Tricks of the Trade Lecture--NSD 2011 I.

The Game -debate is an educational activity -but it is also a competitive activity, the objective of which is to win -if you accept the last premise that the objective of debate is winning, it is undeniable that there is a time and a place for tricky strategies -some examples: -when debating someone who will not run theory for paradigmatic reasons -when debating in front of someone who will not vote for theory arguments (Texas judges) -when debating someone you can beat on a theory debate -if youre new on the circuit and trying to establish rep -some people claim that tricky arguments are unethical or dishonorable. However, many debaters lose rounds that they otherwise could have won because they arent willing to be strategic. if you choose to be honorable then dont freak out if you lose rounds against debaters who are willing to use tricks. -if debate should teach people how to be good advocates for public policy, social justice, and other things. Because of this, they discourage debaters from running tricky arguments, arguments that supposedly bastardize literature (usually comes to a diff conclusion then the author did), or arguments that would clearly be seen as ridiculous in any other context besides a debate round. Running tricks will get you to think more critically about the logical structure of arguments, and especially about how to exploit that structure for a strategic advantage. And in turn, this will teach you how to point out when someone is arguing in a meritless manner. -Moreover, the obsession with staying true to the literature is overblown. Most of the time when you cut pieces of evidence in debate, even if they are pretty clearly in favor or one side of the resolution or another, it is unlikely that the authors true beliefs could be reduced to a simple affirmation or negation of the resolution. Especially when philosophical arguments are being carded, bastardization is required because you are utilizing these arguments not for what they say in and of themselves, but for the strategic purpose of affirming or negating the resolution. -NOTE: Not all of these strategies are ones that even we think are legitimate, but its important for you guys to know whats out there so you dont get tricked yourself. -This lecture is about AWARENESS. II. Tricks AFF Tricks 1. Write the framework in such a way that if the framework is true, you automatically affirm. An example of this is on the vaccines topic from last year, which was Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization. We ran a case with a rational contractarian framework, which is basically a

deontological justification for utilitarianism. Our argument, then, was that winning the framework is sufficient to affirm because acting according to public health concerns definitionally means acting in such a way that reduces harm to the public. 2. Include an argument that says that if the framework isnt true, then you affirm. An example of this was on the felons topic from two years ago, which was Resolved: In the United States, felons ought to retain the right to vote. The criterion for this case was consistency with contractual agreements, and the contention argued that disenfranchising felons violates contractual agreements. But, after I finished justifying the criterion, I read an argument about how barring felons from voting is impossible absent democratic procedure, which is entirely premised on contractual agreements. The impact was that you automatically affirm because its impossible to disenfranchise felons if contracts are bad. These arguments are often times hard to find, but when you do find them, they make rounds significantly easier. -People often call these arguments contingent standards, and theyve been in the game for a fairly long time. Devin Race from Westlake used to read cases with contingent standards all the time. The most memorable example of this is on the military force topic (Resolved: It is just for the US to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat). Devin said that there were two kinds of justice: Big J and Little J justice. Big J justice is normative whereas little j justice is descriptive. The basic way the case functioned was that if a neg put answers on the big j part of the case, the little j part would be activated, and you would affirm because the US had taken that action in the past. 3. Include definitions in the affirmative case that take out popular negative arguments. For instance, on the sanctions topic, some people defined sanctions in such a way that targeted sanctions werent neg ground. You might run into some problems trying to justify your interpretation theoretically, but you can usually make those debates a wash fairly easily. 4. Include spikes/definitions in the AC that are intentionally vague which allow you to take out a variety of arguments--if the neg debater doesnt pin you down on these arguments you can use them to exclude a large amount of ground 5. Include some abusive/ a priori arguments in the AC--for instance, the toolbox argument on this topic. Then if the neg presses you on it in cross-ex and you think that they would win the theory debate, tell them to cross the argument off the flow. Judges will allow you to do this without any problem--this basically guarantees they wont read theory against you. However, if they miss the spike, you can extend it for the win. 6. Write a burden for the negative that includes multiple components, but phrase it as a single burden. For instance, you could argue that because of the definition of moral permissibility, the negative has to provide some prohibition against targeted killing whereas the aff just has to demonstrate the lack of such a prohibition. This burden structure requires the neg to a) set up an ethical theory and b) prove that the aff violates it, whereas the aff can win by beating back either of these claims. When you phrase multiple burdens as single burdens, debaters dont recognize whats going on and you can get away with abusing them.

