Rebuttal and Constructive Guide

8/2/2019 Rebuttal and Constructive Guide

1/6

January 2012

Corey Long

Rebuttal and Constructive Guide*

Intro

*This guide is written primarily for debaters with at least a year of experience in LD and familiarity withbasic flow jargon and techniques in LD. It is an introduction to basic strategy and decision making,

especially for debaters who typically run traditional cases in flow rounds. I will include resources and

explanations of advanced techniques, especially as they relate to the strategies in this guide (so far:

Ground Theory?). This is a work in progress.

In LD there are imbalances between the Affirmative and the Negative. The major imbalance is the

amount of time you have for each speech. Basic strategy in rebuttal seeks to exploit the strengths and

weaknesses of having differing amounts of time in each speech in order to win the round.

Affirmative AC

Rebuttal strategy should be your primary consideration for the composition of any constructive, AC or

NC. Because more time is allocated for the AC than any other affirmative speech, in the 1AR and 2AR

your focus will be on manipulating what you already read in the AC, rather than trying to win based on

the strength of new arguments in the 1AR (although you will still make new arguments in the 1AR while

responding to the NC).

Therefore its important to remember that you are often committed to winning your framework,

because you cannot rely on having the time to impact to your opponents. This is because your claims

and warrants may need to be fundamentally different from the ones in your constructive in order to

impact to a negative standard, depending on how different it is from your own standard. For example,

its usually implausible to run a consequentialist, impact based AC and then link to a negative

deontology framework. Moreover, some negative frameworks skew ground or are abusive.

I will explain different approaches to the AC and the strengths and weaknesses of each, in terms of

which strategies they make more or less viable. I typically recommend a Framework heavy AC, so Ill

start there.

Framework heavy ACs

The strategical value of a framework (FW) is its ability to control access to offense and impacts. Winning

the framework forces your opponent to impact through your framework in order to negate the

resolution. The first major choice you have in the composition of the AC is the content and length of theframework. Although every framework is different, by FW heavy AC Im referring to a framework

which is typically lengthy and thoroughly carded (~1 - 1.5 or 2 pages of FW, including definitions and

observations, etc.). It also narrowly restricts offense to certain types of impacts. Typically, these

frameworks are based on a philosophical system.

If you write a framework heavy AC, keep the following in mind while drafting the FW:


2/6

January 2012

Corey Long

1. Warrant the framework as much as possible. A good benchmark is 3-4 warrants for the criterionalone. Ideally these should be separate, carded warrants which specifically address the benefits

or necessity of using your framework, or your type of framework.

2. Restrict offense as much as possible, but avoid being abusive. Youre attempting to create asituation where only you have access to impacts in the round. This makes it very easy for you to

outweigh in the 2AR. If the standard is too general, i.e., if too many different arguments can link

into it, then you are ceding some of your advantage.

*This part of the guide will assume familiarity with warrants and impacts. Its extremely important that

you understand the parts of an argument very well. Therefore Ill pause here to make sure that the

jargon is clarified, and for review. Its especially vital that you understand warrants, that there can be

multiple warrants and impacts for a single claim, and the significance of this fact for your purposes in a

debate round.

There are three parts to any argument (not just in LD); the claim, warrants and impacts. The claim is the

statement of what you are arguing; in LD this is sometimes called a tag. Warrants are reasons why the

claim is true. The impact is why the argument matters. Aristotle summarized claim, warrant and impact

like this: X, because Y, therefore Z. However this is misleading. It should be X, because Y(s), therefore

Z(s).

In order to prove that a claim is true, you only need to extend or win ONE of your warrants. Therefore,

if you have a claim, three warrants, and two impacts, you only need to win one of the warrants in order

to have access to both of the impacts. At the end of this guide, Ive added a contention from a case

which Raghav sent to me while I was coaching last year, after we discussed the strength of using

multiple warrants and impacts as opposed to multiple arguments/contentions. It illustrates well how to

do this.

Contentions (in a FW Heavy AC)

Of course, the most important consideration is how well your arguments link to your framework.

Winning the framework wont help you unless you link to it. Make your impacts explicit in-case. Exploit

the fact that you can write multiple, diverse impacts to your FW for your arguments, and can tailor your

impacts specifically to your framework. If youre not running a lot of FW then its better to prefer

arguments with the largest impacts, although they should still link. I elaborate on this point in the next

section on Standard ACs.

For a long time, argument diversity on the AC has been a popular strategy. It is common to see 4-6

contentions, even in a lay round. I assume that you know what a contention is, but remember that 4-6

contentions is 4-6 groups of arguments, with each contention having a different theme. However, it is

also common to see contentions with only one argument. You will almost certainly use less contentions

than that in a framework heavy AC, but this can be far more effective than it may seem if done properly.


3/6

January 2012

Corey Long

Because youve allocated much of your time to the framework, I recommend making few arguments

(possibly only 1 contention) with multiple warrants and impacts. My reasoning is that if you win a

strong framework, your ability to control offense will compensate for your lack of diversity. Remember

that if your opponent has no access to the framework, you only need to extend 1 warrant and then

impact it in order to win. Moreover, you can save time reading analytics*, which are necessary in order

to explain contentions and arguments which are not similar to one another, and use that time for more

warrants and impacts. Finally, if youre in a flay round (in which your judge is comfortable with some

speed and progressive argumentation, but some adaptation will also be required), or a lay round, it will

benefit you to have less diverse argumentation as that will make it easier to sell a story to your judge.

Your advocacy will be unified, clear and easy to vote on.

*An analytic is your personal interpretation of evidence. Theyre used especially to explain how different

pieces of evidence link in order to form an argument, or how arguments link in general. Also, most

impacts are analytic.

