What is the difference between Affirmative cases that win locally and those that win NITOC?
The real question is: What kinds of cases should I run if I want to win outrounds? Most students recognize that there is a difference between prelims and outrounds, but it is incredibly hard to explain what exactly that difference is.
Last week, a highly skilled debater asked me: Why do some cases perform phenomenally in prelims but fall apart in outrounds, even though weaker negative teams run the same arguments?
This debater's question is honest and gets at the key difference between prelim competition and outround competition. Most think outrounds are harder just because the quality of teams is higher; others believe the judging pool shifts; neither of these answers accounts for the above question.
In this blog, I will explain a few things to consider when preparing for outrounds. In the next blog, coming soon, I will explain my thought process on choosing Affirmative cases to run at NITOC.
"What kind of argument did you lose to?" was my response. "Was it topicality, significance, or vagueness/burdens?"
"Yes," came the reply. "Topicality and vagueness."
I have watched over a hundred Team Policy debate rounds. Fairly often, a powerful affirmative team will run an airtight, unbeatable case, and negative teams grab at the only things they can argue without having to prove anything: topicality, significance, and vagueness. These arguments require no evidence, no logic, no metrics, or basis. You can simply say, "I think the aff case is vague, and they haven't answered my hyper-niche, unrelated questions, which means you, as a judge, shouldn't vote for their plan."
In prelims, these sorts of arguments are generally brushed aside by both competitor and judge. The affirmative might produce some more evidence, tell the judge about net benefits, or simply deny the accusation and claim the victory. In outrounds, however, while competitors continue to brush these arguments aside as uneducated fearmongering tactics, judges jump to join the negative team and declare that they need "more information" before they can vote affirmative.
There is a simple answer to this oddity: Judges shift from a common-sense, no-nonsense mentality in prelims to a "these are the best and brightest competitors" mentality in outrounds.
This means two things: First, those arguments are not going to work as well in prelims, and second, those arguments will generally work way better in outrounds.
In prelims, the judge allocates validity to arguments more naturally and neutrally, meaning dumb arguments are counted as dumb arguments. This eliminates the effectiveness of unsubstantiated topicality, significance, and vagueness presses. In an outround, judges typically give each argument equal validity. For some reason, the higher stakes act as a legitimizer for any arguments.
In prelims, judges are thinking more about the round itself, and when they hear a T press or vagueness argument that isn't super valid, they ignore it. Then the AFF teams minimize it effectively because everyone is already treating the argument with disdain.
In outrounds, judges hear those arguments, and because they expect the caliber of teams to be higher, they accept bad arguments as good ones and care more—essentially applying outround validity to invalid arguments. "How could a team get this far unless their arguments were really good?" is what they often think. Others are overrun by the idea of a tabula rasa judge who considers only what the teams say and begin to believe that you have to take the students at their word instead of using common sense.
This causes Affirmative losses in two ways. The first scenario: An AFF team, expecting the judge to agree with them, minimizes the argument just like they do in prelims, and the judges vote negative because they consider the argument entirely valid. The second scenario: An AFF team pushes way too hard to fight the nonsense argument (because it's an outround and they're scared, they just have a lot of content on the argument and overshare, or they chase the kill knowing the arguments are weak), and then they lose to other weaker arguments because their time is allocated poorly.
This leads to a few things you should consider when competing in outrounds.
For Affirmative Teams:
1. Run stronger cases. Always. Nothing in a round can match the time spent before the round preparing a perfect case.
2. Have answers to every question you can imagine a team might ask. Print your bill, print your studies, have credentials for all your authors. Give the judge no reason to doubt you. Ever.
3. Prepare powerful, quick responses to weak but easy-to-make arguments. This means prepare a T response, a sig response, and a vagueness response. These should be built to show the judge that you understand the negative position, you have genuinely considered these ideas before, and you have the answer. This will instill confidence in the judge, help you have clear responses even when you're nervous, and prevent you from wasting time in a 1AR ramble session.
For Negative Teams:
1. Run better arguments. Write some good briefs; do everything you can to win on a solid disadvantage. I promise it always feels better to win on strong arguments that you've prepared.
2. Don't be afraid to run a few "weaker" arguments. Your job is not to convince other debaters that the aff case is bad. Your job is to convince the judge. So if a judge could be convinced with a significance or vagueness press, you should probably run one. These arguments aren't inherently bad strategy, they're just being rewarded disproportionately by outround judge psychology. (That works in your favor)
3. Stay curious and optimistic. Even if you face a goliath of a team with the perfect aff case, believe that it has some flaw. Always believe there is a flaw, and it is your job to uncover it. Ask questions in your CX not to set up arguments but to search for them. Can they explain every part of their case? Do they have research on all their claims? Can they tell you how our allies or enemies will respond? Can they tell you the current administration's plan? What advocates? What numbers? How do they see the next administration interacting with this? Has anything like this been done before? The list goes on..
Let me know if you found this interesting or helpful. Stay tuned for how to choose an affirmative case. In the meantime, good luck and God bless.
Mark Roose
Nile Debate Head Coach
mark@niledebate.com