7. Include complete theory shells in the AC. This sometimes deters negs from running abusive strategies and forcing you to deal with this debate. More often than not, however, the neg will still run the abusive position they were planning on running even given the spikes to it. However, they will spend a lot less time responding to the theory argument than they would have in the NR had you made the theory argument in the 1AR because they have the rest of the AC to deal with. Negs wont spend more than a minute or so answering back theory shells they violate in the NC whereas they would likely spend at least 2-3 minutes in the NR. 8. Read a 30 second theory shell during every 1AR. Even if you dont expect to win off the theory argument, reading it is still beneficial because it will force any smart neg to spend at least 1:30 of their NR answering the theory argument. Generically, when 1ar theory comes into play, one of two things happen. Either a) the neg overcovers the theory debate and screws up on the case debate or b) they undercover the theory debate and you can explode theory in the 1ar. The key to this strategy is short theory arguments. Practice reciting your fairness is a voter justifications and the internal links of common standards to fairness, and maybe even write out your theory interpretation in your prep time.

NOTE: Potentially more strategic, but more difficult for the aff, is to put the theory at the end of the 1AR. Increases chances neg will drop or undercover, Requires lots of discipline / time management on your part to make sure you get what you need done with 30 seconds left for T. 9. Ask really leading cross ex questions which get your opponent to make concessions that can win you the round. On the sanctions topic, (Resolved: Economic sanctions ought not be used to achieve foreign policy objectives), I would ask the neg what the foreign policy objective (notice not plural) of the NC was. They would often respond by saying that it was to stop terrorism, or something along those lines, and then I would run topicality on the fact that they only have one policy objective.
10. Offensive 1AR Expansions: Examples--Security K -Benatar Argument -Statistics Argument - Kick AC and go for turns 11. Trick your opponent into thinking that some theory interpretation at the top of the AC is crucial to your ability to win the aff contention. For instance, on the felon disenfranchisement topic, which was: Resolved, in a democratic society, felons ought to retain the right to vote, I read an aff with a contracts standard that argued that negating violated two international treaties: the ICCPR and the ICERD. At the top of the AC I said that the resolution should be interpreted as US specific for 6 reasons. However, there was a spike in the contention level of the case which said that the vast majority of democratic nations were party to these contracts, which meant that I didnt even need to win the US specificity good arguments. But peoples neg

strat against the aff was to dump on the US spec because they thought it was crucial to the aff strat. 12. Always read an RVI when responding to theory arguments. It doesnt have to be long-maybe 5 or 6 seconds, something like Also, to ensure reciprocity and counteract for time skew, theory must be a two way street, so if I win the theory debate I win the round. This forces the neg to spend approx. a minute to a minute and a half answering the justifications for RVIS, which makes it more difficult for them to cover other parts of the flow. 13. Instead of writing an entirely new case, add some killer spikes to a case in a situation in which you know your opponent has a flow of the entire aff. Theyll likely miss the new spikes and you can extend them to take out their primary neg strat. 14. Multi-part Aprioris- These are Aprioris that only exist if your opponent doesnt ask about the function of the component parts. Like this year on the juveniles topic I ran an a priori that was assembled out of the extensions of three definitions in the 1AR. If my opponent ever asked if anything operated pre-standards (indicating that they were strapped on the theory debate) then I could always convincingly answer that I couldnt extend anything to function that way. The downside to this strategy is that you need some indication in the AC that it could function a priori, which can put a target on your argument and judges dont want to vote on things that arent clearly labeled in the AC. 15. Conditional Logic Affs--allow you to argue that skepticism affirms. 16. Never explicitly state the rhetoric of your standard, phrase it as a burden or something like that. Causes people to freak out because they dont understand how the case functions. 17. Hide framework arguments in between cards in the contention in the same way that you would with a spike to a contention level argument. Instead these arguments are reasons to prefer your definitions or framework, takeouts to a moral theory, additional warrants for the standard, or quick theory pre-empts. 18. Dont number arguments in your AC. Have a single contention that the aff is consistent with the standard and then just have a series of arguments. Also do this with standard justifications, purposefully misnumber them to hide additional warrants (1, 2, And, 3) THIS ONE I THINK IS SKETCHY. ALSO ONE THAT IS VERY COMMON. 19. Hide a super abusive strategy amid a more confusing framework. Your opponent will be so caught up in the confusing framework theyll fail to see the true strategic advantage. This year at TOC we ran a framework that said we only had to win one line of reasoning to win the AC and that conflicting moral obligations dont cancel so you never get to permissibility. This was camouflaged by a complicated framework about logic and diabolical evil. People never really questioned the seemingly straightforward arguments that were actually the key strategy.

