This article is part of our series on challenges small clubs face in policy debate. Check out the previous post here:

Why Small Clubs Struggle with Policy Debate

In the last article, we discussed why debaters in small clubs have a competitive disadvantage in policy debate. Now, we’ll talk about how it can be turned into a strength. First, a key observation.

Evidence by itself is inert.

It is not an argument, and it has no power until it is attached to one. But many debaters grossly overvalue evidence.

Picture this.

We’re two minutes into the 1AC. The negative team has figured out what the case is. They pull out the 22-page brief that a clubmate submitted to the evidence pool last week. Neither debater has read the brief, but they have scanned it, and the brief has handy summaries in bold over each piece of evidence.

They start prepping arguments. They jot notes, attach post-its, whisper to each other, and sometimes, listen to what the 1A is saying. There is a lot of evidence here, and the team is determined to run as much of it as possible. 

Cross-ex rolls around.

The questions are softballs, since the 2N was too busy going through the brief to prepare strong routines. Two of the questions he asks were already answered in the 1AC, which he would have known if he had been listening.

The 1NC is full of confidence and numbers and impressive credentials. The judge doesn’t understand some of the arguments because the 1N spends so much time reading technical jargon and so little time explaining. 

The 2AC is easy and efficient.

The 2A points out that one of the main 1N arguments doesn’t apply to their specific plan. It applied to other plans like it at the last tournament, but this affirmative adapted their case to patch that weakness. The negative would have caught that if they weren’t letting the brief decide what to run.

The 2NC contains another flurry of evidence. Unfortunately, a few of the arguments conflict with 1N arguments. The brief they’re using is exhaustive: it contains everything their clubmate could find that might be useful, regardless of how the arguments they support might fit together. Instead of a coherent strategy, the negative is presenting a chaotic, self-refuting jumble.

The affirmative easily wins against the well-researched team.

Then they hit Trish’s students. This is a team from a small club, who has never even heard of this case. They know something that they’ll use to outperform the big club debaters from the previous round.

In the next article, we’ll share what that is.