Scribd
Upload
29 views

How To Beat 1D Debaters

1) A 4D approach is preferable to focusing on just one debate dimension since it can exploit weaknesses in opponents, judge adaptation issues, and leverage interactions across dimensions. 2) To beat 1D debaters, analyze their dimension both "on their own layer" and using other layers. For philosophy debaters, layer the framework and read turns on the argument, while also using theory and counterplans. For theory debaters, be reasonable but layer with drops and new theory, and run a stock affirmative. 3) For critical debaters, permute the alternative extensively and make "you bite" arguments, while also using theory turns, argument preclusion, and emphasizing the case outweighs.

Uploaded by

Shrey Desai
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
29 views

How To Beat 1D Debaters

1) A 4D approach is preferable to focusing on just one debate dimension since it can exploit weaknesses in opponents, judge adaptation issues, and leverage interactions across dimensions. 2) To beat 1D debaters, analyze their dimension both "on their own layer" and using other layers. For philosophy debaters, layer the framework and read turns on the argument, while also using theory and counterplans. For theory debaters, be reasonable but layer with drops and new theory, and run a stock affirmative. 3) For critical debaters, permute the alternative extensively and make "you bite" arguments, while also using theory turns, argument preclusion, and emphasizing the case outweighs.

Uploaded by

Shrey Desai
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Intro

Why 4D preferable to one


a) exploit weaknesses jack of all trades. Never run the same ac
b) judge adaptation issues if only good at one thing youre screwed
c) the interaction between different layers is key.

How to beat 1D debaters
Divided into 2 sections for each category: how to do analysis on their own layer and
stuff not on the same layer
1) philosophy
On their own layer
a. layer the framework. 1) reasons why your framework links in 2) theoretical
reasons 3) reasons why false 4) reasons why premises conclude neg
They like talking about their cases too much. So general responses
preferable.
b. READ TURNS ON THE AC. OVERLOOKED. Dude analytic weighing
underneath PREEMPT THE RESPONSE. no link to fwk
c. Recontextualize the function of the fwk. Make it very difficult to turn
Using other layers
a. theory theory theory. I dont care how cool their framework is if substance is
skewed. may not run ___ framework look into the head to head on theoretically
justified frameworks. preempt the arg CX checks phil education will be their
offense but 1) only excluding 1 phil position 2) bastardized phil education if
divorced from the topic 3) topic education outweighs;.
b. Counterplans. DA + rollback style arguments. Give examples
c. Kritiks undermining assumptions of the aff/ROB claims.

2) Theory
On their own layer
a. Be reasonable difficult to win the theory claim
b. Layer with drop the arg/drop the debater, reasonability w a specific brightline.
Important to layer since you know theyll go for theory anyways
c. Tons of offense and defense. Line by line make it messy for judges. Then
overview about erring.
d. Run new theory. only aff gets RVIs. also do weighing. Have a specific
counterinterp.
e. Layer with metatheory. Metatheory + drop the arg (super behind on
substance)
Using other layers
a. stock aff. Short contention with lots of spikes to theory (that are reasonable
enough that you cant lose on theoy against them). Jessica levy strat
b. kritik changes role of the ballot.
3) Ks - Ks are like 5 NIBS on yourself: gotta win all 4 parts and beat back theory.
On their own layer
- Perm the k alt a million times. Cut generic perms like perm double bind, perm do
both contradictory ideas key. then make more specific ones. And read net benefits
to perms that are turns to the K as well.
- make you bite arguments.
Using other layers
a. theory theory turns K. fairness outweighs (explain args like fairness not
mutually exclusive w/ K education, fairness controls IL, etc.). Make interp
very specific to the K alt at question.
b. AC precludes
c. Case outweighs theory.
4) Policy focus debaters
On their layer
a. Line by line solvency + read generic turns after that. Defense on their specific
ev makes strength of link to generic turns better. Makes advantages irrelevant
b. Impact turns
c. Generic counterplans (Frontline solvency advocates theory)
Using other layers
a. generic framework neg (will say plan precludes. But preempt that a million times)
b. theory (explain examples like spec and nuanced T with preempts)
5) trick debaters
a) dont drop them. Ask before each speech what is every arg you can win on.
Cx is key.
b) straight ref aff = very strategic option because it prevents them from triggering.
Be sure to ask if I straight turn ac can you win off anything else
c) concede assumption in spike then turn the hell out of it. Like side bias. Neg
side bias. Theyre screwed.
d) Counter-tricks. They cant run theory on that since they were abusive to begin
with.
Using other layers
a) theory obviously. Must undermine ability to use all their tricks. Dont run
something theyre ready for make interp more specific.
b) Use substance. policy-making focus takes out a ton of tricks. Obviously
competitive world
c) Framework excludes tricks. You cant make it so that K excludes skep etc..
d) K changes role of ballot.
e) stock aff. Short contention with spikes

What you can do
Framework + Plan (goes from limited turn ground to no turn ground, makes it harder
for other policy-focused debaters to beat you because you have a framework)
K framework for a plan
Framework + Theory (only people who can beat you at framework are good
framework debaters, who are bad at theory)

Drills
a) watch videos and then deliver a 1NC against that.
b) Debate yourself using a different layer each speech

You might also like