TABLE OF CONTENTSDebate Basics 4

Debate Terms Worksheet 4Argument Structure 5Flowing Worksheet6Cut a Card Worksheet 7Research: True or False 8Refutation: Breadth & Depth 9Sorting Offense & Defense 10Win Conditions 11Turns 12Impact Types 13Impact Turn Components 14Impact Calc15Word Economy 16Delinking 17Cross-Examination 18Judge Adaptation 19Pre-Outline Voters 20Writing Extensions 21

Progressive Lincoln Douglas Debate & Policy Debate 22Disadvantage: Uniqueness, Link, or Impact 22Counterplan Parts 23Kritik Worksheet: Fundamentals 24Topicality Worksheet 25Structure of Theory: Basics 26Standards For Procedurals 27Types of Counterplans 28Types of Kritiks 29Theory Types 30Answering Disadvantages 31Answering Counterplans 32Answering Kritiks 33Answering Topicality 34Answering Theory 35Theory Standards 36Definitions For K-Debate 37Kicking Arguments 38Spreading Drills Worksheet 39

Traditional Lincoln Douglas Debate & Public Speaking 40Framework 40Value & Value Criterion Link 41Sorting Framework Types 42Consequentialism vs Deontology 43Ethos, Logos, & Pathos 44Speaking With Purpose 45Practicing Tone Worksheet 46Speaking Drills Worksheet47Gestures: The Impact Worksheet 48

Event Format & Structure 49

2

Structure Of A Round: Lincoln Douglas 49Structure Of A Round: Policy Debate 50Structure Of A Round: Public Forum 51Speech Goals: Lincoln Douglas 52Speech Goals: Policy Debate 53Speech Goals: Public Forum 54Construct A Lincoln Douglas Debate Case 55Construct A Public Forum Debate Case 56Who Speaks When: Policy Debate 57

3

Debate Basics (1/18)DEBATE TERMS WORKSHEETPROMPT: Fill in the crossword puzzle.

1 = Schematics

2 = Case

3 = Prelims

4 = Warrant

5 = Refute

6 = Flight

7 = Flow

8 = Speaker points

9 = Extend

10 = Clearing/Breaking

4

Debate Basics (2/18)ARGUMENT STRUCTUREPROMPT: Highlight the claim in yellow, the warrant in green, and the impact in blue!

Predictive policing disproportionately targets African Americans, since, as Reich 2018 explains, the data used by officers is built off of previously racist policies. Thus, predictive policing leads to the perpetuation of structural violence.More democracies are necessary to uphold the liberal international order as democracy prevents war since authoritarian states don’t have the necessary checks and balances to prevent worldwide conflict - that’s Molrese 2017.According to Powell 2016, nuclear weapons reduce interstate conflict by up to 5%, meaning nuclear arsenals prevent war. Since war leads to political violence and loss of life, negative upholds my value criterion.

PROMPT: Match the claim, warrant & impact!

IMPACT: McFayden 09 explains that state sponsored terrorism is the biggest threat - it makes terrorist organizations better funded, well organized and well informed.CLAIM: Giving military aid to authoritarian regimes reduces terroristic influence.WARRANT: Bapat 11 notes that military aid disincentivizes host countries to negotiate with terrorist groups.

IMPACT: Abused women with substance use disorders have a harder time escaping because, as Raven 97 explains, many shelters have policies against accepting drug-affected women.CLAIM: The criminalization of substance use disorders disproportionately affects abused women.WARRANT: Sidibe 2016 explains that women who use drugs experience higher rates of abuse.

5

Debate Basics (3/18)FLOWING WORKSHEETPROMPT: In the box below, write down how you would flow the card above:

Recommended:Rosa-Aquino 2019 – low income POC pay more 4 energy, utility bill 64% ^

PROMPT: Give two examples of shorthanded words/terms for debate. There are hundreds of examples of shorthand terms for debate – review them appropriately.A few examples, in case a student can’t come up with any:^ = increasegov = governmentV – value, VC – value criterionDA – disadvantageK - kritik

PROMPT : What two key aspects of a citation should you write down?Answer: Last name and date

6

Debate Basics (4/18)CUT A CARD WORKSHEETPROMPT: Highlight, underline, and bold the text for this piece of evidence. Your goal is to make the argument that compulsory voting leads to uninformed voting.

The cards below are a sample, generic way to format the pieces of evidence. They are not the perfect nor only way to cut this card, but offer general guidance in reviewing students’ answers to this worksheet.

TAG: Compulsory Voting Leads To More Uninformed Voting

Rovensky 08 [Jan Rovensky, Doctoral Student of Political Theory, 2008, “Voting: A Citizen’s Right, or Duty? The Case against Compulsory Voting,” Luiss Guido Carli I

“In other words, the right to abstain acts as a convenient and discrete way for citizens who do not vote in order to show their protest to ‘slip out the back door’ without further repercussions whatever their reasons for non-voting may be. If citizens do not regard nonvoting as a passive way of staging a protest and their grounds for not showing up at the election is not laziness, there are probably other, more mundane causes. First of all, the right not to vote enables people without any real political knowledge to admit their ignorance without forcing them to make uninformed decisions which may otherwise upset the democratic system. Nonvoting as much as an active process of disobedience can also be interpreted as an honest gesture of simply admitting the fact that one does not have the knowledge to make a well-considered political judgment. Poorly informed voters tend to make decisions based on irrational personal preferences that do not reflect on the given political situation thus further fuelling populist politics.”

TAG: Compulsory Voting Leads To More Blank & Invalid Ballots

Coma and Werner 18 [9-28-2018, “Compulsory voting and ethnic diversity increase invalid voting while corruption does not: an analysis of 417 parliamentary elections in 73 countries,”

“Compulsory voting and the concurrency of parliamentary and presidential elections have also been discussed as factors influencing the level of invalid voting. Studies consistently show that when mandatory voting is present, the number of invalid votes is higher than when voting is voluntary, as invalid voting is regarded as the “functional equivalent of abstention”. Compulsory voting, though, is not uniform. While in some countries, compulsory voting is sanctioned and enforced (eg. Australia), in others it is recognized but it is neither sanctioned nor enforced (eg. Bolivia). Similar to turnout studies, which have shown that different enforcement levels of compulsory voting have substantive different effects on voter turnout, we argue that these systems have different impacts on the level of invalid voting. Therefore, we expect that both enforced and unenforced compulsory systems increase the level of invalid voting in comparison to voluntary

7

elections, but that the effect of enforced compulsory voting is substantially higher than of the unenforced version (H1c).”

