The judge literally didn’t write anything about our disadvantages on the ballot! I don’t understand, they were our most important arguments. The Aff completely dropped them and they were impacted out and everything! Ugh. Sometimes it can be hard to get the judge to care about your argument. Maybe you aren’t spending enough time on them, the other team had good responses, or the judge just zoned out. I propose an alternate cause for this phenomenon. Most debaters know about the three parts to every argument. First you have the claim: this is what you are trying to prove. Next is the warrant: why the claim is true. Finally there’s the impact: why does it matter if the claim is true.
Most debaters I’ve seen tag the claim and maybe the impact of their argument. For the example above, it could look something like: Contention 1: Important to Education Impact: Achieves the Value If you’re only telling the judge to flow the claim and impact of your argument, you’re making a huge mistake. That’s why it’s super important to tag the warrants of your argument. The judge needs to be able to look back at the end of the round and see the warrants for your arguments on their flow. If you don’t put it on the flow, you’re leaving it up to chance if the judge remembers or cares about it. To illustrate my point, which of these harms looks more powerful on the flow? (Case is about the dangers of fossil fuels) Harm 1: Dangerous Potential Impact: Loss of Life Or Harm 1: Dangerous Potential
- Study finds 130,000 poisoned
- Factories cause air pollution
- Oil accidents
- Impact: Loss of Life
Nathanael Morgan is a freshman at the Saint Constantine College in Houston, Texas. As an accomplished debater with 3 years of competitive experience in Stoa and numerous awards, he enjoys researching and coaching others. Among other things, he also enjoys speedcubing, chess, and technology.
STOP USING COMIC SANS PLZ!!!!!!
I have no warrant from you as to why I should stop.