Wisconsin Forensics Daily

Thursday Thing to Read: How to be a Good Second Negative

Paul Hager was recently asked how to be a good Second Negative. He started typing and didn’t stop. This is what came out… Read on as Paul tells all secrets about how to win on the negative with a core counterplan or Kritik as your route to victory.

The Duties of  Good Second Negative by Paul Hager.

In order to be a good Second Negative. You must first do the necessary pre-round preparation. Here’s what you need.

Pre Round Prep-

2NC Overviews – Should be about 10-15 seconds long.

Kritik- A paragraph explaining the argument, the specific link to the aff (go through 1AC and find a specific reference which links or use something you got out of CX) the implication, the alternative and the role of the ballot.

CP’s – Again a short overview of the argument itself, why you can solve or solve better and why only a risk of the net ben means you win.

2NC Impact Analysis -

K- Why the impact outweighs because its pre-fiat, why it outweighs even in a world of fiat, why impact turns case or makes case impacts inevitable.

CP- this is more for the net ben. but the usual here. Why your time frame is better, why it’s more probable, why it’s bigger and why it turns case.

2NC Link Dump -

Kritik- From the beginning of the round start writing down card references from 1Ac or 2AC, words/statements the aff makes which are links. Alternate one of their specific in round links with a group of 2-4 cards which are DIFFERENT links. For Realism for example: Heg is realist, The Government is inherently realist, and Energy Policies are realist. Really make sure that the cards have DIFFERENT warrants to prevent grouping.

CP – new link scenario for the net benefit. Politics this looks like another Link-InternalLink scenario.

2NC Impact Extension (New Scenario) – In a Kritik or CP round you want to read a 2nd impact scenario. It is one of the great unequal parts of debate but you can always get away with a new impact scenario (internal link and impact based on the same link) that the 1AR has no hope of covering. Some debate strategist believe that you should save your best impact and link scenarios for the 2NC, I disagree, I make sure all of mine are good.

Blocks you need before the round:

K’s
AT: Do both perm ( you need one card here that if called for after the round actually specifically says doing both is bad, if you lack this card don’t run the argument)
AT: Do plan as the first step perm
At: Do plan reject in every other instance
AT: Need state action
AT: We don’t uniquely increase the evil over SQ
AT: Impact Inevitable

Framework and Theory

CP’s
AT: Do both perm (even if it is crazy)
AT: Cp doesn’t solve
Link and Impact extension for net ben
Make sure to have impacts which are economic/war/environment and adjust scenario based on Aff impx

Theory

Holy S*^% Paul that’s a lot of work! Yep it is, deal with it – do it once and you are set for the year.

Practical Advice for engaging the above strategy:

Here we go- how to be a negative speech by speech and argument by argument from the perspective of the 2N (because only the 2′s matter)

CX of the 1AC. I love debate! The 2N, the guy who is in charge of the strategy which will control the round gets to set it all up because 1A’s are dumb. “Paul that’s not fair you say 1A’s are smart people..” That may be true but high school debaters don’t think about the questions they are being asked in CX they just say the opposite of what you say. The 1A always wants to disagree don’t ever ask a question in which you want them to agree it’s not worth your time. Even if you asked them “hasn’t the Packers defense been an absolute failure down the stretch this year…” 99% of 1A’s will disagree. Proving my point completely.

How do I employ this mind control, Paul? It is simple. CX should first be about getting the arguments right. Know what they are saying. Move through that portion of CX as quickly as possible, it is important, but not the most fun. Next step to CX of the 1A is the head fake. Go down a line of questioning which makes them believe you are going to do something you are not. This is where Vaugness has a place in the world. Or questions like “How are you really a substantial increase?” (note: ask T questions UNRELEATED to the T you will be reading, they will prep for the wrong ones) Lastly but MOST important ask questions which get you links to the positions you want to go for in the 2NR. Let’s assume I am trying to get them to link to the Kritik of Realism. If you don’t know the argument, shame on you, then ask someone older then you about it (if you want to know put that in the comments section below requesting I write an article about it). Anyway, Here are the goals for my link scenarios in the 1NC and eventually the 2NC (since I have already written my link dump block I know them already)

Goals:
1) Admit they are a large change over status quo in the direction of state control (Pre-empt to the argument “We are not different then SQ”)
2) Admit that they believe in the system of control and war we currently have and proport that image (Link War)
3) Admit they believe in the nation state system and that the US is the leader of that system (Link US Heg)
4) Admit that the US believes it self to be right and the “savior” of other states ( Link US as savior)

Questions:
1) Isn’t your plan exactly like the current government, it really doesn’t change anything? Oh it does… Well isn’t state control key how do you make sure the government can do all that? Why is the government key to solve?

Aff dumb response: Oh yes we do we change great wide things and the government is key per our ___ card in the 1AC. (Got you)

2) There is no way X country or terrorist would attack us ever right?

Aff dumb response: you bet they would china hates us for being sexy and will attack us immediatly if we don’t do plan killing us all ( cute but got ya)

3) Your advantages assume international solvency, why would turgekastan care about the US?

Aff dumb response: The US is the leader their modeling is key (Bingo was the Link-O)

4) Couldn’t another country just do your plan the US cant really save everyone can they? (this one is classic because its also a head fake to an alternate actor CP)

Aff dumb response: The US has to do it because we are the best and greatest and most magical of all… (get out the shovel they be digging a hole)

Alright CX is out of the way now its time for the 1NC strategy. Work this out before the round and you can take prep to make sure you get this right if needed.