8

Debate Basics (5/18)RESEARCH: TRUE OR FALSEPROMPT: Identify if the statement below is true or false, and check the box accordingly.

1.) False; Doing this often overlooks the best portions of the research, and better arguments and analysis. It is also strategic to know your evidence in depth.

2.) True; Google Scholar is specifically designed to show academic papers in search results.

3.) True; Going in with specific ideas leads to debaters ignoring strong arguments or having a warped view of the topic because they don’t know/haven’t research the stock issues. Starting general allows you to see what is out there, then explore those concepts in more detail.

4.) False; Most research studies and articles will rarely ever use debate jargon, so it will likely not lead to good search results or the evidence you are looking for. Using academic terms and phrases is more likely to give you what you want.

5.) False; Good research exists outside of the first page of Google Search results, especially if you used good key terms, those good results will spill over. We recommend at least reviewing pages 2 or 3 before moving on.

6.) True; These are debate norms and standard evidence protocols, in line with NSDA requirements.

7.) True; Starting with initial ideas and trying to force them into a case leads to debaters writing cases about arguments that may not be the strongest ones on that topic, or arguments with less topic literature to support it. Research first, then write, to understand what you are writing, why you are writing it, and how what you put in your case interacts with the rest of the topic (i.e. potential studies or articles that respond directly to your point).

9

Debate Basics (6/18)REFUTATION: BREADTH & DEPTHPROMPT: First, write 4-6 reasons refuting the resolution above Then, in the box on the left, take some time to write ONE in-depth reason. Provide multiple warrants, examples, and analysis. Don't be repetitive - explore the idea deeply!

There are dozens of arguments that debaters can write for this worksheet. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis.

The goal of this worksheet is to teach debaters the difference between a lot of responses and one really good response. Both are valid debate techniques, and each has its own purpose.

Take some time to explain how you or your debaters’ shorter refutations could be developed into a deeper response, and vice versa. Also take some time to analyze how you or your students could improve the argument structure quality of each response (i.e. better warrant, stronger impact, etc).

10

Debate Basics (7/18)SORTING OFFENSE & DEFENSEPROMPT: Sort the various arguments/statements into either an "offense" or "defense" category!

Offense:

"contention 1: nuclear weapons kill people" ; this is an argument that shows a reason to vote in favor of eliminating nuclear weapons (i.e. it gives the judge a reason to vote for you)!

"turn - they hurt the economy more" ; if your opponent harms the economy more, that is a reason to vote for you (i.e. offense) to prevent any economic harms.

"contention 2: universal childcare reduces poverty" ; this is an argument that shows a reason to vote in favor of universal child care (i.e. it reduces poverty).

"on their C2 - they make climate change worse by incentivizing the switch to coal" ; this explicitly gives the judge a reason to vote in favor of one side by showing a net harm.

Defense:

"turn - they have no link to their FW" ; despite the phrase saying “turn” it is not actually a turn – this is a trick question! This phrase is simply delinking an argument from framing, which is a defensive technique.

"their C1 isn't true b/c the stock market isn't as fragile as they say - that's Smith 15" ; this is defense because it disproves an argument your opponent makes – it eliminates a reason for the judge to vote for them.

"my opponent gives no warrant as to why this occurs" ; this is defense because it pokes holes in an argument your opponent makes.

"contention 3: predictive policing isn't racist" ; this is a defensive argument because it does not and cannot win you the round, rather, it attempts to defend predictive policing, but doesn’t offer a reason why it is good itself.

"they can't solve - poverty exists in both world" ; this isn’t a reason to vote for either side. It explicitly admits that – rather, it attempts to mitigate any benefit (or offense) the other side has by saying they can’t solve.

11

Debate Basics (8/18)WIN CONDITIONSPROMPT: Sort the following parts of a case / round into either the "win condition" or "nope!" section.

Win Condition:

Your contention one that generates offense, a turn on your opponent's case

Nope:

A definition, an observation (though this can be under specific circumstances), framing/framework, your contention two that generates defense, an argument against your opponent’s case

PROMPT: Can you define a win condition?

A path to the ballot. A reason, on a technical sense, as to why you should/can/will win the round. Win conditions are always a piece of offense.

PROMPT: Should you always include win conditions in your final speech? Why or why not?

Yes, because otherwise you are giving the judge no reason to vote for you.

PROMPT: True or False

1.) False; many judges vote for different reasons and are not technical judges (ex: some judges vote off of who spoke best). Plus, your opponent can also have win conditions they meet.

2.) False; by definition, a win condition must be offensive because it is how you win the round (i.e. the judge needs a reason to vote for YOU).

3.) True; this allows you to plan and strategize for the round

4.) False; a win condition is an entire argument (i.e. claim, warrant, impact), not just an impact.

12

Debate Basics (9/18)TURNSPROMPT: Q - Can turns be both offense and defense?

Answer: No. A turn must be offense, otherwise it does not make the argument go in favor of your side.

PROMPT: This IS/IS NOT a turn! TRUE or FALSE Portion.

True or False #1: True!

This argument is a turn. It presents an empirical datapoint that demonstrates nuclear arsenals increase the probability of war, which takes the opponents argument, and flips it in favor of your side.

True or False #2: False!

This argument is a turn. It presents a piece of evidence that explains how the opposing side makes the problem they are talking about even worse, therefore, flipping the argument in favor of your side.

True or False #3: False!

This argument is NOT a turn. Though the last portion of the argument does generate offense (i.e. renewables are cheaper), not all offense is a turn. It simply disproves the negative’s argument It is defense.

PROMPT: Write an example of your own turn!

