Embedded Files
What is Round Vision?
What is Round Vision?
In a nutshell Round Vision is playing the debate out in your head. This allows you to predict and preempt the arguments of the other side as well as make your own speech stronger by understanding what the big picture of the debate looks like.
Check out this video about round vision by Nick Ostheimer!
Before the Debate:
Before the Debate:
Analyze.
Think about what argument(s) makes the most sense/are the most likely to be made by either side. The best way to approach this is to think about the thesis of each side.
It's important to remember that not every single argument will fall directly under this umbrella but nailing out what you think the main idea/impact of the other side is will at least give you the room to conclude what the most basic (early cycles) debate will look like.
Talk it out. (Also Step 1A)
Once you’ve done the basic level analysis and thought about what side/argument you’d like to be on/make, the best thing to do is talk the debate out and see what you can improve on. Talking to teammates/friends to break down the debate will help you see where the holes are in your own analysis as well as help identify what you should be spending your time on in your speech.
Mock!
Even if you do not have a whole mock round, giving the speech to coaches/teammates and having them question you will help you simulate the feeling of being questioned in round, as well as expose you to ideas people on the other side may have.
The third argument under both sides are examples of arguments that can be made that might not be directly under this thesis.
During the Debate:
During the Debate:
Listen to Questioning.
Most questioners, ESPECIALLY, to the sponsorship and first negation will show their hand and expose their arguments. Hearing these can help you pre-write some refutation blocks and gain an understanding for the thesis of the other side and what you should be prepared to defend on your side.
Check out another great video on round adaptation by Jomi Epoyun!
Note: The best way to be prepared for the round and what you might need to add or subtract rom your speech is by pre-empting arguments and being prepared - that comes from the aforementioned round vision tips.
Round Integration
Round Integration
The speech you would give as a sponsor should not be the same as a speech four cycles into a debate, which should not be the same as a speech at the very end of the round. As every speaker goes by, you need to adapt how your speech is structured, worded, and integrated.
You constantly need to add refutations, evaluating the round and making greater adaptations. As the debate progresses into something more late-round, you should work to crystalize and provide comparatives.
Congressional Debate, in the mind of a judge, can be divided into three categories. Those being content, delivery, and round integration. This resource seeks to provide the tools necessary to be successful in the third of those groups.
How to Change YOUR Speech as The Round Progresses
How to Change YOUR Speech as The Round Progresses
Break down the round based on YOUR framework.
By the last couple cycles, the judges have heard a lot of different perspectives on the debate. Offer clarity, by giving them a brief explanation and overview of the round thus far. This will allow you to explain why the arguments you are making are/should be the most important in the judges book. (A great mechanism to frame is by finding a key question of the round)
Prioritize refutations that are well integrated into the offense of your speech.
You should always add refutation to your own offense, never be purely defensive. You should take your argument and use it to defend the principles of your side as well as attack the principles of the other side. Use your CONSTRUCTIVE arguments to respond to their general thesis, after this you can use additional time to line-by-line.
Defend and Attack as a general principle, do not attack unimportant arguments.
Prioritize the best speakers/most substance and the most determinative arguments (1A/1N). Refute the highest magnitude and probability impacts. Respond to the responses/refutation of the other side too.
Fill in the gaps.
Spend your time refuting but also identifying what your side is missing and fill in those gaps. Generally, you want to defend what your side has not or what they have conceded. (Ex; solvency, funding mechanism)
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse