Gloria Cabada, Wake Forest University

1988 - Retirement Security : Shuffleboard on the Titanic

Articles on debate theory tend to focus on particular arguments or practices, with guidelines for utilizing them in rounds. This article is somewhat different. Rather than discussing an aspect of theory, it presents a practical framework for time use both in and out of debate rounds which, if consistently followed, will greatly 1NC increase a debater's preparation by improving efficiency. Before such a framework can be developed, though, it Is essential to understand what Is meant by "prep time." Prep time is much more than just the eight or ten minutes of "non-speech" time allocated to each team in a round. Prep time can 1NClude any time from the release of the first pairing of a tournament (or from the moment you begin your van ride to the tournament) until the last debate of the weekend, and any time during the week you may spend preparing for the next competition. This article will focus on efficient time use during and between rounds, and will also provide some tips to help your preparation during the year.

There is absolutely no excuse for a debater to be doing nothing at any point during the debate, even if it's not your prep time and you're waiting for the other team to speak. This concept can serve as the foundation for the time-use framework. It is important to realize that any time during a debate when you are neither speaking nor preparing to speak is free prep time and should be used as such. Better-prepared teams usually debate better, sound better, and win more than teams that are continuously caught off-guard, waste time searching for misfiled evidence, and don't have partner communication and cooperation. In-round time-maximization strategies are slightly different for the affirmative and the negative, and will thus be discussed separately, with the affirmative framework first.

The first affirmative constructive has the advantage of being a completely prepared speech, and therefore should be pre-flowed by both affirmative debaters. It is a good idea to have enough detailed "Pre-flows to get you through the tournament, or to use reusable stickers. By using pre-flows the first affirmative speaker does not have to waste time during the debate to flow the case, and more importantly, the second affirmative speaker can spend the 1AC time organizing case evidence for the 2AC, thinking about potential disadvantages, brainstorming some last-minute topicality responses, or doing anything else which will minimize the amount of actual prep time used before the 2AC. Both partners can continue these organizational processes while the first negative speaker prepares (free prep time for the aff.). It is important that the pre-flows contain any information that may become useful in later speeches and should therefore be easily accessible: i.e., the third Myers card on solvency also proves topicality, the first card is from last week's New York Times, etc. Detailed 1AC pre-flows help later speeches sound more eloquent because they make it easy to refer to specific pieces of evidence by source and exact location in the 1AC structure.

Obviously, both partners should flow the first negative constructive, but the 2A should also be writing down responses on her/his flow whenever possible. While this may seem obvious to some, there are many debaters who do not realize how much prep time can be saved by preparing while flowing, or some may be too worried about getting every negative word flowed. Therefore, the IA should take a very careful flow of the 1NC and listen attentively to evidence in order to double-check the 2A,s flow and protect against any missed arguments due to prepping while flowing. During cross-examination, the 1A should ask to see any evidence labeled "turnarounds," links to disadvantages, counterplans, or unclear arguments. While the 2A prepares, the IA should look through these cards to make sure nothing tricky is going on: check which way the links on a disadvantage go, make sure any topicality arguments are understood by the 2A, etc. Prep time is a time for partners to communicate such Information to prevent embarrassing (and round-losing) contradictions or dropped arguments later on.

The IA should take a careful, detailed flow of the 2AC, which means that the 2A need not waste valuable prep time writing down blocked responses on her/his flow. After the 2AC, during cross-examination and 2NC prep time, the 1A should take the 2A,s flow and neatly fill in any arguments which weren't written down before the speech. (Neatness is vital -- an illegible flow is useless.) Any prep time taken by the second negative is more free prep time for the affirmative: flows can be filled in, evidence can be organized for use in rebuttals, and arguments can be discussed to determine 1AR strategy: what responses on disadvantages are particularly strong, which evidence read elsewhere may also apply to topicality, what can be done about the last three arguments on solvency which were dropped in 2AC, etc. If the 2A unknowingly made contradictory arguments and they are now discovered by the affirmative, now is the time to start thinking about a way out. Always think ahead in a debate in order to minimize unpleasant surprises.