There are dozens of arguments that debaters can write for this worksheet. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis.

The goal of this prompt is to test debaters understanding of what a turn is. For coaches and teachers, we recommend using their response to examine how well they understand the concept of turns. For students, use this prompt to practice writing turns.

13

Debate Basics (10/18)IMPACT TYPESPROMPT: Draw a line between the columns to match the word with its meaning.

14

Debate Basics (11/18)IMPACT TURN: COMPONENTSPROMPT: Define and explain the three components of an impact turn:

Uniqueness: different from uniqueness on a disadvantage or advantage. A claim about how the growth of the impact being turned is unsustainable.

Impact: the growth of the impact being turned causes a different (worse) impact to occur

Transition: by allowing the impact to occur, there will be a shift away from structures that cause that impact in the first place

PROMPT: Give two examples of an impact turn:

There are dozens of arguments that debaters can write for this worksheet. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis.

The goal of this prompt is to test debaters understanding of what an impact turn is. For coaches and teachers, we recommend using their response to examine how well they understand the concept of impact turns. For students, use this prompt to practice writing impact turns.

A few examples:

De-Development

Hegemony Bad

Spark

Proliferation Good

15

Debate Basics (12/18)IMPACT CALCPROMPTS 1-3:

Make an argument for why the judge should prefer an impact that has high magnitude but low probability OVER an impact that has a big scope but longer timeframe. Incorporate all 4 aspects (magnitude, probability, scope, and timeframe) in your analysis.

Give 2 reasons why a judge should prefer an argument that leads to nuclear war over one that links to climate change.

NOW FLIP: Give 2 reasons why a judge should prefer an argument that leads to climate change over one that links to nuclear war.

There are dozens of arguments that debaters can write for this worksheet. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis.

The goal of this prompt is to test debaters understanding of what impact calculus is. For coaches and teachers, we recommend using their response to examine how well they understand the concept of impact calc. For students, use this prompt to practice writing impact calc.

PROMPT: Question 1 - You shouldn't do impact calc if you believe you won an argument.

False; just because you believe you won an argument, doesn’t mean your judge thinks that. Impact calculus is another layer you can add to secure the ballot.

PROMPT: Question 2 - Weighing is another argument on the flow.

True; weighing should be treated as another argument on the flow – it can assist your offense or act as defense, and it needs to be responded to, just like you would respond to any other argument on the flow.

16

Debate Basics (13/18)WORD ECONOMYPROMPT: What Is "word economy"?

The ability to get an argument/point across in as few words as possible.

PROMPT: Why does word economy matter?

Word economy is important for a few reasons. First, it allows debaters to save time in their speeches. This also has the added benefit of allowing you to add in more layers to the debate with the time you save. Second, being efficient with argumentation makes your point easier to understand.

There are plenty of other reasons as to why word economy is important. Evaluate each response on a case-by-case basis.

PROMPT: Below are two boxes. In the box on the left is an example argument. In the box on the right, re-write that argument to get the same point across in less words.

There are dozens of ways to rewrite this argument. We have given an example of an efficient way to phrase the sample argument below but do note that there are more ways to rephrase the argument. Like many of our other worksheets, we recommend reviewing the answers on a case-by-case basis.

Nuclear weapons decrease the probability of conventional war because they disincentivize starting wars. Countries become hesitant to engage in conflicts for fear of escalation.

17

Debate Basics (14/18)DELINKINGPROMPT: How many links are in the argument to the left? What are they?

There are 3 links.

Claim to warrant = 1 linkWarrant to impact #1 = 1 linkWarrant to impact #2 = 1 linkTotal: 3 links

PROMPT: How many links are in the argument to the right? What are they?

There are 9 links.

Claim to warrant #1 = 1 linkClaim to warrant #2 = 1 linkClaim to warrant #3 = 1 linkWarrant #1 to impact #1 = 1 linkWarrant #1 to impact #2 = 1 linkWarrant #2 to impact #1 = 1 linkWarrant #2 to impact #2 = 1 linkWarrant #3 to impact #1 = 1 linkWarrant #3 to impact #2 = 1 linkTotal: 9 links

PROMPT: Color in the circle below for concepts that you can delink from one another:

Concepts you can delink include:

A claim and a warrant An argument from a framework A warrant from an impact

18

Debate Basics (15/18)CROSS-EXAMINATIONPROMPT: Check the box for the following cross examination questions to indicate which type of question is being asked. Then, on the line below it, indicate which way is more strategic to ask the question, and why.

1.) Open-ended question2.) Direct question3.) Conditional question4.) Leading question5.) Close ended question

PROMPT: Below, each box will have the same question phrased in three different ways. Circle the question you think is phrased best.

1.) So, you argue that your side reduces terrorism. Can you explain how? 2.) In your second contention you argue that US military arms sales reduce terrorism. What is the warrant for that? 3.) In your second contention, you say that there is a reduction in terrorism. But why is that true?

Question two is the best phrasing. It is specific: it asks the exact linkage between US military arms sales and terrorism. It also indicates what they want from the question – the warrant – and where they are on the flow (i.e. the second contention).

1.) Why do you think the plan will happen? 2.) What part(s) of the USFG are responsible for the implementation of your plan? 3.) Wouldn't Congress be a better agent to implement the plan since it will be faster than the courts?

Question two is the best phrasing. It is specific – it asks the part of the USFG. It is also direct and close ended. Question one is too vague, and opened – it gives your opponent no direction, so they can talk way more. Question three shows your hand and undermines your next rebuttal.

1.) Do you have an example of compulsory voting increasing womxn participation in democracy? 2.) Could you provide an example for your second contention? 3.) Can you show a single instance where implementing compulsory voting has led to an increase in democratic participation amongst womxn?

Question one is the best phrasing. It is direct and close ended – it asks for a specific thing from your opponent (an example) on a specific issue. Question two is too vague – it doesn’t let the judge know exactly what you’re talking about and question three is too long as well as phrased poorly so that if your opponent can show an example, you look worse.

