Embedded Files
Subscribe to our free biweekly newsletter!
Introduction
Introduction
Every debate can be weighed on a scale, wherein each argument and impact presented by either side shifts that weight towards the Affirmation or Negation depending on the speech. Larger impacts weigh more heavily, and a higher quantity of impacts further tips towards your side.
To win a debate, your singular goal on the flow is to shift that scale as much as possible. This can be done by adding to your side (constructive arguments), making your side bigger (extensions), making the other side smaller (mitigating), or removing them entirely (refuting). In an ideal world, you’d present infinitely many impacts each infinitely large in size and scale, while simultaneously refuting every argument presented by the opposing side. But problematically, you only have three minutes to do it, and thus there is a limit to how much a singular debater can achieve in their speech.
Strategic argumentation maximizes that limit.
For a quick introduction, check out Nick's lecture on strategic argumentation
What is strategic argumentation?
What is strategic argumentation?
At its core, strategic argumentation is taking the arguments presented throughout the round and making the best possible speech out of that scenario. Whether it’s grouping arguments together, refuting them with offense, turning them to your side, or reducing the scope of the debate, strategic argumentation is how you win the flow side of congressional debate. As an added benefit, strategic argumentation allows you to do more work on the flow with less complexity, making it more comprehensible for judges (on top of the noted efficiency).
As a quick caveat, strategic argumentation should differ depending on the round presented at any given time. During the beginning few cycles of a debate, there are likely not enough arguments to effectively argue them strategically. At the end, there may be so many that these techniques are better replaced with a crystallization or overview speech if possible. Thus, strategic argumentation is best utilized during the mid-round of a debate, and may be pushed sooner if the bill is commonly debated (e.g. minimum wage, carbon tax).
Conceptually Quantifying Arguments
Conceptually Quantifying Arguments
Obviously, not all arguments are created equal. Whether it's the number of people it impacts, the depth at which it impacts them, or the actual believability of the argument, arguments and impacts vary drastically from speech to speech.
In terms of the adjustment to the flow, much of that is entirely dependent on the progression of the debate. However, the quantification of arguments in this regard is solely relevant towards the scale the debate is weighed on, and thus strategic argumentation is not a factor.
This quantification of arguments is done through three specific variables: scope, magnitude, and probability.
Scope being the number of people it impacts.
Magnitude being how deep said impact is (unemployment v. death, for example).
Probability being its believability in the eyes of the judges. An argument’s size or importance is the multiple of those three factors.
Undeniably, there are some problems with this model. First of which is that it’s not perfect, nor is any other model, but the imperfection must be recognized. Most notable of the flaws is the lacking ability to quantify many factors. Every source in your research should contain at least one of those factors, simply saying that “this policy would affect 1 million Americans,” or “it would increase unemployment drastically.”
Wherever possible, your sources should address two of those factors, saying “500,000 Americans would become unemployed as a result of passing” or “1.7 Million Americans would be lifted out of poverty.”
However, getting the trifecta is rare if not borderline impossible. The most difficult of which is the probability, as it is extremely difficult to quantify a percent chance that something will happen. Instead, this factor relies heavily on your ability to explain the argument itself, as probability is not something that a source provides but rather what you prove throughout your speech. The better the argument is explained, the more likely a judge will believe you and the higher the probability of said argument.
In an excessively idealistic world where all factors are quantified to perfection, here’s what two impacts might look like on the scale of the debate.
IMPACT 1: There’s a 75% chance that 1 million people will lose $1
IMPACT 2: There’s a 50% chance 1000 people will die
In this scenario, the second impact is clearly bigger because of the immense scale of death as an impact. Simply, death is a larger magnitude of an impact than losing $1, such that the other factors lose weight and that impact outweighs.
Even though the first impact has a higher probability and a much larger scope, the drastic change in magnitude is enough to shift the scale towards that impact.
The importance of this conceptual quantification and weighing comes not in the constructive arguments you add to the debate, but the understanding of how the debate has progressed. Strategic argumentation is all about addressing the biggest argument by your opponent in one of many ways, and conceptually weighing arguments provides a straightforward path towards determining which argument that is.
Fully Modeling the Debate
Fully Modeling the Debate
Impacts are not the only thing present in the debate model necessitated to argue strategically. In order to achieve every impact, there are a number of steps that need to be taken before getting there. These warrants, or links, are an important part of the modeling process to understand the best course of action.
For example, a negation speaker may link a bill increasing the minimum wage to lost profits for businesses. From there, that is linked to businesses laying off workers, causing an unemployment impact. Every argument can be based around this basic linking model.
To explain, many negation arguments on a $15 minimum wage bill may be based on the idea that businesses lose money. From there, it’s up to the speaker to determine where they want to go, whether it’s increasing automation, businesses closing, cutting healthcare benefits, or increased prices. For the affirmation, it may be based on the idea that wages increase, leading to reduced poverty, increased productivity, money to spend on healthcare, and more.
The most important benefit of this model is finding the root link of all or most arguments on a single side. During a short, three minute speech, it may be difficult to refute the points of reduced healthcare benefits, increased inflation, unemployment rates, and small business closures individually. However, each of those arguments relies on a basic assumption that businesses lose money. Instead of refuting the points individually, refute the reason why all of the arguments occur collectively and all of the impacts will fall flat.
This form of strategic argumentation is known as grouping, where you take multiple arguments and group them together under a common link and refute that link rather than the arguments individually. It takes a lot of time to refute a single argument effectively, but with grouping, you can spend that same time refuting the reason why multiple arguments are true.
If you want to see a full explanation of this and more late round refutation check out this youtube video!
Types of Strategic Argumentation
Types of Strategic Argumentation
Offensive Response
Beyond grouping, there are other forms of strategic argumentation. The first of which is called “offensive response.” It’s put here because it’s most effective when used in conjunction with grouping, such that both can be achieved through the same argumentation.
For example, you can prove that businesses gain money under a $15 minimum wage, instead of only proving that they don’t lose money. This has two implications. First, it successfully refutes the original argument in the same way that refutation through grouping would normally achieve. But additionally, you can take those impacts and make them benefits for your side. If businesses gain money, that means they can provide better healthcare, hire more workers, and stay open for longer.
As another example of an offensive response, many debates about nuclear energy focus around the safety of the technology as a primary concern by the negation. An offensive response by the affirmation could look something along the lines of “investment in research improves nuclear technology making it less dangerous and safer.”
The Turn
The next form of strategic argumentation is the turn. This is where you accept the links of the opposing side’s arguments, but prove how the impact is good. For example, much of the debate in the Senate Finals of NSDA 2022 revolved around the idea that polarization increases, which is bad. Arguing strategically, Sen. Atharv Kulkarni gave the argument that polarization is a good thing because it increases voter turnout. It’s a difficult argument to make, and a lot of contextualization is needed to prove how any opposing impacts don’t occur, however it can be highly effective if executed properly.
As a more common example, a negation speaker may argue that a higher minimum wage would cause companies to automate jobs away. On the affirmation, you can turn this argument, conceding that automation increases. However, you’d proceed to prove how automation is a good thing because it creates more jobs than it destroys.
Reducing the Scope
The last form of strategic argumentation is “reducing the scope.” This is where you minimize the debate into only a few key arguments and prove how your side wins on those arguments. It’s most common in crystallization speeches, but can also be a good tool in your arsenal during mid-round and late-round speeches as needed. Even if your side has arguments that benefit from links from the opposing side, it may be beneficial to refute your own side (distance yourself) in order to achieve a more beneficial outcome. If all of the affirmation relies on a singular link or warrant, it’s probably a good thing to refute that link even if it refutes some of the negation’s arguments as well (assuming that your side has at least some arguments through another link).
This form of strategic argumentation has the amplified benefit present in all other forms: that it makes it significantly easier for your judge to understand the work you're doing on the flow, because you’re simplifying the debate to a place where it becomes immensely more comprehensible.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse