By Coach Brad Tomasovic
We were living in dread. My partner and I had been running the same case almost all year, along with most of the nation's top teams. Nearly every team in the league despised our case (because it was objectively the best; I’m definitely not biased), and everyone had spent an enormous amount of time briefing it. Months before nationals we tried changing our case, but we couldn’t find one that would fit. Why? Well, we learned our lesson the previous year, that squirrels aren’t worth it.
First off, what is a squirrel? Besides adorable acorn-loving rodents, squirrels are affirmative cases that you hide from everyone else. One common aspect of a squirrel case is that they fill very niche corners of the resolution. For example, in my final year of Stoa, the resolution was focused on US-European policy. A squirrel case under that resolution could be building roads in rural Greenland. Yes, we actually considered running the ice and road initiative. Why would someone run such an insignificant case? The element of surprise is essentially the only advantage of a squirrel.
This can be an effective tool putting the negative team at a major disadvantage: having to debate without a brief. However, as I mentioned earlier, my partner and I learned squirrel cases rarely pay off. In the 2021-2022 season, my partner and I were having some issues with our aff, so instead of addressing them, we made a new case a couple of weeks before our next tournament. Once we made it to the outrounds. We pulled our squirrel out, won our octo-finals round, and then got 3-0ed in the quarter-finals. You’d think we would have learned our lesson but we ran it again at the next tournament and lost almost all of our affs.
This begs the question, what is inherently wrong about squirrels? Firstly, there is almost always a simple reason why an extremely insignificant thing hasn’t been done. Secondly, and more importantly, JUDGES DON’T CARE ABOUT ROADS IN RURAL GREENLAND! Having significant harms is how you persuade judges! Lastly, if it is a true squirrel case, you probably don’t have much evidence in support of the plan or to prove your harm. The concoction of not having a persuasive harm and the evidence to support it means there is no good reason for the judge to vote for you. Squirrel cases can be fun, but using them to surprise your opponents isn't effective or productive. The most enjoyable and educational rounds I’ve ever had were the ones where my opponents and I had loads of topic knowledge and clash.