19

Debate Basics (16/18)JUDGE ADAPTATIONJudge adaptation is a really difficult feature. It is a combination of dozens of different aspects of debate, as well as personal preferences. Students trying to adapt to judges are attempting to read what the judge is thinking, understand what they want to see, and execute it in the way they want you to. With that being said, we believe judge adaptation is more subjective than objective. Though this worksheet intends to guide debaters on strategic approaches to appealing to judges, the strategies you or your debaters use could vary wildly! We recommend using our feedback and worksheets as a resource, not a complete guide.

PROMPT: Read the description of each judge and select a response (A or B) as to the approach YOU would take to adapt to the judge.

Hypothetical #1: Amy

Option A is the best approach. It is observant (which is key for judge adaptation).

Option B makes way too many assumptions – that Amy is truly open minded to all types of arguments, that Amy is capable of analyzing and understanding all argument types, etc.

Hypothetical #2: Jackie

This question is a trick question! Either answer is completely viable. If debaters are more comfortable or experienced with changing up styles – Option A may be better for them. But, if a debater is still learning the ropes, or finding themselves, sticking to what they know can be more strategic, making Option B a better fit for them.

Hypothetical #3: Sam

Option A makes way too many assumptions – that Sam is capable and/or willing to evaluate technical debate. Experience /=/ technical debate. Many very experienced coaches or judges prefer a slower more “traditional” debate form.

20

Option B is the best approach. It takes into account previous feedback Sam has offered, thus, appealing to their advice. It also has the potential to help you improve by implementing that feedback.

21

Debate Basics (17/18)PRE-OUTLINE VOTERSWriting pre-outlined key voters is a super specific area that is based entirely on you or your students’ own case. We recommend analyzing each response on a case-by-case basis.

To help guide you, we have offered a sample key voter outline below. You or your students do not need to replicate this exactly, rather, it is meant to act as a guide for ways to write pre outlined voting issues.

22

Debate Basics (18/18)WRITING EXTENSIONSThere are dozens of ways that debaters can write an extension for the card assigned. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis.

The goal of this worksheet is to get debaters into the habit and practice of writing extensions, and how to format them strategically. We recommend taking some time to explain how your debaters can write strong extensions.

PROMPT: Directions: Below is a sample card - practice writing an extension for it, then have your coach or a teammate review it!

Our sample recommendation:

EXTEND - Rovensky 08: non-voting allows uninformed voters to opt out protecting against populism

23

Progressive Lincoln Douglas & Policy Debate (1/18)DISADVANTAGE – UNIQUENESS, LINK OR IMPACT

PROMPT: A Disadvantage, or DA, has many parts that need to be identified before answering it. Write in the boxes if you think that the sentence is a uniqueness argument, link argument, internal link argument, or impact argument.

1. Uniqueness2. Internal Link3. Impact4. Internal Link5. Link6. Link7. Impact8. Uniqueness9. Link10. Internal Link

24

Progressive Lincoln Douglas & Policy Debate (2/18)COUNTERPLAN PARTS

PROMPT: Explain and define the three parts to a counterplan.

Counterplan Text - a statement describing what the counterplan is; the plan of actionSome common impressions

Solvency Advocate - A piece of evidence describing how the counterplan solves the plan and/or a pertinent issue

Net Benefit - The reason why the counterplan is better than the plan if both are equal in other ways

Bonus: No, counterplans do not have to be mutually exclusive. Counterplans can compete in two ways - through being mutually exclusive OR there being a reason why they shouldn't be done together even if both options can possible be done together.

25

Progressive Lincoln Douglas & Policy Debate (3/18)KRITIKS WORKSHEET: FUNDAMENTALS

PROMPT: Fill in the blanks to complete the parts of a kritik.

1.) Alternative2.) Link3.) Impact

PROMPT: Kritiks can be:

Both pre-fiat and post-fiat

PROMPT: The strongest way to construct/deconstruct a K is to focus on the:

The link and alt are both acceptable answers

PROMPT: A Kritik is questioning a fundamental _____________ made in the round:

Assumption

26

Progressive Lincoln Douglas & Policy Debate (4/18)TOPICALITY

PROMPT: Draw a line matching the four parts to a topicality argument

1.) Interpretation2.) Voter3.) Violation4.) Standard

PROMPT: Write the order of a topicality shell:InterpretationViolationStandardsVoter

PROMPT: Give 3 examples (with brief explanations) of commonly used standards:

There are tons of different ways examples that debaters can offer. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis.

Some examples include: LimitsGroundBrightlinePrecisionTopic EducationTime SkewStrategy Skew

PROMPT: BONUS - Explain the difference between "interpretation" & definition:

A definition is pulled from a dictionary or from the work of an author, explaining the meaning of a word or concept; it is what that word is and means

27

An interpretation is what should be included in a debate round based on that definition

Progressive Lincoln Douglas & Policy Debate (5/18)STRUCTURE OF THEORY: BASICS

PROMPT: What are the parts of a theory shell? List them below.

InterpretationViolationStandardsVoter

PROMPT: Define the four parts to a theory shell:

Interpretation: An idea or argument of what is acceptable in a debate roundViolation: An explanation of how the opposing team does not meet their interpretation.Standards: These are reasons to prefer one sides interpretation.Voter: Explains why the theory argument matters in the round and how the judge should evaluate it.

PROMPT: Give 2 examples of common theory standards:

There are tons of different ways examples that debaters can offer. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis.

Some examples include: LimitsGroundBrightlinePrecisionTopic EducationTime SkewStrategy Skew

PROMPT: What is the order of a theory shell:

Interpretation

28

ViolationStandardsVoterProgressive Lincoln Douglas & Policy Debate (6/18)STANDARDS FOR PROCEDURALS

PROMPT: Fill in the blanks:

1.) Strategy Skew2.) Clash3.) Topic Education4.) Ground5.) Limits6.) Real World Education

PROMPT: What is the purpose of standards?

They offer reasons to prefer one sides interpretation.

PROMPT: What do standards link to?

Interpretations

PROMPT: Give an example of a standard not on this list:

There are tons of different examples that debaters can offer. Analyze and review each specific response on a case by case basis.

