Danielle M. asks:

“For NCFCA TP in my region, some of the top cases consist of very small changes to energy policy with basically no d/as. These few cases have sparked a fad of insubstantial reform cases under this year’s res. My partner and I have tried combatting them in several different ways:

1. Hammering significance/solvency:

These cases always seem to have big significance issues, and usually solvency as well. We can win these arguments, but our judges still vote aff. We get comments like: “aff proved a NET benefit” or “great arguments, but the aff plan just sounded like a good idea”.

2. Running topicality for “substantial”:

This always seems to work at first, especially when we give a full explanation as to why topicality matters. But because of how vague the word “substantial” is, the argument can get really confusing as the round goes on.

3. Running DAs anyway:

These DAs come in two forms. The first form is just running a bad argument. These are quickly shot down and can hurt our credibility. The second is running a significance point as a DA. Something like “messing with a working system”.

Which method would you suggest? Is there something else we can try? We would love to hear your opinion on this. Your advice has helped us to become much better debaters this year. Thanks guys!!” (submission has been edited for clarity)

Good question, Danielle. Let’s walk through these approaches one at a time:

Defensive Arguments

Aff: The status quo has a tiny flaw.

Neg: That’s so tiny it basically doesn’t even count.

Aff: But it’s technically more than 0. So if you vote affirmative, you do get a world that’s a scooch better than the status quo. 

This is the problem with defensive (responding to opponent’s) arguments. The absolute best they can do is neutralize the argument, making it seem as if it never existed. You cannot win with defense alone, no matter how good it is. 

Defense is still important because it lightens the load on your offensive arguments and removes weaknesses. But the best it can do is get you to 0. Offensive arguments like Disadvantages, Topicality, Counterplans, and on rare occasions Inherency or Kritiks are your path to win. 

Ironically, when you’re hitting a case that already has very weak significance, hammering it on significance can actually backfire. At the end of the round, the judge looks back on 25 total minutes of arguing over the harms. The judge saw all four speakers read evidence, and raise their voices, and perhaps even make voting issues out of them. Whatever the content of the arguments was, the judge will have a really hard time throwing out arguments that clearly meant so much to everybody. In other words, nsignificance of the plan was the most significant issue in the round.

By all means, run defensive arguments, and win them decisively. But you need something else to build your winning strategy around.

Significance Topicality

Topicality is a legitimate offensive strategy. Though it has a bad reputation in some environments, it is a critical part of the policy debate ecosystem. Because it is run poorly and rarely, many NCFCA affirmatives believe that they can get away with running cases that are obviously non-topical. Feel free to show them that they are wrong.

Your analysis of the problem with a “substantial” topicality press is spot-on. If you’re building your offense around this argument, you need to get a strong logical advantage. Just running a definition is not enough; affirmatives can present their own interpretation, or even their own definition, and the argument will wash. 

In the next article, we’ll offer some ideas on ways to make your Topicality presses more lethal.

Disadvantages

A bad argument is worse than none at all. You’re right to back away from this approach.

The final strategy, which we’ll call “SQ is Fine” DAs, has some merit. We have an article coming soon on that topic as well, showing how to make these arguments as strong as possible.

Here’s a spoiler on both articles: you can make these arguments stronger both logically and strategically by structuring them more. Slow down, add sub-points, really flesh them out. Earn your logical advantage. 

Disadvantages should always be Plan A for negative teams. They are intuitive, powerful, and fit well with most other arguments. Leave no stone unturned in search of ways to attach disastrous effects to these cases. Sometimes small changes can have dire consequences. 

Which approach is strongest? There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. It depends on the case and the people in the room. Topicality and coherent DAs are both viable, but how you run these arguments will make all the difference.

In the next few articles, we’ll show you make them as strong as possible.