by Anthony Severin | Apr 6, 2022 | Uncategorized
We debaters are taught that having nothing to say is bad. We have been taught that “I don’t know what I think about that” is is not an acceptable response under cross-examination. We are pushed to evaluate and respond immediately. When the...
by Anthony Severin | Jul 11, 2021 | Advocacy, Counterplans, Fiat, From Advanced to National-Class, Negative, Uncategorized
What must an affirmative team do to win a policy debate round? The affirmative should win if they convince the judge that the audience and the debaters are better off if the judge votes affirmative. Conversely, the negative should win if they convince the judge that...
by Anthony Severin | May 7, 2021 | Uncategorized
How many times have you heard it said that affirmatives must “solve beyond a reasonable doubt” or provide a net benefit “beyond a reasonable doubt”? This phrase, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” is a “standard of evidence”–it defines what the judge must believe to...
by Anthony Severin | Dec 21, 2020 | Judging/Judges, Speaking, Technique
We Ethos coaches frequently hear despair about how judges receive theory-heavy arguments. There’s a perception that judges despise topicality, counterplans never win rounds, and hardly anybody has even heard of a kritik… and those who have heard of a kritik just think...
by Anthony Severin | Nov 13, 2020 | Communication/Rhetoric, Cross Examination, From Intermediate to Advanced, Strategy, Technique
Let’s suppose I’m a prosecutor trying to convince a jury to convict the defendant in a murder case. Let’s call the defendant “Albert” and the victim “Buddy.” Albert is on the stand and I’m cross-examining him. You might...
