I really really like charts and outlines, so when I was debating I would organize a lot of my note on the best ways to debate in charts or outlines. Recently I’ve been trying to go through all my notes and update them with all the new knowledge I’ve gained on how to debate and teach others how to debate. Here is my outline for how to do your 1NC in LD. This was originally designed to teach novices how to write a neg case but has since been updated to include some of the slightly more advanced tips for neg case and should be helpful for most levels of debaters. Enjoy! I. Intro A. Something interesting that introduces your case and side of the debate B. Most people use quotes C. Pretty much the same type of thing you do in an aff case or a platform speech D. Ideally it should relate to the arguments you make in your case and warm your judge up to them
II. Negate the resolution A. Basically, just add a “not” somewhere where it makes sense in the resolution B. there are 2 ways to do this with a resolution that contrasts 2 values 1. Ex. In democratic elections, the public’s right to know ought not to be valued above a candidate’s right to privacy. 2. Ex. In democratic elections, a candidate's right to privacy ought to be valued above the public’s right to know. 3. For most cases it doesn’t matter which wording you use. The wording only matters if you run a balanced neg or a resolutional Critique (res K).
III. Resolutional Analysis (RA) A. Definitions 1. Your opponent has already brought definitions up, but you still have to address it 2.So, you can either a. Accept the definitions i. You do this when they have brought up a similar definition to the ones you use ii. Or you know you case will work fine under their definitions iii. It is generally better to accept your opponent’s definitions whenever reasonable because most people dislike definitional debates b. Replace your opponent’s definitions i. Do this when your opponent’s definitions are unreasonable or don’t fit your case ii. Make sure you have a definition on hand for your neg case iii. Most of the time people use a dictionary by you can also use credible articles, modern day experts, or philosophers iv. You may want to look at multiple sources to find the best definition. Some characteristics of a good definition are: a. It is a good representation of how the word is normally defined and/or used b. It comes from an authoritative source c. Make an argument for why your definition is better, here are a few common arguments i. Mine is more commonly used a. It is similar to *insert number* of dictionaries b. It is used this way in *example article* ii. Its better suited for the debate a. Makes more sense in the context of the resolution b. Is more concrete iii. It comes from a more credible source 3. You can just replace one of your opponent's definitions you don’t have to replace them all 4. How to prepare for definitions a. Choose your first-choice definition b. Prepare an argument supporting why that definition is the best c. Decide what types of definitions fit your case well enough to accept B. Other points of resolutional Analysis 1. Resolutional Analysis is typically used to clarify the resolution and demonstrate what each side needs to prove in order to win 2. If you disagree with your opponent RA now is a good time to address it a. There are two main forms of support for addressing RA debates i. The definitions and what they imply about how the res should be interpreted ii. Logic and what makes sense for a debatable statement 3. (optional) Add your own points of RA a. This can be helpful for a few situations b. If the Res is confusing to clarify to the judge c. If your interpretation of the resolution is more unusual is the way most would interpret it d. To provide a more concrete burden for the round 4. Defend you RA with the definitions or logic
IV. Value A. You have a few options: 1. Accept their value a. This is best if their value is the same as yours or if your arguments also run well under their value B. Replace it with your own say make an argument why yours is better 1. There are two main arguments to make to support your value a. Being more valuable b. Being more relevant to the debate round C. (Use with caution) You can also propose a dual value and say that we can use both values for the round
V. Criterion (optional) A. A criterion is either a method of measuring or achieving your value B. If you have a criterion state it C. Addressing your opponent's criterion 1. It isn’t always necessary to address your opponent's criterion but it can be helpful if you have a different criterion or if your opponent's criterion is in some way illogical D. If you don’t have a criterion just skip it
VI. Contentions A. That where you give your argument B. I don’t recommend using the word “contention” with community judges since many don’t know what it means. I generally use the words arguments or points instead C. There are typically-3 contentions that lay out your argument. They generally follow one of two structures 1. Syllogism Ex. C1. Human Rights are valuable C2: My side protects Human rights. C3: My side is best 2. Separate logic strands Ex C1. My side protects Human Rights C2. My opponents side harms human rights D. A combination of logic, evidence/applications, and philosophy is generally recommended E. All of your argument should impact back to both the resolution and the value F. If you address something your opponent has already brought up its normally better to mention what your opponent has already said, by say “I agree with my opponent on…” or “I disagree with my opponent on…” You don’t always have to do this though.
VII. Rebuttal A. Since your opponent has already spoken, you need to address what they said B. There are a lot of ways to do it 1. One way is to just give you responses at the end of your constructive (This is what works best for me) 2. Some people put it at the beginning before their constructive 3. Really good debaters can tie it into their constructive 4. There’s not one right way to do it, just do it the way you can convey the information the clearest. 5. One of the best ways to address your opponent's arguments is 4-point refutation a. First identify which of your opponent's arguments you are addressing b. Tag your response with a short sentence that represents your argument c. State your full response and support with any relevant evidence or logic d. Impact it back to the resolution and explain to the judge why your response matters
VIII. Other Negative Constructive information A. You have seven minutes to give your constructive and your first rebuttal so your prewritten constructive should be enough shorter than 7 min to leave time for rebuttal 1.How long your constructive is is personal preference but if you don’t know what works for you I'd recommend starting around 4-5 min
IX. Other types of Negative constructive brief overview A. Balanced neg 1. Your job as the negative is to negate the resolution “When in conflict, governments should value fair trade above free trade.” And one way to do that is to argue that when in conflict; governments should not value fair trade above free trade. They should value them equally. B. Flex Neg 1. Because you have already heard the aff’s case, some debater will change their Neg case based off of what the aff said. C. Direct Refutation 1. Direct refutation is when a debater debates neg without really having a case. They normally have a lot of research, ideas for argument, etc., and will formulate what they say in a given round off of what the aff says. D. Resolution Critique (res K) 1.A resolution critique is when a debater tries to convince the judge that they cannot value one side higher than the other either because it is physically impossible or morally wrong or some other reason. And if you can’t value one higher than the other then it is impossible for “When in conflict, governments should value fair trade above free trade.” So, by definition the resolution is false and neg wins. (Apologies for the weird formatting, wordpress is weird and I'm not tech savvy) D. J. an economics major at North Carolina State University. Her debate philosophy is that debate should be fun for everyone, so keep it ethical so your opponent can enjoy the round, keep it entertaining so the judge enjoys it, and keep it lively and humorous so you can enjoy the round too. To learn more about D. J. you can read her bio here: https://www.ethosdebate.com/djmendenhall/ or book coaching with her here: https://www.ethosdebate.com/xl-3/