Often debaters will mislabel their own personal arguments as analytics. Dont mistake an argumentwithout a card as an analytical argument even if your opponent labels it that. Read the warrant closely

and look for errors in reasoning or reasoning which requires more evidence than your opponent has

offered. An argument being analytic isnt an excuse for inadequate evidence.

Strengths of a FW heavy AC

The primary strength is that its more likely that youll win the Framework because of yourwarrants, which will allow you to control offense. This is of great strategical benefit in rebuttal,

especially the 2AR.

It will be difficult for your opponent to make turns in the 1NR because they will have to allocatemost of their time to your FW.

Usually, it is more difficult to prepare for a strong FW than to prepare for actual contentionsbecause contentions are more predictable.

Weaknesses of a FW heavy AC

If you are heavily prepped out or the opponent happens to be very prepared, your lack ofargument diversity will hurt you.

To deal with this concern, consider using non-standard or non-stock argumentation. If you plan to use

stock argumentation and a stock framework, its probably best to read less FW in the AC, since winning

it will not give you the kind of advantage which is intended in this strategy. Instead, when using a stock

case, focus on improving your warrants and impacts.

Running a lot of FW will sometimes bait the Negative into Ground Theory.This isnt exactly a weakness as much as it is a consideration. If youre going to a national tournament

then you need to be able to respond to theory regardless, as it can be run in any round, on either side of

the resolution. You need to be prepared to defend your FW from any claims that it may skew ground.

And if youre going to take the time to learn theory, consider preparing some theory shells for your own


4/6

January 2012

Corey Long

use, when you deem appropriate. In addition to Raghavs contention, Ill also add a review of Ground

Theory to the end of this guide, and a few notes on when to use it.

Standard AC

A standard AC uses less FWabout 1/4 of the case, as opposed to ~1/2 of the case in a FW heavy AC.

Again, this composition makes certain strategies more or less viable, and well discuss how you should

write your case in order to reflect the advantages of a standard AC.

Framework and General Strategy

If you read a more standard AC, then you must also adjust your decision making to reflect the strengths

of your case. Basically, your strategy will no longer be one that seeks to deny negative offense by

controlling the FW. Rather, youll execute a strategy which primarily looks to outweigh on impact. The

basic premise of the strategy is the same as in a FW heavy ACthe AC exploits the relative length of a 6

minute AC compared to a 3-4 minute NC.

In regards to the FW, it should still be warranted (just not as thoroughly) and you should plan to use it. It

can be as generic as youd like, especially if youre confident in your ability to beat the Neg on impact, or

if you plan on running rather diverse argumentation. There will still be situations where winning the

framework will enable you to deny negative offense. Also, some negative frameworks skew ground and

youll want a framework that you can defend.

Contentions

Because your strategy will be to outweigh on impact, your contentions should reflect this. Prefer

contentions which have the largest impact to any consequentialist framework, unless youre running a

deontological FW.

While writing your contentions, strike a balance between argument diversity and thorough warrants.Often if you write a case which contains 5 contentions, youll find that some have stronger impacts and

warrants than others. If thats the case, consider cutting weaker contentions (i.e., contentions which

rarely garner offense for you in-round) in order to add warrants or impacts to a stronger argument. By

adding additional warrants to an argument, youre increasing the odds that youll have access to its

impact by being able to extend one of the warrants. This is often preferable to simply increasing the

number of arguments that you have, because the impact may not be as large, which limits your ability to

outweigh. Remember that the diversity of your offense is not key, but rather the impact.


5/6

January 2012

Corey Long

Affirmative RebuttalsI decided to write this guide because I felt like many of the rebuttals which I flowed at tournaments and

in practice lacked direction and overall strategy. Many debaters are knowledgeable in regard to debate

techniques and mechanics, such as extending and impacting, but lack an understanding of what exactly

theyre trying to accomplish when they give a rebuttal or make an argument in rebuttal. However, the

reason that this guide is a constructive and rebuttal guide, and not simply a rebuttal guide, is because in

rebuttal your goal is to execute a strategy which begins in the constructive. You can give a better 1AR if

your constructive is designed to make your rebuttals effective, by executing a strategy. With that in

mind, well discuss what to do in the 1AR and 2AR in the following sections.

1AR | First Affirmative RebuttalThe 1AR is considered the most difficult speech in LD because you only have 4 minutes to respond to a 7

minute NR. It can be difficult to cover both sides of the flow adequately. However, the 1AR will become

significantly easier once you become proficient at identifying which arguments you needto make in

order to execute your strategy, gain offense, and outweigh in order to win the round. The major

mistake of most 1ARs is focusing too much on coverage and not enough on offense. Were going to look

at each part of the 1AR, noting what you should be doing in order to execute your strategy and what you

should avoid.

The first decision you have to make is which side of the flow to start on. Generally, I advise that you

begin on the AC before responding to the NC if youre running a standard case. This is because the goal

of your 1AR is to give you access to enough offense in order to outweigh in the 2AR. Almost all of your

offense will come out of the AC, so starting on the AC makes obvious strategic sense. If you mismanage

your time, going NC then AC makes your strategy less viable than if you go AC then NC. Its okay if the

negative makes an extension as long as you can outweigh. Of course, ideally you wont mismanage your

time but think of going AC then NC as extra insurance that you can still win the round even if you missed

something on the NC.

If your AC is FW heavy then I advise that you go Framework AC NC. The reasoning is the same;

start with what is of most strategic value to you. In this case, its imperative that you win the FWdebate; therefore you should address both FWs before moving on to the AC.

1AR | Framework


6/6

January 2012

Corey Long

Add a note about reading it in its entirety vs each section Ground theory Raghavs contention I need more examples

Documents

Rebuttal and Constructive Guide