The Big Idea is nothing more than the advocacy of a given position. Each side should have a clear advocacy, and the debate that ensues is the clash of the different advocacies. Simple enough, at least at the broadest view. And, given the nature of your audience, the broadest view may be the best one. It is a truism in LD that if as a judge you want to be struck by everyone in the tournament you should use the words “big picture” in your paradigm. By the same token, big pictures are probably what win most PF rounds. And big ideas lead to big pictures. Nothing complicated about it.
The first speech for either presents that side’s advocacy. I don’t have much to say about coin flips and what to choose, mostly because I don’t have much experience with it, and it seems as it it’s very topic-related. Needless to say, given that any aspect of a toss can go against you, it is best to be prepared for all contingencies on all sides. One especially nice thing about this that I like is that it encourages both sides to actually have an advocacy. The weakest LD cases, as I’ve often said, are the ones that simply say no to everything the aff proposes. As a general rule, this is not good enough. Both sides need offensive positions, not just defensive positions. This is not to be confused with counterplans, however, which don’t make much sense to me (and, for that matter, with some of the policy folks I’ve talked to) because they inherently agree with the core aff position, and merely suggest another way to go about solving. Everything I concede to the other side strengthens them and weakens me. Why would I want to do that voluntarily? In LD, a counterplan almost invariably can be construed by the opposing side as support of that side’s framework, meaning that counterplans in LD can only be won by strong debaters against weaker debaters. Given that there are no counterplans in PF, you may find this discussion irrelevant, but there does seem to be a tendency to write counterplans and attempt to call them something else. You might get away with this if your judge is inexperienced enough, but the reason not to run them goes beyond that they are not acceptable: they’re also not a good idea.
So we’ve talked about what a case should include, and the first speaker now presents that case, with its Big Idea and its demonstration through evidence of how that idea will be achieved by supporting this particular side of the resolution. The four minutes available seems okay to me. Given that there is no need to explain a complex V/C framework, you’ve probably got the same amount of real time that you would have in an LD constructive, either in most of a 1AC or half a 1NC. Nothing much for me to say here.
The crossfire that follows looks not much different from an LD cross-ex but I would suggest that there are a few serious differences that might be overlooked. First of all, it is very likely that a round can be won or lost in crossfire. It is not really separate from the round as it is in LD. From the judge’s point of view, it’s all part of the deal, and there’s lots of it. Every time you turn around there’s more cross-examination. There is no sense that this is somehow ancillary to the proceedings. Everything that is said in crossfire can become, for the judge, a voting issue. Which means that, right off the top, there is no rest for the wicked. Crossfire counts probably way more than it counts in LD (where some people would prefer to forgo it completely with flex prep).
Crossfire, like cross-ex in LD, needs to be focused, for the same reasons and in most of the same ways. The sides wish to set up their own side and take down the opposing side. First of all, the questioner needs to find the flaws. Then the questioner needs to ask the leading questions that set up the questioner’s position. Very standard. Simple enough.
But, and I have said this elsewhere, in PF a debater should never open his or her mouth unless there’s a piece of evidence in it. We are arguing fact-based material. The judge is going to be convinced, or not, on the basis of facts. Every time you answer a question with something other than a fact, it’s a lesser answer. I will admit that not every question is answerable with a fact, but that’s the paradigm you should attempt. The rounds that I have watched, where someone is able to answer a question in a form something like, “As we pointed out with the Cheney evidence, 45% of whatever do such-and-such” is much better than any less specific response. One hit against PF is that it is dueling facts, but what is meant by that is that there is a core fact for each side that goes up against but does not overcome the other side’s core fact, and you just keep hammering each other with contradictory data. I agree that that is pretty dull, and that’s not what I’m talking about. What I’m saying is, support your position with evidence at all times. First of all, it makes you more authoritative. It shows that you have researched. And most importantly, it makes judges think you’re as smart as a prime pumpkin. And, given the nature of the activity, it’s inherently the right thing to do.
I learned quickly as a judge to flow the CX (all right, the CF). I also learned that I needed two colors on my flow to cover things correctly. I’ll be recommending this to all future PF judges, i.e., two colors. Makes sense. Keep that in mind when you’re debating. In LD, I’ve never used multiple colors because I can flow in a very structured way. There’s less structure to PF, once you throw in CX as a voting factor. Multiple colors help me track through the lack of structure. And, more to the point, I’m voting on anything, at any time. Never forget that for a minute.
The opposing side’s four-minute case is no different, whether it’s pro or con. The same rules apply in all ways. Which means that we’re done with the easy part, and it’s on to Speaker Number Two.
No comments:
Post a Comment