Again, both partners should flow the 2NC and 1NR, with the 1A beginning to prepare responses and the 2A acting as the backup flow. 2NC cross-examination is free 1AR prep time, but the IA should also listen to any questions about arguments such as new links, new disadvantages, etc. The 2A should ask for any relevant evidence, like the 1A did after 1NC, to be looked at while the 1A preps. Leave some time before the 1AR to discuss these cards, if necessary, and certainly to discuss any new "twist" to be attempted, such as a disco. The 2A should take a careful flow of the 1AR in order to make sure that no crucial argument is dropped, and also to keep track of time allocation. Even if the judge or a timer is keeping time, it is important for partners to time each other and provide accurate time signals, especially in rebuttals. In addition to calling out the time, If this is acceptable to the parties involved, it may be useful to hold up signals where the speaker can easily see them (you may wish to sit in front of your partner, or place a stopwatch next to her/his flow). Try different timing systems until you find one that works for you.

After the 1AR, evidence should once again be organized to separate what has been read, which evidence applies to which arguments, etc. Not only will this allow the 2A to quickly find evidence to read in 2AR (if desired), but also filing after the round will be much easier, and it won't take as long to find a card for the judge. 2NR prep time is a good time for the 2A to go over the flow and discuss strategies for the 2AR. Try to predict which arguments the negative will extend and what Implications they will have for the 2AR. It may be useful to write little summaries on the top of the flow of each major Issue in order to organize your thoughts. These summaries can serve as the foundation of the 2AR. You may also want to circle certain 2AC responses or 1AC cards which should be extended In order to save prep time. Another technique that may help In certain rounds (especially in counterplan debates) is to draw a chart which shows how the issues Interrelate. For example, you can list the negative policy or policies and then determine how other issues (i.e. disads) are affected: counterplan X links to disad A, but doesn't get the flips like the aff, and thus the aff is a superior policy; counterplan Y does get the flips to A and captures the aff advantages, but it links to disad S, which the aff prevents, etc. While this technique may seem complicated, It can be extremely effective in providing a "holistic" perspective on the debate and could result in a very coherent 2AR. Of course, this particular technique may not be applicable to every debate, and it does take some time and requires brainstorming by both partners, but It may be helpful If begun during your free prep time before 2NR.

The 2NR should be flowed carefully by the 1A as backup, and 2AR prep time should be a continuation of whatever process was begun before 2NR. It Is essential for both partners to communicate about the choices made by the 2N in order to fully exploit any errors, cover up or outweigh any dangerous arguments, etc. The 1A should flow the 2AR to watch for dropped arguments and time allocation. Again, provide your partner with adequate time signals. It may seem tedious to some to flow the last two rebuttals (unless you're a 2A), but there are numerous advantages to doing so, besides the one discussed above. First, It Is good flowing practice, which is essential when you're first starting to debate. Second, you can use the flow to re-do your rebuttal at home by referring to 2NR choices and adapting your 1AR accordingly. Third, it provides you with a complete record of your debate for future reference. You now know how that particular team thinks on the negative, which arguments they like to extend, which arguments they may be weak on, and other information which will come in handy next time you debate them. Never throw out a flow -- it is a valuable time-maximizing resource and should be treated as such. Instead, label it (team, debaters' names, tournament, etc) and save it. More on this later.

Now for the negative framework. Even if you know what case the affirmative is running, but especially if you don't, it Is crucial for at least one of the negative debaters to take a detailed flow of the 1AC. Ideally, you will have some information about your opponents before the debate (this will be discussed later) and most of your arguments are organized and "ready to go.0 But, alas, the ideal isn't always the real, and you may have to spend part of the 1AC looking in your files for evidence and writing down responses while trying to flow. This Is fine, as long as someone is still listening and writing down what is said.