20. Flip Aff in high-pressure rounds (assuming youre really confident you can win this debate). Freaks the hell out of people. Also works better when you know you wont understand the aff. 21. Have a copy of your AC with no paragraph or line breaks, and only underlining in the cards (all card text the same size). When youre done reading your reading copy, put it in your expando quickly. When your opponent asks for your case, give them this version. They will think you just have a weirdly-formatted reading copy and it will make it much more difficult for them to use the case to prep against you. It will waste at least of their prep time if they depend on having your case for prep. (People HAVE ACTUALLY DONE THIS BEFORE a version of this; all his copies of his cases were in ALL CAPS which made them very difficult to read.) This is very powerful because these physical lexical structures are how we learn to read and messing with them makes reading much more difficult, which is a time suck in prep, but its subtle enough that it doesnt seem abusive: Thats just the way I write, dude. (ANOTHER ONE THAT IS RIDICULOUS AND SKETCHY, ALSO IS COMMON) 22. Read a meta-ethical framework to justify your standard and make it seem like winning the meta-ethic is critical to winning the standard but then hide an argument that independently justifies the ac standard absent some sort of meta-ethical justification. 23. Global v foreign argument. Explode in the 1ar. Finals of TOC. 24. Give them a copy of the case with irrelevant parts of the case underlined and bolded. Like random spikes and stuff. 25. Add extra stuff into the AC and dont read it. When your opponent asks for it, be like oh theres a ton of stuff that i didnt read.... Ill show you. (also make sure that this happens while theyre timing either CX or prep) 26. Put really turnable arguments at the top of the AC contention but dont read any impacts to them. This will draw blocks but just explain in the 1ar that they dont have any impacts. 27. Put warrants below cards so that when people answer the cards they drop the justifications below the card--this works especially well with critical arguments. 28. Read a standard without warrants so you can kick it in the 2ar by just saying that the argument isnt justified. 29. Have sentences later on in the case that clarify what the standard means. Say minimizing harm is the standard but then say that minimizing means respecting and harm means persons as ends in themselves. 30. Make your opponent think youre doing a performance in the AC, but include an a priori in it. Rap the 1ac, but say its not a performance.

31. Read presumption in the AC, and then go for random presumption strategies if they concede presumption goes aff. NEG Tricks 1. Read a side constraint neg--probably deontological--which functions as a necessary but not sufficient standard. If the aff asks you about it in cross ex and youre afraid they will win the theory debate, say that they can win the round by proving that they dont violate the side constraint. This is called artificial sufficiency. It allows you to get out of reciprocity claims when youre running a necessary but not sufficient standard. And the reason it doesnt put you at a strategic disadvantage is because you should write an nc that is functionally true and impossible to turn. -There are problems with artificial sufficiency, like the fact that it kills permissibility ground and also allows the neg to pick which of an infinite number of assumptions they want to undermine/ side constraints they want to claim are violated, but its a strategic move. 2. read a complicated/critical-ish overview that only needs to marginally link to the AC to either A) serve as a time-suck in the 1AR or B) provide an easy out if youre getting out strategized in the rest of the debate. An example of this is on the topic It is just for the US to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat I would often read a threat construction overview on the AC which was just complicated enough to waste their time the 1AR. 3. Wade strat: If theres a standard that is kind of deontological that you dont really understand, read your deont bad block but hide a few arguments that are actually specific to the AC standard. Your opponent will think that all the arguments are just deont bad and that they wont link, and they will miss the answers that do apply. 4. Instead of describing things as overviews or underviews describe them as off cases that require separate sheets of paper. Theres a chance your opponent wont fall for this one, but if he or she does, they will have a ton of sheets of paper to deal with in their speech and theyre likely to forget about one of the off cases and lose. 5. Read an abusive nc and then read a bunch of theory arguments yourself. Your opponent will likely run theory, but you extend the theory arguments youre making to wash the abuse. Then go fo the abusive strategy to win the round. 6. Paragraph theory down the AC. Instead of formally structuring your theory arguments, run paragraph theory and phrase the arguments as responses to the specific AC arguments that youre claiming are abusive. You include all of the components you would typically include a theory argument, but its just not structured in the a) interp, b) violation, c) standards d) voter format. But the arguments function in the exact same way, you save time by not having to go through a formal structure of a theory shell, and your opponent might drop one if you put enough paragraph theory violations on the AC.