A few examples include:

Precision, Brightline, and Time Skew

29

Progressive Lincoln Douglas & Policy Debate (7/18)TYPES OF COUNTERPLANS

PROMPT: Match the type of counterplan

1.) Agent - C2.) Conditions – G3.) Process - K4.) Advantage - M5.) Consult – F6.) Plan-Inclusive Counterplans (PICS) – A7.) Uniqueness - J8.) Kicking – E9.) Going For – I10.) Conditional – L11.) Unconditional – H12.) Dispositional - B

30

Progressive Lincoln Douglas & Policy Debate (8/18)TYPES OF KRITIKS

PROMPT: Instructions: Color the blank circle with the color of K type it falls under. If you don't know, leave it blank!

31

Progressive Lincoln Douglas & Policy Debate (9/18)THEORY TYPES

PROMPT: Draw a line to match the theory type to it's description.

CP Theory: a type of theory about the legitimacy of the type of CP that the NEG is running

Status Theory: a type of theory regarding when it's legitimate for the NEG to kick out of a counterplan

Intrinsicness: an argument pertaining to how specific a link is on a DA and if the AFF can be done alongside other options to avoid it

Specification: theory where the NEG takes issue in the plan not providing enough detail on its implementation

Alt Theory: theory about the legitimacy of the alternative of a kritik ran by the NEG team

Fiat Theory: a theory argument about which teams have fiat or how a team can use it

Disclosure Theory: theory about not disclosing the plan before the round

PROMPT: Give an example of each of the following theory types:

There are tons of different ways examples that debaters can offer. Analyze and review each specific response on a case by case basis.

A few examples:

Types of CPs: agent CP theory, consult CP theoryStatus Theory: conditionality, dispositionalSpecification: ASPEC, vaguenessTypes of Alts: Utopian fiat, floating PIKsFiat Theory: No Neg Fiat

32

Progressive Lincoln Douglas & Policy Debate (10/18)ANSWERING DISADVANTAGES

PROMPT: Fill In The Blanks:

1.) No Link2.) No Uniqueness3.) Link Turn4.) No Impact5.) No Internal Link6.) Impact Turn7.) Internal Link Turn

PROMPT: Out of the arguments you listed on the left, what are two arguments that should not be made together? Why?

A: Students should select "Link Turn" and "Impact Turn" and reference a "Double Turn". They should explain how a double turn is offense against them rather than for them.

PROMPT: What would happen if you read only a "No Uniqueness" argument and a "Link Turn" argument? How would that mess with the Negative Strategy?

A: Students should describe a "Straight Turn". They should know that straight turns mean the other team cannot kick their position, and the turn makes the other's teams position offense for their team.

33

Progressive Lincoln Douglas & Policy Debate (11/18)ANSWERING COUNTERPLANS

PROMPT: Fill out the acronym with the 4 key ways to answer a counterplan.

S: SolvencyT: TheoryO: OffenseP: Perm

PROMPT: BONUS – What’s another key element of a counterplan that you can answer?

Net benefit

34

Progressive Lincoln Douglas & Policy Debate (12/18)ANSWERING KRITIKS

PROMPT: Fill out the acronym with the key ways to answer a Kritik.

F: FrameworkP: PermO: OffenseS: Solvency (the alternative cannot solve the 1AC)T: TheoryA: Alternative (the alternative cannot solve the impacts of the kritik)L: Link

PROMPT: Draw a line from each written argument to its corresponding type.

1.) Perm

2.) Offense

3.) Theory

4.) Framework

5.) Link

6.) Alt

7.) Solvency

35

Progressive Lincoln Douglas & Policy Debate (13/18)ANSWERING TOPICALITY

PROMPT: Fill In The Blanks

1.) We meet2.) Reasonability3.) Counter-interpretations4.) Weighing Standards5.) Standards

PROMPT: Weigh!

There are tons of different ways that debaters can weigh fairness and education. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis.

PROMPT: BONUS: Explain why topicality should be one of the first things you answer:

Topicality is a procedural argument meaning that it is an argument about the rules of debate and not the subject of debate. This means that any substance in the debate is overruled by a topicality argument because topicality is viewed as a prerequisite.

36

Progressive Lincoln Douglas & Policy Debate (14/18)ANSWERING THEORY

PROMPT: Fill In The Blanks

1.) We meet2.) Counter-interpretations3.) Weighing Standards4.) Standards

PROMPT: Weigh!

There are tons of different arguments debaters can make for why a certain number of conditional advocacies are or are not abusive. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis.

PROMPT: BONUS: Should your counter-interpretation on certain theory types change dependent on the round? Why or why not:

Yes, it should change because you will get the best benefit if your counter-interpretation is specific to the round at hand.

37

Progressive Lincoln Douglas & Policy Debate (15/18)THEORY STANDARDS

PROMPT: Color the circle that has the most relevant and best fitting standard for the interpretation presented.

Let's say you are planning on running status theory against your opponent for their CP status being conditional:

Answer: Strategy Skew

Let's say you are planning on running status theory against your opponent for their CP status being conditional:

Answer: Ground

Finally, let's say you are planning on theory against your opponent who is running a consult counterplan:

Answer: Topic Education

38

Progressive Lincoln Douglas & Policy Debate (16/18)DEFINITIONS FOR K DEBATE

PROMPT: Draw a line from the question in Column A to the correct answer in Column B.

1.) Pedagogy – C2.) Methodology - F3.) The State – E4.) Institution – H5.) Epistemology – A6.) Fiat Is Illusory – I7.) A priori – J8.) Ontology – B9.) Metaphysics – D10.) Theories of Power – K11.) Normativity – L12.) Historical Materialism – G

39

Progressive Lincoln Douglas & Policy Debate (17/18)KICKING ARGUMENTS

PROMPT: Color the circle that has the most relevant and best fitting standard for the interpretation presented.

The answer to this prompt is highly dependent on the round (i.e. what your opponent has done), what kind of style of debate you compete in (traditional vs progressive), your circuit norms, as well as your judge type (lay vs experienced). There are a bunch of ways to kick out of an argument. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis. We recommend using our feedback and worksheets as a resource, not a complete guide.

In general, you kick out of an argument by extending a piece of defense that the other team read to nullify your own position. You should never kick any position that has an offensive argument put on it without answering that offensive argument first.

We recommend this worksheet accompany a lecture on how to kick out of or soft drop arguments in a debate round.

40

Progressive Lincoln Douglas & Policy Debate (18/18)

SPREADING DRILLS WORKSHEET

PROMPT: With the card below, practice reading the card in three different ways.

First, with a pen in your mouth. Then, insert a word in between every word in the card. Finally, read the card backwards.

There is no right or wrong answer to this prompt; it is only directional. The goal of this worksheet is to get debaters to actually practice spreading drill techniques. We recommend doing these drills daily and implementing your own drill schedule.

41

Traditional Lincoln Douglas & Public Speaking (1/9)FRAMEWORK

PROMPT: Define a value

The end goal of a debate round; typically, an intangible concept like Justice or Morality

PROMPT: Define a value criterion/standard

How you achieve or measure that value.

PROMPT: A value and value criterion together is called

A framework

PROMPT: Explain the purpose or goal of a value and value criterion

The goal/purpose of a framework is to offer the judge a lens to evaluate the round. It offers analysis on which impacts matter in the round.

PROMPT: Write an example of a framework

There are dozens of examples that debaters can write. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis.

An example framework: a value of morality & a value criterion of mitigating structural violence

PROMPT: Give a justification for why the judge should prefer your example framework

Winter and Leighton 99 explain that SV produce suffering and death as often as direct violence. Additionally, they explain that we need to acknowledge moral exclusion to right those wrongs.

PROMPT: True or False

Question 1: True; you need a reason for the judge to prefer your framework

Question 2: False; structurally, values always come first

Question 3: False; you need to prove that your side upholds your framework too

42

43

Traditional Lincoln Douglas & Public Speaking (2/9)VALUE CRITERION & VALUE LINK

PROMPT: There are tons of different ways that value criterions link to a value. This worksheet is designed to test your understanding of that relationship.

While there are definitely verbs that we do not put in the “acceptable” category that technically work, we chose the top 3 that make the most sense. We advise teachers and coaches to analyze responses on a case-by-case basis.

1. My value is justice and my value criterion is _________ societal welfare.

Acceptable Verbs:Maximizing, Promoting & Ensuring

2. My value is security and my value criterion is _________ Thomas Hobbes' Social Contract.

Acceptable Verbs:Upholding, Consistency With, Respecting

3. My value is liberty and my value criterion is ________ Robert Nozick's minimal state.

Acceptable Verbs:Upholding, Consistency With, Ensuring

4. My value is morality and my value criterion is _________ structural violence.

Acceptable Verbs:Reducing, Minimizing, Mitigating

5. My value is governmental legitimacy and my value criterion is _________ rule of law.

44

Acceptable Verbs:Upholding, Consistency With, Respecting

45

Traditional Lincoln Douglas & Public Speaking (3/9)SORTING FRAMEWORK TYPES

PROMPT: In traditional LD it is very important to understand the difference between deontic (means based) and consequential (ends based) frameworks. Below, we have given a list of example frameworks - sort them into the appropriate categories!

Consequential:Promoting Societal WelfareUtilitarianismPolitical Realism

Deontic:Rule of LawLibertarianismRawls 2 Principles of JusticeLocke’s Social Contract

Can Be Both:

Protecting Rights – in debate, when students run a rights-based framework, it most often is means-based. However, many authors analyze how rights can be weighed consequentially or violated for greater good of society. This categorization is highly dependent on the framework itself.

Minimizing Structural Violence – a framework of mitigating structural violence can really fall under both categories. Some authors/frameworks argue that structural violence is on face bad and should never be allowed. Other frameworks look at trying to mitigate the damage done. The difference typically materializes on the impact level – deontic structural violence FW’s will say that oppression and marginalization itself is wrong, whereas more consequential interpretations typically will recognize that other kinds of impacts (i.e. other net benefits/harms) exist but argue that effects on marginalized groups come first.

46

Traditional Lincoln Douglas & Public Speaking (4/9)CONSEQUENTIALISM VS DEONTOLOGY

PROMPT: What does "means-based" refer to?

A philosophical theory that is focused on the method of the action and the way one acts. Also known as deontology.

PROMPT: What does "ends-based" refer to?

A philosophical theory that is focused on the consequences of the action and outcome of how we act. Also known as consequentialism.

PROMPT: Do consequentialists focus primarily on the intent of an action? Why or why not.

No. Consequentialists do not consider intent in their calculus of whether an action is morally correct. Intent has no bearing on outcome.

PROMPT: Give an example of a philosopher that writes about consequentialism and one that writes about deontology.

There are hundreds of viable responses a debater can make – analyze their answers on a case-by-case basis.

Example of a consequential philosopher: Peter Singer

Example of a deontological philosopher: Immanuel Kant

PROMPT: Based on your answers, outline an example of a consequential framework and a deontic framework, with arguments on how to achieve that framework.

There are dozens of frameworks that debaters can write for this assignment. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis.

The goal of this worksheet is to get debaters thinking about the types of framework and philosophy. We recommend this worksheet accompanies a lecture on philosophy and framework.

47

Traditional Lincoln Douglas & Public Speaking (5/9)ETHOS, LOGOS, AND PATHOS

PROMPT: Below, we will give you an argument. Circle or highlight it in a specific color based on whether it appeals to ethos, logos, or pathos.

1.) Ethos

2.) Pathos

3.) Logos

4.) Logos

5.) Pathos

48

Traditional Lincoln Douglas & Public Speaking (6/9)SPEAKING WITH PURPOSE

PROMPT: Below is an uncut card. Practice understanding where to add speaking tactics by highlighting, underlining and bolding various portions of the evidence.

There are tons of different ways that debaters can provide strategic emphasis and inflection on the assigned card. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis.

The goal of this worksheet is to get debaters thinking about how they can actually implement public speaking tips into a debate round. We recommend this worksheet accompanies a lecture on persuasive speaking.