When cross-examining the 1A, the 2N should ask for the plan (and also the case, If necessary, to double-check the flow) and it should be read by both partners. This should avoid unnecessary embarrassment from running Inapplicable topicality violations, and It may help In finding links to disads. At the very least, you will know what the affirmative plan is trying to do. At some point before the end of the debate (a good time Is after 2NR), you should copy the plan on the back of your flow for future reference. This practice has several advantages.. First, there Is no confusion over plan wording when discussing this affirmative with your teammates or when planning a strategy against that case In the future. You or your coach may come up with topicality violations you hadn't thought of in the round. Second, research Is facilitated by knowing exactly what the plan intends to do. Links to disads will be easier to find. Third, during the debate itself It may help to have ready access to the plan to make sure that a tricky 2AC or 1AR isn't claiming that the plan does something which is clearly not indicated.

During 1NC prep time, both partners should cooperate when deciding what arguments to run in order to develop a coherent strategy that is understood by both. The 2N can assist by finding relevant evidence for her/his partner, pointing out any interesting CX answers (links to disads, solvency problems, etc), and looking over the case flow to determine which advantages may potentially outweigh a disad or other potential problems. The 2N can also begin organizing evidence and arguments to be used in her/his constructive. Both partners can save significant amounts of prep time if certain Standard arguments such as topicality, counterplans or disads are pre-flowed (like a 1AC).

During the 1NC, the 2N should flow what she/he doesn't have pre-flowed, and during the presentation of the pre-flowed arguments the 2N can continue organizing evidence for her/his speech. While the 1N is being cross-examined, the 2N should take her/his flow and fill in any missing arguments. This not only saves prep time for more important tasks (like discussing arguments) but is also a lot easier than digging through a pile of blocks or cards to figure out in what order you presented Your arguments. Free negative prep time is provided before the 2AC, when the evidence and blocks used in 1NC should be sorted out and discussions begun on how to utilize the negative time block.

The first negative should flow all of the 2AC rather than writing out responses for 1NR. After all, the 1N has 11 minutes of free prep time (2NC and CX), and if the 2N will be extending some arguments presented in 1NC (as is becoming more Popular) then the 1N must take a careful back-up flow to compensate for the 2N's prepping during 2AC. As a flexible rule of thumb, the negative should have at least half of the allotted prep time saved for 2NR, and so efficient time use Is essential during the round. The 1N should ask for any potentially dangerous cards during CX: turns, add-ons, etc. These should be examined by the 1N as the 2N preps in order to avoid contradictions or mishandling of an argument. Again, both partners must communicate at the outset of 2NC prep time In order to decide who will be extending what in the time block. Also, any new Issues should be carefully examined to prevent the Introduction of deadly contradictory arguments In the time block. Decisions on which arguments to drop from the round should also begin now, again with careful consultation, to ensure that arguments are jettisoned In such a manner as to prevent them from coming back to haunt you in 1AR/2AR.

Free 1NR prep time begins with the 2NC and ends with the end of CX. Given these 11 minutes to prepare a four-minute speech, there is no reason to use any allotted prep time before the 1NR. The only exception Is using a few seconds to consult with the 2N if there Is some question of a potential contradiction, or if the 2N failed to address all the necessary issues in 2NC and needs the 1NR to cover some arguments. Under such circumstances it is far preferable to use some prep time to clarify the situation than to speak immediately and possibly jeopardize the team's chances of winning. Sometimes the 1N may finish preparing her/his rebuttal with several minutes left over. If this happens, the extra time can be spent listening to the 2NC as a check, looking over the flow to make sure there are no holes waiting to be exploited by the 1AR, or even practicing the 1NR. But this Is NOT the time to play tic-tac-toe or write a letter. The best and most successful debaters are those who use all the time in a round to their advantage and are constantly thinking ahead in the debate.

The 2N must carefully flow the entire 1NR, especially if part of the 2AC was not flowed in order to write out responses for the 2NC. If this happened, chances are that certain 1NR arguments may not be easy to follow, and thus a good flow is crucial to understanding these arguments with the help of the 1N after the rebuttal. A successful 2NR begins with a good flow of 1NR.