7. Read an nc with a framework that competes against the ACs framework and then at the very end of the case, do one of two things (or both, I guess): a) make a second impact of your case be to the aff standard and b) read another argument that turns the aff standard. The aff will generally forget about this argument, which means he or she will almost certainly lose the AC (Believe me, this happened to me during semis of the TOC against Ben Lewis, which is why I had to go for that extinction good argument). 8. Read severance bad whenever the aff kicks the AC in the 1ar. This is quite possibly the worst theory argument in debate, but it is also probably the most strategic. When you read severance bad, the aff has no choice but to spend at least 30 seconds in the 2ar answering back the argument, which means they have a lot less time in the 2ar to devote to offense. 9. One option is to hide things that seem like tricks in the NC, then force them to either waste cross-ex, prep, or speech time on arguments that you have no intention of going for/ extending trickily. This is especially useful if you have a reputation for being tricky in the past. An example of this is on the juveniles topic, I would read arguments in both the AC and the NC that would appear to function as aprioris or that could be triggered as such. This would usually work to waste my opponents time and often they would view it as a concession when you eventually agreed that they could only be extended as position take-outs. The other side of this is that if your opponent doesnt bother to clarify the functions of these arguments then you can extend them to win the round very easily. 10. Read a counterplan and if your opponent doesnt ask you the status of the cp, just kick it. 11. Have theory arguments prepared on both sides of some question in the resolution. For instance on the ICC topic (Resolved, the US ought to submit to the jurisdiction of an international criminal court) we had theory that said that the aff had to specify a court (the ICC) and theory that said that the aff couldnt specify a court. These were no-risk arguments and the aff ALWAYS links into at least one of them. Another example is must read a plan vs. cant read a plan. 12. When making arguments (particularly offensive ones) against the AC, impact these arguments to other cards in the contention in addition to the one youre signposting your argument against. 13. Make a substantive topicality argument at some random point on the flow and make it just a reason to reject the AC (because it doesnt affirm) and not the debater him or herself. 14. Read theory shells with multiple standards and also hide standards within other ones that are explicitly labeled in the theory shell. Also be sure to read competing interps good and drop the debater, not just the argument 15. Dave talk: Modal Realism/Bostrom

Both David K. Lewis and Nick Bostrom make arguments that are either nifty takeouts to utility or trigger permissibility under a util frwk. Lewis argument is modal realism; it suggests that there are infinite possible worlds and provides reasons why we should treat all of these worlds as actual. Given that, the amount of net utility (both positive and negative) is infinite, and any action we take cant affect the total amount of utility because you can neither add to nor subtract from an infinite. Thus since utility says we must maximize the good, and since every action can have no impact on the total amount of good, utility permits every action. Bostroms argument has the same implication but without positing infinite actual worlds. He just says that the total net utility in an aggregative world is either infinite or so large that individual actions are incapable of having statistically meaningful effects. Read: The Infinitarian Challenge to Aggregative Ethics. 16. Not numbering things when giving your speech/ saying 1, 2, AND, 3, AND, 4 17. Read permissibility goes neg, and then have a bunch of skepticism triggers peppered throughout the NC spread (as long as youre reasonably assured that youll win the permissibility debate). 18. Read an NC with a hidden burden that the aff has to meet that has nothing to do with the actual standard youre advocating. Hide this burden between some framework justifications or some theory preempts and use language that makes it seem natural and nothing out of the ordinary. Then hide a reason in the NC contention why the aff fails this burden. 19. Take flex prep without asking for it--do this by asking your opponent clarification questions during c-x and then when theyre answering your arguments write answers against the arguments they are clarifying for you. A more egregious version of this involves asking questions you actually dont care about at all and then just pretending to listen while preparing. Dont recommend this last one--thats actually bad. 20. Read a short critical neg case that the aff is going to overcover because they will think its really confusing and that youre really well prepped on this debate. Moerner did this at the TOC his junior year by reading a short Nietzchean criticism of war, but he would often just kick the NC and go for turns on the AC. 21. Hide a prioris by including a standard or a burden in the negative case, and make the impact of the argument be that they dont meet the standard or the burden rather than that you negate on face. 22. Rephrase the rhetoric of your neg standard in such a way that makes it really difficult for your opponent to turn your argument. For instance, on the vaccines topic our senior year, Valley originally ran a neg with an agency standard, but we were getting pummeled in debates because people would just kick the AC standard and go for turns on the NC. However, we modified the standard slightly to preventing the contradictory willing of maxims, and then suddenly no one had any idea how to answer the argument.

