How to Win Rounds Without Evidence
This article is part of our series on challenges small clubs face in policy debate. Check out the previous post here:
In the last article, we looked at the too-common story of a policy team that let their research turn into a liability. Now let’s suppose the same affirmative team hits Trish’s students in the next round. This team has nothing but pen and paper, wits, and one critical piece of knowledge:
Every affirmative case contains all the information you need to defeat it.
The 1AC.
Two minutes into the 1AC, both negative speakers are still listening intently. They’re keeping a detailed flow, noting possible weaknesses. They whisper occasionally to each other: a possible argument. A question worth asking.
Around the six-minute mark, the 1N says: “I’m running all DAs. The thematic core is that the affirmative makes the rich richer but hurts the average American.”
“I have something for that,” the 2N whispers back. He grabs a piece of evidence from a different brief, about a steel worker struggling to take care of his family. The evidence is in the topic area and paints a vivid picture of the status quo. It will serve as a persuasive rallying point for the negative. It is the only card they will read the entire round.
First Cross-Examination.
The 2N asks a series of carefully-worded questions, forcing the affirmative to take positions on things they didn’t want to talk about. The 2N isn’t sure how he’ll use the answers, but he knows that whatever the affirmative says will give him ammunition. Two minutes in, the affirmative starts squirming away from an answer. He thinks he’s guessed where the negative is going. He recognizes an argument from his last round. Instead of forcing him into an admission, the 2N lets him dance for the final minute. The judge is laughing and rolling her eyes. The affirmative looks insincere and scared.
The 1NC.
The 1NC has three arguments, supported by extensive analysis, common sense, and a key cross-ex admission. The judge understands every word of the speech.
The 2AC.
Instead of adapting, the 2A runs the evidence that she’s used to running. None of it matters, since the negative isn’t running any arguments that require evidence superiority. The affirmative is clearly well-prepared, but their case is coming apart and they seem to know how to fix it. They are impressive but ineffective, like someone wearing a tuxedo on an Alaskan fishing boat.
The 2NC.
The 2NC is conversational, obvious, and devastating. Each point complements the 1NC as part of a coherent overall strategy. The main argument is based on something in the 1AC which turns an advantage into a solvency point for the negative. No one has ever noticed that before. Then again, no other negative has truly been listening.
What Can be Learned?
The negative team not only wins the round, they get better marks on Evidence/Support than their opponents. They beat their opponents on the evidence battle in two key ways:
Their arguments were fully supported by evidence when needed. Since they didn’t need any, they effectively had 100% support.
They used affirmative evidence better than the affirmative did.
Even if you have a huge brief, you should know how to win without evidence. Take advantage of rounds when you’re unprepared to cultivate this skill. It’ll make you far deadlier when you have a brief because you’ll use the brief to augment your core strategy, rather than letting it railroad you and keep you from listening. Best of all, you’ll win a surprising number of rounds. The look on the faces of affirmatives who think they “deserved” to win because they ran more evidence will be priceless.
Trish, we know this isn’t the advice you were looking for. But it is the most important consideration when you’re adapting to policy debate in a small club. Remember that you never need evidence to win a round, and that evidence can easily become a liability. Even when you have evidence, you should listen and strategize at the same level as you would if you didn’t.
Next article, we’ll help you adapt to a research disadvantage.