The 2N'S free prep time is provided by the affirmative's preparation for the 1AR. Unfortunately for the 2N, her/his flow cannot be filled in by the 1N, who has been busily prepping for her/his rebuttal rather than flowing. Therefore, now is the time to quickly go through the flow and fill in any blanks using the evidence read in 2NC, which hopefully has survived In a neat stack up to this point. Decisions about which arguments to extend and which to drop should be made in consultation with the 1N, and several strategies should be discussed by predicting what different strategies may be taken by the 1AR. Now is the time to begin deciding which arguments are being won by the negative, which can be dropped at no cost, and which must not be lost to win the debate. Potential 1AR discos, hidden turns, or other weapons should be discussed so that they don't come by surprise when the 2N has less time to develop a position against them.

The 1N should flow the JAR as a backup for the 2N, who should be preparing responses while flowing. The 1NIs flow is also Important as a means to check the 2NR against dropping or mishandling an argument. As discussed in the affirmative framework, partners should time each other to facilitate good time allocation in rebuttals. Also, It is possible that the 2N will not have enough time to prepare every issue needed for the 2NR. The 1N can help out by writing out responses on her/his own flow for whichever argument the 2N needs help and thus the 2N can use that flow for that part of the speech. If done intelligibly and efficiently, this technique can double a 2N's prep time, s1NCe both partners are preparing the 2NR. It is essential to allocate some 2NR prep time to discussion. The amount will vary according to the round, but it may sometimes be necessary to use a minute or maybe even more in deciding what strategy to use In the 2NR. This may be the speech for which cooperation is most important, because not only must winning issues be chosen, but options for the 2AR must be closed. The 1N should flow the 2NR as a check, and both partners should flow the 2AR for the same reasons that both should flow the entire debate when affirmative.

Additionally, it may be entertaining to flow the 2AR in order to trace her/his arguments back to constructives and observe the evolution of issues (or the birth of new arguments). Again, saving and labeling negative flows and plans can greatly maximize preparation time by providing you with a copy of a case to research, write specific arguments against, and prepare against traps and tricks which may have caused a loss. Besides this set of in-round time-maximizing frameworks, there are also several practices that can provide you with more preparation time at tournaments. First of all, when pairings are released for a round, get one as soon as possible and immediately either find your coach or head to your round (whichever Is your squad policy). The point is that you should start developing a strategy and preparing for the debate as soon as possible, rather than wandering around, wasting valuable time, and frustrating your partner and coach who are searching for you [Ted Tyson take note]. Now we come to the practical reason why you should save your flows. If you or anyone on your squad has debated your opponents, you can look at the flow of the earlier debate and begin preparing against their positions. For example, If you're affirmative and you find out that your opponents run a tricky topicality violation which you've never heard before, you can begin brainstorming responses against It before the debate even begins. Or, if you're negative, you can look through your files to find which disads link and which don't, thus preventing you from looking silly for running Inapplicable arguments and also saving you speech time for running only good, relevant positions.

If you don't have a flow of your opponents, you can look at earlier pairings (provided it's at least the third round of the tournament) and find and ask either the team that debated them on the relevant side or the judge of that debate. They may be willing to tell you about the basic arguments made by your opponents. Of course, in order to do this, you need to save all your pairings from the tournament so you can refer to them. This form of scouting" does not provide an unfair advantage to certain squads, because everyone can and should save their flows to learn from them. Debate is, after all, and educational activity, and one should learn from previous mistakes or the mistakes of others. Spontaneity and thinking on one's feet* are not destroyed by scouting, s1NCe no two rounds ever get debated the same way, and quick thinking shifts towards more knowledgeable and informed argumentation (hopefully). Scouting, when properly used, does not turn debaters (at least not smart and successful ones) Into brief-reading Ispewtrons' 1NCapable of independent thought. Such a team will be beaten by an equally well-prepared (through scouting) team that uses its preparation in a creative, intelligent and flexible manner rather than being bound to blocks as an alternative to thinking and working in a round. A debate in which the negative has some knowledge about the affirmative case and has developed a well-thought-out strategy against it, and the affirmative has a good understanding of the negative positions, will be a far superior debate to one in which both sides are knowledgeable about their own arguments only. A well-prepared debate is educational for all involved (even the judge), and depth of argumentation can occur (rather than the frantic unprepared negative "strategy" of running every possible argument to see what gets dropped). If one views debate as an intellectual activity with the goals of teaching research skills, argument development, quick thinking, and informed discussions, then saving one's flows as preparation tools or scouting at a tournament can enhance the educational value of the activity.