23. A priori storm: This can be aff or neg. IF you read an a priori shit-storm aff, dont have a framework. Use this only in situations where your opponent is bad at theory, but prepare a lengthy a prioris good theory shell in case. Have the shell out -- with a huge cover page that says a prioris good in giant letters so your opponent can see it. This will put them off running theory. Be careful of the judge. 24. Problem of induction NC. Very simple skeptical argument, for some reason kids dont understand it and its skeptical claim is powerful. Also, it implicates theory so its difficult to run theory against it. Moses Sloven won like 20 rounds on it this year. 25. Hide substantive arguments in your theory shells--have a reciprocity and predictability standard and then have a real world or resolutionality argument that doesnt link to fairness in any capacity (or an argument that links to their standard). Theyll almost certainly drop the substantive argument and you can extend it to take out the AC. 26. Make 5 floating counterplans on the aff (Mention a bunch of possible alternatives to the aff advocacy that might co-opt aff net benefits with no solvency advocate). But dont make them a part of your advocacy, just say you could do them. Merely making an innocuous statement. Could bait an escapable theory debate. 27. In c-x when people ask you important questions, ask them to repeat them. Claim you dont understand. Also take a drink of water. SKETCHY, ALSO PROBABLY WOULDNT WORK. 28. Eat food during c-x so people cant understand you when youre answering questions. Also talk with your mouth open so people are getting distracted. SKETCHY, ALSO PROBABLY WOULDNT WORK 29. Buy a REALLY REALLY tiny laptop--one of those acers-- so its difficult for your opponent to read what youre saying. MOERNER HAD ONE OF THOSE LITTLE TINY ACER COMPUTERS BACK IN THE DAY BUT I DONT THINK THIS WAS A STRATEGIC DECISION. EITHER WAY IF YOU BUY A LAPTOP FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING YOUR ACS HARD TO READ THEN YOU ARE PROBABLY GOING TOO FAR. SKETCHY. 30. Memorize your NC. When they ask for it say that its somewhere on your computer but take a long time to find it. SKETCHY. 31. Memorize one card you can make against the AC, but then read the rest of them. So when they ask for everything you read you dont have to give them this card. You can also have your blocks on multiple sheets of paper with lots of other cards you dont plan on reading on the same pages. When they ask for your blocks you either have to waste their time pointing out with arguments you read or theyll get confused by all the extraneous cards. DEFINITELY SKETCHY

32. Read a really abusive nc and then a blippy theory shell, the d point of which just says fairness is important--your opponent will think that they can just cross apply the fairness voter but you say its not actually justified. 33. Run defensive theory arguments against people who run RVIS, but then when they go for the RVI say that there wasnt an impact to the theory shell. 34. When people ask what the status of the counterplan is, say that it is dispositiononal. Often times they wont ask you to clarify what that means bc people just think that it means that you have to go for it if there are straight turns on it. But then add a bunch of ridiculous qualifiers. WE ALSO MENTIONED (AND THIS IS BASED ON A T.R.U. STORY) HOW YOU COULD PRETEND LIKE YOU NEEDED TO PASS GAS AND THEN GO OUT IN THE HALL TO THINK ABOUT ARGUMENTS FOR A SECOND THEN COME BACK IN. WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT HOW PEOPLE TAKE FLEX PREP DURING PREP TIME WITHOUT ASKING THEIR OPPONENTS BY SPENDING 20 SECONDS TO WRITE ANSWERS TO ARGUMENTS IN BETWEEN QUESTIONS