Archive for the ‘additional resources’ Category

Hey club!

Thanks for putting on a “value” hat during club yesterday! (Even if the story of the Little Red Hen was completely botched. 🙂 )

Just wanted to send you the link to a timeline resource that I mentioned in club yesterday.  We didn’t get very far, due to the beginning-of-the-semester stuff, but I REALLY want you to look at the timeline and ask yourself those questions we were using yesterday.  I think you’ll start seeing some interesting things that can really help you start thinking of Aff and Neg positions and rebuttals.

See the timeline here.

Also, Andrew mentioned some creative, yet informative, Middle Eastern background links.  He’s emailed them and you can watch them yourself by clicking on the links below.

One more reminder: remember to VOTE in the polls that were posted the other day!  We are going to be using the results to come up with some custom drills, so let your voice be heard. 😉

commit fallacies!

Check out this fun fallacy chart.  Recognize any that are frequently used in debate? (Not by you, of course…)

So, how can we handle this in a round?

Hello TPers!

It looks likes most of you will be getting (or giving) Lexis Nexis training this week, so I won’t be seeing you (at least in club).

For the handful of you that will not be involved in training, come to club with:

1) case ideas

  • in general
  • specifically: narrow down to one specific case/plan that you know the most about/are the most interested in.  (You don’t have to “stick” with it for the rest of your lives, so don’t stress too much about it.  Just be prepared.)

2) any research you’ve done

3) read this article and this article about UN background reform and be prepared for discussion

Thanks so much!  See you Wednesday!

This week in club, we talked about impacts– it’s importance, the big I and little i of impacts, and (to pun off the word, but to use it in a different context) how to impact your speech.

I’m going to post the big ideas that we talked about this week here, in order to be helpful.  Obviously, this isn’t everything that was discussed… but hopefully it will be serve as a point of reference.

First, why we need impact:  a round without impact = rebuttals that waste my time and make me want to pull my hair out.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t look good bald.  Oh, and they waste your time, too.  They make you want to wish that someone had called for an early ballot, if it was at all possible.

Secondly, there are 2 major ways we can impact: with a big I… and with a little i.

Impact with a big I.

  • kind of like the difference between Communism vs. communism.
  • all about connecting back to the value/mindset behind the policy.
Impact with a little i.  
(Also known as “impact calculus” for all you “I-went-to-Ethos-camp” people. 🙂 Btw, to read their article about impacts, click here.)  Here are some questions to ask to make the most impact with your arguments and evidence:
  • How many? (It’s all about quantity.  My arguments should win/their’s should lose because more people are affected.)
  • How long? (It’s all about the timeline.  My argument should win/their’s should lose because it is better for us in the long/short term–whichever is best.)
  • How permanent? (It’s all about being reversible. My argument should win/their’s should lose because it can or can’t be undone–whichever is best.)
  • How likely? (It’s all about probability.  My argument should win/their’s should lose because it win or is happening in the real world… the other team is living in a land of “what ifs” and hypotheticals.  [This was a major impact argument against which case with the Russian resolution? :)])
  • How supported? (It’s all about the link/brink strength. My argument should win/their’s should lose because my position is more solid and I can actually prove my ads and disads with more than one obscure source.)
  • How moral?  (It’s all about ethics.  My argument is better/their’s should lose because my position is moral… while the other team is ethically questionable.  Be careful of this one, though– it automatically implies that the other team is advocating something morally iffy.  Use only in the case that they are actually wanting something that is morally iffy.)
  • How severe? (It’s all about sacrifice.  My argument should win/their’s should lose because of the price of the sacrifice [life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, justice ensured, etc.].  This argument could overlap with impact with a big I.

Third, impact not just your point, but your speech.

  • Be repetitive in a good way.  Briefly repeat and/or build up your opponent’s argument before destroying it (bringing the boom).  Why?… It shows you understand and grasp their argument.  It builds your ethos.
  • Use your references.  Don’t be afraid to refer back to history or incidents that prove your point or disprove your opponents… even if you might not have a card.
  • Connect back to the real world.  Don’t make your arguments overly easy and simplistic.  Also, respond to simplistic positions with a sympathetic, but real world approach: “that would be great… but unfortunately, life/politics/crime/whatever isn’t that easy and simple.”
  • Remember your mindset.  Always connect your arguments back to your value. (The big I.)
  • Be direct with your judge—especially at the beginning and the end of your speech.  Start off with eye contact.  End with eye contact.  Conclude with the most powerful thought about your mindset, etc. instead of “thank you” and declaring your readiness for cross examination.