incomplete without observations. That’s okay (I guess). My point here is that the style and structure of your 1AC needs to work for you. Are you (at least, in a debate round) the traditional, polite, predictable type? Would you feel uncomfortable cracking a joke in a debate round? Do you always start your cross examinations with “how are you doing?” If so, then go with a more formal, impeccably organized case (that doesn’t mean boring, by the way). But if you aren’t, don’t adopt an artificial, stiff style for the 1AC and abandon it as soon as the timer beeps. 1AC’s can be witty. You can present your main points in whatever order you want. So experiment a little. 1As should enjoy giving the 1AC.

Communicate your big idea. I’m not going to elaborate on this point much because it has more to do with your overall debating style than with the 1AC. My goal is to get you to the point where you eliminate the boring, useless material from your case – the point where you have available speech time to dive deeper into your winning arguments.

2. Identify what you need to preempt, and preempt it.

Anticipating negative arguments and “spiking” them is one of the best ways to make your 1AC matter in the round. You have eight minutes here, so build up a case that’s strong enough to withstand the 1NC. The 2AC shouldn’t have to “rebuild” the case, 2A’s should be able to run with the case and take the arguments deeper. How to do that?

Utilize good evidence. The 1AC shouldn’t be stuffed with one or two sentence cards. Quote credible sources and recent articles. The 2AC should never have to waste time responding to source indictments of the 1AC, or explaining why the last half of sentence three wasn’t underlined.

Read warrants. This is primarily how you spike negative arguments, and often these warrants are so subtle the negative team won’t notice them. If your case centers around one big idea, you’ll start to notice that a lot of your argument responses link together. Your plan advocates have noticed that too, and many of their warrants will link together. In building up a 1AC argument, you could be defeating the assumptions behind the 1NC.

Know your evidence. Your beautiful 1AC with impeccable evidence won’t do you much good if you don’t realize the value in it. 1A’s should know all of their sources, the basic methodology behind all the studies, the relevant statistics, and all the warrants in the case. 2A’s, you need to know this too.  Last year at nationals, we had a beautiful 1AC (we really did, it was lovely). Our coaches had edited it and offered style tips, we had experimented with all sorts of tag lines and formats, the timing was perfect, and Peter knew all the cards and statistics forwards and backwards (along with a couple extra cards and stats he liked to cram into his cross examination answers for cool points). Something we (or at least, I) didn’t fully realize was that our cards were stuffed with warrants. Warrants that spiked common negative arguments, linked some of our arguments together, and established reasons for our plan that we had never even thought of. I didn’t realize we had these warrants until I read the 1AC out loud the day before our rounds began. I was just reading it for speaking practice, and it suddenly hit me that half of the arguments I refuted in the 2AC were addressed in the 1AC. I was able to refer back to (unaddressed) 1AC cards/warrants/statistics, read additional evidence when necessary, and spend more time analyzing/weighing and refuting the stronger negative arguments.  The 1AC shouldn’t just be beautiful. It can contain arguments, catchy phrases, and warrants that will save your skin in the 1AR and win the round in the 2AR.

3. Identify what you plan to win, and win it.

You know those cases with three inherency points, four harms, two solvency points, and four advantages? Do I understand why affirmatives cram so much into their 1AC? No, I really don’t. But I do know that they don’t have to nail all four harms to win the round. As affirmative, you might not even have to win half your arguments to carry the round. Don’t try to win all four advantages – you’ll give yourself a heart attack in rebuttals and give the judge the impression that you’re desperate (and losing).

Win your big idea. Just win it. Give the negative team their source indictments or net benefits goal or disadvantage 6 link 3. Just win your big idea. That means you have to know what your big idea is, and you have to make it matter in the round. (No “Surprise! We have a big idea!” in the 2AR) If the judge doesn’t know what your big idea is, and the negative never refutes it because you didn’t ever clearly establish it, you didn’t win it.

Set up your (strategic) plan in the 1AC. Don’t be sneaky about your strategy. If you’re running a comparative advantage case, or a case with four justifications where you are only planning to win one, say that in the 1AC. That way the judge knows upfront (Don’t be the 2A who says, “You actually didn’t have to flow justifications 2-4, sorry about that. Let’s just talk about the first one now.”) and the negative team has a chance to “clue in” to what’s happening (better clash). This strategy works because it clearly establishes your big idea and your strategy for winning that idea. In the 1AC, you basically force yourself to argue your case properly. Don’t get lost in arguments that don’t matter, set up (and win) the ones that do.

So what does all this mean? Pick a case with a big idea. Write a 1AC that communicates your winning arguments (eliminate anything that doesn’t link to your big idea). Experiment with different styles and formats to find what works for you (outside advice can help a lot). Know your cards, and your case, forwards and backwards (1AC cards should be relevant in the rebuttals. If they aren’t, pick better cards). Make your 1AC matter. It’s not just an eight minute speech with a plan.

