PF 2009 Part 8

This is going to be really simple.

First, one side tells you why you should pro/con. After a little discussion atwixt the two sides, the other side tells you why it should do the opposite. So far, so good. We’ve talked about these speeches, The Big Idea, and the content of the first XF (crossfire).

The second XF is mostly like the previous one. Both sides now know the other side’s Big Idea. Both sides know the other side’s strategy and content. So this XF needs to tear down what has been said by the opponent and reset the stage for one's own Big Idea. Not exactly brain surgery, and more sophisticated examination processes can be developed as one gains experience. The key is, tear down opponent, build up self. It is ever thus in CX or XF or whatever you want to call it.

The breakdown of which team member goes when depends on a lot of factors, but one thing that is clear is that the second member of a team to present is going to be doing a rebuttal as compared to presenting a position. One theory is that the lovable debater goes first, to win over the judges, and the mad dog debater goes second, to attack everything that needs attacking. I would subscribe to this approach at least as a starting point for organizing a team, but I wouldn’t take it to the grave. I see no intrinsic reason why both team members might not want to try one position on one topic and the other position on another. Why not work on developing all the potential skill sets?

But regardless of how you pick your second speaker, one thing is clear. The second speech has to win the round. Two many rounds I saw did not believe that this was the case, which was not a sound strategy. In a good debate, every speech potentially wins the round. This is clearly seen in LD, where each speech covers the entire flow (except, probably, the 2AR). But in PF, this isn’t quite as clear. A lot of teams get up in their second speech and attack the other side. Period. They cover everything that was said by the opponent, they tear it to shreds, they stomp on it, they feed it to the dogs, all of which is fine and dandy, but strategically, all that does is tell me why I shouldn’t vote for the opponent. It doesn’t tell me why I should vote for you. Even the instructions from NFL suggest that this speech is more than just attack: “In addition, some time in either of these speeches should be allocated to rebuilding the original case.”

Now, four minutes isn’t a lot, granted, but it’s exactly the same as LD’s 1AR. I don’t think offhand that you should go two and two. If you spend three minutes attacking the opponent, then a minute or so rebuilding yourself, this should work. The structure is simple:
1. Attack opponent’s Big Idea.
2. Attack opponent’s main lines of argument with solid evidentiary refutation. (Demonstrate lack of warrant, lack of link, over-reliance on facts that are in fact pure bull-oney, etc., keeping in mind that to overcome their evidence you need, uh, other evidence.)
3. Demonstrate in the end why your Big Idea is so much better.

This lack of coverage of a side’s own case was the biggest lapse I saw in my (admittedly limited) experience judging PF rounds. Like everything else I’ve been saying, it’s not particularly groundbreaking; hell, it’s written right into the instructions. But people don’t do it. And what this means from the judging point of view is that you have this big hole on your flow that, presumably, will be filled at some other time. That’s not good enough. As I say, in a debate, every speech should act as if it’s the one that has to win the round. And winning the round always means not just refuting what the other team has said but also providing support for why what you say is so much better.

To remember this—and this may be the first thread of theory to be presented in the PF world—I would suggest you tattoo the following on your partner’s forehead: “Don’t just say no.” Saying no just isn’t enough. Never has been, never will be. The best defense is a good offense? Yep. If you have an extra partner that you only use on religious holidays, you can tattoo that on that one’s head. “The best defense is a good offense.”

Truer words, in debate, have never been spoken.