An example:

49

Traditional Lincoln Douglas & Public Speaking (7/9)PRACTICING TONE WORKSHEET

PROMPT: Practice adjusting your tone to convey a specific emotion by reading the assigned card with the assigned emotion.

There are tons of different ways that debaters can provide strategic emphasis and inflection on the assigned cards. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis. We recommend encouraging debaters to record themselves to maximize feedback quality. If you are trying to self-teach, we recommend comparing your practicing readings to other talented debaters on YouTube.

The goal of this worksheet is to get debaters thinking about how they can actually implement public speaking tips into a debate round. We recommend this worksheet accompanies a lecture on persuasive speaking.

50

Traditional Lincoln Douglas & Public Speaking (8/9)SPEAKING DRILLS WORKSHEET

PROMPT: Read the entire card 5 times. Each time, utilizing a different technique to speak clearer and with better pronunciation.

1.) Insert "wow" between every word 2.) Read with a pen in your mouth 3.) Over-enunciate every word 4.) Read the card backwards5.) Practice reading the card with a distraction

There is no right or wrong answer to this prompt; it is only directional. The goal of this worksheet is to get debaters to actually practice speaking drill techniques. We recommend doing these drills weekly and implementing your own drill schedule.

51

Traditional Lincoln Douglas & Public Speaking (9/9)GESTURES: THE IMPACT

PROMPT: Below are a few images of different hand gestures - write a sentence or two describing the immediate emotions or thoughts you had when looking at that specific hand gesture.

There is no right or wrong answer to this prompt; it is only opinion. The goal of this worksheet is to get debaters to start thinking about the emotions that hand gestures convey.

Some common impressions are:

1.) Discussion, thoughtful, can come across as arrogant or pretentious

2.) Firm, strong in opinion, confident, can come across as too aggressive

3.) Making a point, direct, can come across as accusative

4.) Open communication, thoughtfulness and analysis, can come across as too relaxed and conversational

52

Event format & structure (1/9)STRUCTURE OF A ROUND – LINCOLN DOUGLASPROMPT: Fill in the right column with the amount of time allocated for each speech.FIRST AFF REBUTTAL (1AR) – 4 minutesFINAL NEG SPEECH (2NR) – 6 minutesAFFIRMATIVE CROSS-EX – 3 minutesFINAL AFF SPEECH (2AR) – 3 minutesNEGATIVE CROSS-EX – 3 minutesFIRST NEG SPEECH (1NC/1NR) NEGATIVE – 7 minutesFIRST AFF SPEECH (1AC) AFFIRMATIVE – 6 minutes

PROMPT: Below, write on the line what debaters should do in each speech.1AC: Present the affirmative constructive (also called a “case” or the AC)1NC/1NR: Present the negative constructive and rebuttal to the affirmative’s case. 1AR: The affirmative will cover both “sides of the flow”; i.e. arguments made by both debaters. In the 1AR, debaters should refute the arguments made in the negative case and defend against attacks the negative made against their own case.2NR: The negative will cover both sides of the flow, as well as offer key voting issues. Debates should respond to the attacks the affirmative made against their constructive arguments, reaffirm their responses against their opponents’ case, and offer key voting issues.2AR: The affirmative will boil down the round to a few core issues, explaining how and why they have won those issues, and won the debate. AFF/NEG CX: Both sides will ask their opponent questions either for clarification purposes, to poke holes in their argumentation, get certain concessions, and more.

53

Event format & structure (2/9) STRUCTURE OF A ROUND – POLICY DEBATEPROMPT: Fill in the right column with the amount of time allocated for each speech.

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE (1AC) – 8 minutesCROSS-EX OF THE 1AC – 3 minutesFIRST NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE (1NC) – 8 minutesCROSS-EX OF THE 1NC – 3 minutesSECOND AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE (2AC) – 8 minutesCROSS-EX OF THE 2AC – 3 minutesSECOND NEGATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE (2NC) – 8 minutesCROSS-EX OF THE 2NC – 3 minutesFIRST NEGATIVE REBUTTAL (1NR) – 5 minutesFIRST AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL (1AR) – 5 minutesSECOND NEGATIVE REBUTTAL (2NR) – 5 minutesSECOND AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL (1AR) – 5 minutes

PROMPT: Below, write on the line what debaters should do in each speech.1AC: Present the affirmative constructive (also called a “case” or the 1AC)1NC: Read specific answers to the affirmative case and all off-case positions.2AC: Answer all arguments made in the 1NC2NC: Split the arguments between the 2NC and the 1NR, answer all affirmative arguments and develop negative positions.1NR: Answer all affirmative arguments and develop negative positions.1AR: Answer all block arguments and choose main affirmative arguments.2NR: Collapse down to the final negative arguments2AR: Collapse down to the final affirmative argumentsAFF/NEG CX: Both sides will ask their opponent questions either for clarification purposes, to poke holes in their argumentation, get certain concessions, and more.

54

Event format & structure (3/9)STRUCTURE OF A ROUND – PUBLIC FORUMPROMPT: Fill in the right column with the amount of time allocated for each speech.FIRST SPEAKER – TEAM A – 4 minutesFIRST SPEAKER – TEAM B – 4 minutesFIRST SPEAKER CROSSFIRE – 3 minutesSECOND SPEAKER REBUTTAL – TEAM A – 4 minutesSECOND SPEAKER REBUTTAL – TEAM B – 4 minutesSECOND SPEAKER CROSSFIRE – 3 minutesSUMMARY: FIRST SPEAKER – TEAM A – 3 minutesSUMMARY: FIRST SPEAKER – TEAM B – 3 minutesGRAND CROSSFIRE – 3 minutesFINAL FOCUS: SECOND SPEAKER – TEAM A – 2 minutesFINAL FOCUS: SECOND SPEAKER – TEAM B – 2 minutes

PROMPT: Below, write on the line what debaters should do in each speech.First Speaker (Team A/B; 4 minutes): Present the affirmative and negative constructive (also called a “case” or the AC/NC)Second Speaker Rebuttal (Team A/B; 4 minutes): Debaters should respond to their opponents constructive, poking holes, presenting counter arguments and disputing the reasoning. Many teams who present second (Team B) will also respond to core attacks against their own case.First Speaker Summary (Team A/B; 3 minutes): First speakers have a lot of responsibilities in the summary including: offering framework analysis and comparison, extending and defending key arguments and responses, and weighing impacts.Final Focus (Team A/B; 2 minutes): Second speakers should boil the debate down to key arguments, ensuring they extend their arguments as to why the judge should vote for them (i.e. offense and win conditions), as well as offering defense and weighing on their opponents’ side. ALL Crossfire: All speakers will ask questions, follow-ups and poke holes in the other sides’ advocacy. Debaters should also seek to set themselves up for the following rebuttal speeches. As the round progresses, debaters should frame discussions from a long-term strategic perspective, keeping in mind how arguments interact.