Our . . . → Read More: Ethos Sourcebook Released!]]> After an intense summer teaching over 400 students nationwide at our debate camps, Ethos is happy to announce that we have also completed the 6th edition of our Sourcebook. At over 1,300 pages each, the Stoa and NCFCA sourcebooks are the best tools to start (and, according to many users, finish) your debate season.

Our researchers bring you research from the highest quality sources, from law journals to hard-to-find databases to studies to the Economist, leaving you to find common Google-able information on your own.

We believe that providing students with high quality, rather than pop-opinion, sources leads to greater depth in thinking, analytical ability, and understanding of the topic. Note: our Sourcebooks have always been digital ONLY; we will not mail you 1,300 pages of paper and you shouldn’t print 12 affirmative cases either. This allows you to edit files to your liking before printing.

Read more about the Sourcebook and order yourself a copy.

Back in March I posted about the Vector Fun Tournament, a tournament we ran as a national pilot . . . → Read More: A Different Way to Run a Tournament: “Fun Tournament” Feedback]]> ~~CORRECTION: I had previously erroneously reported that the negative review from an alumni was from someone who was not at the tournament the whole time. In fact, the alumni WAS at the tournament the whole time. Apologies~~

Back in March I posted about the Vector Fun Tournament, a tournament we ran as a national pilot to test out all kinds of different things to do at a tournament. Well, different in homeschool circles though none of the things we did are “new” to debate leagues.

The tournament was a smashing success and brought fabulous debaters from R8, R6, R9, and California together with a superior slate of well-trained (by video) judges for a great weekend of growth and fun.

Two notes before the results:

1. Not everything we did is actually a recommended approach. Such as goofy team names. Very difficult to tab! We did it for fun but won’t be doing it again. Thanks to the tab team for putting up with this.
2. Some things need to be thought through better, such as a better explanation of self-timing (ALL the debaters should be timing, counting DOWN, to ensure correct time), or a few guidelines for judges mingling with students (nothing negative happened, but one judge hijacked a team for over an hour to talk to them and some expressed liability concerns about where such things should happen).

This coming year we are hosting at least two Fun Tournaments that will be open to the country. The first, on October 28/29 will be a limited prep tournament: parli (6 rounds + outrounds), extemp, impromptu, and duo impromptu. The second, November 19, will be a one day speech tournament. Both in Northern Virginia.

At the end of the tournament we made a poll of the serious innovations we tried and polled all competitors and parents for feedback

This is the unedited feedback, minus two names redacted by request. All names are used with permission as you can see on the right column.

• There were 29 reviews, ranking each item on a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best)
  • The overall tournament had only 1 negative review, by an alumni (alumni and judges were not specifically polled, so there is no comparison)
  • The overall tournament had 1 neutral review and 1 unmarked
  • There were 26 reviews that ranked the tournament as better or best, compared to other tournaments
• All Features of the tournament averaged “positive” (better than other tournaments) reviews
  • No Nametags and Simplified Ballots (no speaker points addition, just 1 – 30, write a number) were the least positive, at average 3.6
  • All other tournament features were rated at or over a 4
  • Lightning Fast Awards and Posting Results As they Occur were the top two favorite features
• You can see this, and all other data, by opening the Excel spreadsheet above

Lessons Learned/Summary Comments from Isaiah (tournament director):

1. Challenge Matching was my favorite. It made so much sense because everyone knows that the seeding is imperfect, especially if top seed has to hit the top 3-3 speakers, who are often quite good and maybe had some rough rounds or flukes. What was unexpected was all but one challenge was won by the challenged, not the challenger, in quarterfinals (parli, policy, and LD!).
2. Self-Timing needs to be explained better to debaters, that it is a countDOWN and all debaters (not just the one speaking) keep track.
3. Judge Criticism was the most valuable part of this tournament because it allowed students to improve from round to round.
4. The Results Wall that was kept updated throughout the tournament had frequent visitors, including many parents, who enjoyed analyzing who hit who and why powermatches were the way they were and so on. Very popular. It also meant I didn’t have to announce breaks (yay! timesaver) because everyone already knew. I love that this focused off of the winning/competition, which is what we’re about.
5. Lightning Fast Awards Ceremonies are great, but it was probably not worth yelling out the exact speaker points and such for every single person. It still took under 10 minutes, but could have taken even less. Again, I appreciate not focusing on the winning/competition. Some people would have liked the longer awards ceremony which also includes a chance for photo ops, but the VAST majority preferred lightning fast.
6. No Nametags was a mixed bag. Some liked and some really didn’t. I personally don’t like to wear nice clothes and then ruin it with a nametag, but some judges and parents really didn’t like the difficulty of keeping track. I’m thinking next time I make it optional
7. Parli is GREAT for judges and debaters. It also does not require debate experience. One of the top parli debaters was someone who had never done debate except for parli at a warmup and then this tournament. That we ran official tournament prep rooms (optional to attend) with educated people from community + debate coaches leading them was potentially a factor for the success of the parli track.