Case flows and information obtained from colleagues can be used to create a "team list" of arguments. A team list consists of the names of teams (1NCluding debaters' names) with a brief case outline of their affirmative, a description of their negative positions, and possibly even a brief outline of your strategy against that team. By taking this list to tournaments one can have quick access to information about one's opponents and thus save valuable prep time. Add to your team list as the season progresses, updating the Information and developing new strategies which may prove more successful.

After each round it is Imperative that you refile all your material. Clumping It together in the back of your files to refile later, or waiting until the next pairing is released to clean up, Is a tremendous waste of time. By cleaning up immediately and together after a round, you minimize the chances that evidence will be misfiled (leading to wasted prep time frantically looking for it before a speech), it becomes easier to find evidence for the judge, and if you are changing rooms you can move your evidence as soon as the pairing is released. Even if you think you won't be debating on that same side in the next round, or it's the last round of the day, don't leave your filing for later when you can do it now without losing any of It.

One good way to protect against losing to the same argument twice is to look over your flow immediately after a debate and discuss with your partner any arguments which could have been argued better or on which you were completely unprepared. Then, sit and brainstorm some responses and put together a little block against that argument for future reference. This is especially useful on the affirmative against topicality. You can save minutes of future 2AC prep time if you write down your best arguments against a violation the first time you hear it and then save the block. Then, when you are in another debate and the same violation is run, you can add any new responses that come to mind this time around, and have an even better-prepared 2AC.

One way to improve your research and 1NCrease your future preparation in future debates is to ask your opponents for the cites on particular arguments. By doing so, you can read their affirmative sources, for example, and gain a deeper understanding of their case (while perhaps finding some disad links), or improve your impacts to your disads, etc. This is far preferable to trading or copying evidence s1NCe you don't take the risk of acquiring *shady" evidence or miscopying, while you also get to read the original and maybe even find better cards. By the same token, You should be willing to provide cites to others. After all, it is an educational activity, and you can't prevent others from finding those cites in an index.

Once the judge has decided your debate, if you believe it is appropriate it is usually quite helpful to tactfully ask if the judge would be willing to discuss the debate. While some high school judges will not disclose their decision, most are willing to provide a constructive critique of the issues, or give advice on what to argue differently. blot only do you learn how to improve your debating by talking with the judge, but you can also gain some insight as to how that judge thinks in evaluating arguments, what preferences she/he may have on delivery styles, etc. Don't be afraid to take notes on particularly helpful suggestions. Next time that judge judges you, you will hopefully use your knowledge about her/his preferences and any useful advice to produce a superior debate.

Finally, if you are at a tournament with elimination rounds in which you are not participating, watch and flow as many debates as you can. Take a good flow, even of the plan, and analyze the issues during prep time. Pretend you had to give the next speech. How would you extend topicality, or should you extend it at all? What tension do you see between the various turns to the disads? Where should you start the 2NR? Then compare your strategy to the actual debate and evaluate it. If you can stay to hear the decision and the judges' explanations, do so and think about them. Do you agree or disagree? How would I have voted? These little exercises will improve your ability to analyze arguments and will hopefully be useful in preparing for your debates.

Remember: "This is your prep time: your opponents are using it, and you'll never have more."

Ross Smith, 1987