55

Event format & structure (4/9)SPEECH GOALS – LINCOLN DOUGLASPROMPT: Fill in each section with the goals of each speech.

The answer to this prompt is highly dependent on the round (i.e. what your opponent has done), what kind of style of debate you compete in (traditional vs progressive), as well as your judge type (lay vs experienced). There are a bunch of different goals that each speech in a Lincoln Douglas Debate Round can have. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis.

There is no “correct” or “perfect” answer to this prompt, rather, this worksheet is designed to get debaters to start thinking about the purpose of each speech, and what they should be doing. Often times, debaters get lost in the flow or caught up in the adrenaline of debating and they lose sight of what they should be doing. For a general guideline, we recommend utilizing our “Structure Of A Round – Lincoln Douglas” answer sheet, as it goes over some of the responsibilities of every speech.

56

Event format & structure (5/9)SPEECH GOALS – POLICY DEBATEPROMPT: Fill in each section with the goals of each speech.

The answer to this prompt is highly dependent on the round (i.e. what your opponent has done), what kind of style of debate you compete in (traditional vs progressive), as well as your judge type (lay vs experienced). There are a bunch of different goals that each speech in a Policy Debate Round can have. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis.

There is no “correct” or “perfect” answer to this prompt, rather, this worksheet is designed to get debaters to start thinking about the purpose of each speech, and what they should be doing. Often times, debaters get lost in the flow or caught up in the adrenaline of debating and they lose sight of what they should be doing. For a general guideline, we recommend utilizing our “Structure Of A Round – Policy Debate” answer sheet, as it goes over some of the responsibilities of every speech.

57

Event format & structure (6/9)SPEECH GOALS – PUBLIC FORUMPROMPT: Fill in each section with the goals of each speech.

The answer to this prompt is highly dependent on the round (i.e. what your opponent has done), what kind of style of debate you compete in (traditional vs progressive), as well as your judge type (lay vs experienced). There are a bunch of different goals that each speech in a Public Forum Debate Round can have. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis.

There is no “correct” or “perfect” answer to this prompt, rather, this worksheet is designed to get debaters to start thinking about the purpose of each speech, and what they should be doing. Often times, debaters get lost in the flow or caught up in the adrenaline of debating and they lose sight of what they should be doing. For a general guideline, we recommend utilizing our “Structure Of A Round – Public Forum” answer sheet, as it goes over some of the responsibilities of every speech.

58

Event format & structure (7/9)CONSTRUCT A LD DEBATE CASE!PROMPT: Put together a properly formatted LD Debate Case.

There are a bunch of different viable argument combinations that debaters can write for this worksheet. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis.

The goal of this prompt is to test debaters’ understanding of both how a LD case is structured as well as how arguments work well together. For coaches and teachers, we recommend using their response to examine how well they understand these concepts. For students, use this prompt to practice case structure writing. We also recommend that this worksheet accompany a lecture on Lincoln Douglas Case Writing.

A few example combinations:

(1)FW: “a framework about maximizing good consequences”C1: “a study that found revolutions lead to more dictatorships”C2: “a study that found violent uprisings lead to mass killings”C3: “peaceful revolutions are more successful”

The narrative/thesis of this case example: violent revolutions lead to violent, harmful outcomes

(2)FW: “a framework about reducing structural violence”C1: “oppressed groups don't have the same ability to change the system because they often lack influence”C2: “long-term violence decreases in countries after political revolutions”

The narrative/thesis of this case example: violent revolutions uniquely reduce violence against marginalized groups long term

59

Event format & structure (8/9)CONSTRUCT A PF DEBATE CASE!PROMPT: Put together a properly formatted PF Debate Case.

There are a bunch of different viable argument combinations that debaters can write for this worksheet. Analyze and review each specific response on a case-by-case basis.

The goal of this prompt is to test debaters’ understanding of both how a PF case is structured as well as how arguments work well together. For coaches and teachers, we recommend using their response to examine how well they understand these concepts. For students, use this prompt to practice case structure writing. We also recommend that this worksheet accompany a lecture on Public Forum Case Writing.

A few example combinations:

(1)

C1: “a UBI can help victims of domestic violence escape their abuser”C2: “welfare disincentives lower income families from improving their economic condition because they'll lose their benefits”C3: “means-tested welfare is discriminatory”

The narrative/thesis of this case example: UBI helps disadvantaged and marginalized groups

(2)

C1: “a UBI is regressive and untargeted - many recipients aren't the ones in need”C2: “a study that found targeted programs are more beneficial to lower incomehouseholds”C3: “study: welfare lowered the poverty gap by over 60%”

The narrative/thesis of this case example: welfare helps disadvantaged and marginalized groups, UBI hurts those groups

60

Event format & structure (9/9)WHO SPEAKS WHEN? – POLICY DEBATEPROMPT: Put the various speeches into one of the four speaker categories.1A

1AC 1AR Cross-ex of the 1AC Cross-ex of the 1NC

2A 2AC 2AR Cross-ex of the 2AC Cross-ex of the 2NC

1N 1NC 1NR Cross-ex of the 1NC Cross-ex of the 2AC

2N 2NC 2NR Cross-ex of the 2NC Cross-ex of the 1AC

61