I will now impart to you a great secret of debate. Debate is all about time allocation. Paul, I thought it was about seeing how great I can look in dress pants and sneakers? No – it’s time allocation, but that is pretty funny. In all my rounds, I watched a timer constantly during my opponent’s speeches. How much time they allocate to an argument shows either strength or weakness. As a negative I knew which 1 or 2 strategies would most likely be in the 2NR. (Side note if you don’t know what you could go for from your 1NC in the 2NR, take more prep and figure it out). I then fill the 1NC with arguments which have little to no risk of being turned AND a high probability of getting the other team to waste more time. Why focus on time allocation? Because judges are lazy, the truth is the easiest thing for them to say to other team why they lost is “You just undercovered X, you were behind, they beat you.” everyone nods and smiles on that one. EZ for judges = EZ to win. Remember that contrary to your coaches belief, judges are always right. (Thank you, Tom Noonan)

Ok Paul I kind of believe this time trade off thing how do I do it?

Topicality is almost always a great time trade off, especially if you can find out what T that team has lost on before, they will overcompensate and spend too much time. Your 1N should be able to read a T shell in 20-30 sec. The 2AC will spend at least 30-60 seconds, sweet we are ahead already. Next step was a stupid off case argument they have never heard of, this is the true purpose to vagueness ASPEC and OSPEC. I would set it up in CX by specifically hinting that something was “vague” the bigger deal you make of it the more they will make of it in the 2AC. 1N time on vagueness 20 sec, 2AC time 1min, sweet that head fake worked.

Now to the motherload, the case debate. 2A’s are horrible at the case debate because most 2A’s are handed their aff by their coach and the dirty secret is they haven’t really read their own cards and thus will be ineffective in cross applying or making warranted enough arguments to be efficient. Dirty secret of debate #2 by Paul, read link cards from your kritik which apply to the specific advantages on each advantage in amongst regular case debate cards. So go ahead and read a “your case doesn’t solve because the government is ineffective” but then read another link card which implicates that the environment will be destroyed. The aff won’t have the time or ability to address it appropriately and we will use it later in the 2NC. Also interweave the very Cedarburg style “They have a plan flaw, their authors don’t actually advocate doing X”. Why interweave everything? Time. It’s a puzzle only you know the answer to and the more you can “hide” your kritik link cards the better off you will be. Alright have you 1N spend 90 seconds here. This should get you 120 seconds of the 2AC even if it’s an even trade its time they will spend before the off case since coaches have been telling 2A’s to go in order of T, Case, other offcase. (side note coaches stop doing this and teach your kids time allocation, case can go last because all case is never the strategy)

Here is where we are now in the war of time allocation:

Alright we are way ahead.

Now you can take great negative liberties. You should choose positions like DA’s or CP’s that serve 2 purposes. They should be different arguments but ones that have little risk of being turned and DO NOT CONFLICT with you Kritik or Cp game plan. Whoa hold the train Paul, I am the negative I do what I want. Yes, I have run conflicting arguments but rarely. I would read a DA with an environment impact not nuke war while running realism or threat con. Why? Because it doesn’t conflict out of the 1NC. If I want to go the DA CP route in the block I can kick the Kritik then and read the war add on. Don’t conflict in the 1NC because you don’t have to. It only has a risk of giving the AFF’s a way out by conceding a position and using it against you. Judges also hate disingenuous kritik debaters. Politics serves a decent purpose here because the other team will have a big fat file they will want to read and they always give you defensive arguments (non unique and no links) to kick out of the position. Again think about time trade offs. Even if the DA’s are a wash in time trade off – they keep the Aff away from the Kritik, which is the main game plan. Let’s pretend we ran 2 DA’s

Here is the scoreboard:

Now we could have read 2 T’s one we cared about and one we didn’t or we could have spent more time on case, either is fine they give you great tradeoff. You will notice we now have ample time to read a complete Kritik Shell with fiat and framework arguments IN THE 1NC PEOPLE! And we predict that the 2AC will have 1 min of time to spend on the kritik. My 2NC can now be 6-8mins of the Kritk and my partner can take case (which are kritik links) and keep some other procedural hanging around to put pressure on the 1AR. I am so blocked out as a 2N that I don’t take much if any 2NC prep putting even more pressure on the 1AR.

2NC game plan- take the core position for 4-8mins depending. Put it last in your speech to give the 1AR the least amount of time to spend on it. If there is theory maybe leave that to the 1NR. 2NC overview is already prepped and you just pulled out the blocks to the generic arguments the aff made so your pretty much ready to go. Practice the 2NC on your key position so you can do it in 4, 6 or 8 min versions. If you are way ahead use the 4 min version and spend the other 4 on T or something else they mishandled. If you are doing just ok, spend 6 on the Kritik on 2 on T or a DA that is a possibility. 2N should kick everything else that isn’t needed. Blame the 2AC for poor time allocation to get the judge thinking and give reasons why the 1AR cannot be new. Game is pretty much over at this point.

2NR- This is the hardest speech in debate. I could write a whole article on that alone. The 1AR will either continue the bad time allocation or try to hit the breaks and cover the Kritik but it will be new and too little too late. I often had 1A’s reading cards in the 1AR, that was funny and judges hate it. 2NR overview is why the judge should vote on the K, how consistent you have argued it from the CX of the 1AC all the way through. Include the specific links you found throughout the round and that they admitted to, concede T means they have to link to being a new increase in government evil action and then apply the usual BS about the alternative and the role of the ballot. Then slam the door on the 2AR by predicting that they will have new arguments and that they will try to go back to case outweighs. Say that everytime they save case solves ignore it because the system will coop their action. The Kritik is the first step to solving the aff problems and more….. Game.

Get it now? In my opinion with this kind of pressure in the neg strategy and a good handle on a well prepped Kritik or CP debate the negative can rock the house every time. Congratulations, if you are still reading this article. If you like it and want me to explain the AFF side of the world please leave a comment requesting more. If not then all negs will win next year.

Posted in Columns, Thursday Thing To Read |