10 Techniques to Improve Your 1AR
From a line-by-line standpoint, the 1AR is the most difficult speech in the round. This is largely due to the 8 minute advantage that the Neg has from the Negative block. Learning to wisely allocate your time is the most important skill necessary to give an effective 1AR.
To that end, here are Griffith Vertican’s Top 10 Techniques to Improve Your 1AR:
1) Cross-Apply: Cross-apply responses that are essentially the same. Tell the judge something like, “On my second contention, my opponent responded by saying that ‘Syria disproves,’ but cross apply the evidence I read against his application three which said that there is non-military action we can take in Syria to mitigate the conflict.”
2) Group: Group responses that are essentially the same. Say “Now against my contention three group their three responses, as I will respond to all of them by saying they are unsupported by evidence and do not refute my evidence that proves that we could have mitigated Rwandan genocide had we militarily intervened.”
*Notice that in both of the above techniques, I explain what “cross-apply” and “group” mean, which is critically important for the untrained community judge or parent. :)
3) Dismiss: Quickly dismiss weak or unsupported arguments and responses. In crazy fast college debate rounds where I had to answer 20+ responses (I know crazy), I got in the habit of asking myself “did they even give a reason to support this response/argument?” If the answer was no, then I would respond with something like: “Now their second response of ‘Russian Backlash’ is just an unsupported assertion, which is not an argument as it lacks reason and support, and since they didn’t spend time developing it I won’t either. Let’s move on…” or “The second response that Russia will invade is completely unsupported, so don’t do their work for them as they should have at least given a reason to support the argument. They didn’t do so, so let’s move on.” My partner Tim’s personal favorite was “my opponent just asserted such and such (i.e Russian Backlash) which had no reason or support, so I counter assert that Russia would embrace missile defense. Now you have just as much reason to accept our argument over our Opponent’s.” (The judge would need a basic understanding of debate or the Toulmin model for this response to work really well.)
4) Concede: The best debaters know what they can concede and still win the round. The mistake we make too often is in thinking we have to disagree with every response and argument. Ask yourself: if I grant my opponent this argument, what will it cost me? If the answer is not much, then why not just concede it and save time? Say “Now on their second response that my advocacy will make the people in Pennsylvania sad… my opponent is probably right but sadness is not a reason to reject my case.” Or “I’ll grant that there is a financial cost to military intervention, but there is a greater moral cost if we don’t intervene in times of genocide.”
Or, concede and distinguish: “On the third response that Vietnam was a huge mistake that unnecessarily cost loss of life, I agree but that does not undermine my argument that the moral obligation exist to mitigate in times of genocide as Vietnam did not become a genocide until after the U.S. pulled out. Nor does it undermine my advocacy that we could have mitigated through non-military means.” Or concede an outweigh using even if: “On their 2nd Contention that Vietnam shows intervention can backfire, even if that is true it does not change our moral obligation to stop genocide. This one example is outweighed by the examples of the Holocaust, Rwanda, Darfur and Kosovo, where history proves that not intervening not only makes the situation much worse, but it causes us to bear responsibility as we become a complicit participant to great evil by sitting back and doing nothing.”
5) Cross Ex: One way to get back some of the three minute deficit you are facing in the 1AR is to begin to refute your opponent’s 1NC and set up your responses during your CX time. The trick here is to not completely tip your hand as to what your response will be in your 1AR, but to do just enough of the leg work in your CX, so that you can spend less time on it during your 1AR. You do this by asking pointed closed-ended questions directed at specific arguments and responses the 1NC brought up. “Now on your response that civilians were killed in Kosovo, you didn’t say how many, correct? Then add, “Would it surprise you to know that over 2 million lives were saved by intervening in Kosovo?” Regardless of what they say, in your 1AR briefly point out what was stated in CX and then move on... “On their argument that civilian have been killed in Kosovo, remember what I pointed out CX, that far more have been saved.” Then in your 2AR you can develop this as a voting issue, using the 2 million lives (even better if you read evidence).
Or, “Is it fair to say that you didn’t read any evidence in your three responses to my first contention?” Then if you need the time in the 1AR, group them and say “please group these three responses, as I pointed out in CX that no evidence was read to support them, whereas I have evidence to support my contention.”
*Be careful not to overuse the “no evidence” or “grouping response,” as it could negatively effect the clash if you do so. A good rule is the weaker the response, the more likely you can use these tactics. However, if this is a really important argument and you know time will be an issue in the 1AR, then you may need to spend a bit more time developing it in CX. For example, if intervening in Darfur is a critical argument but you know you will run out of time in your 1AR, then spend more time on it in CX. Say “Under your first response to my application on Darfur you stated that there is nothing the U.S. could have done to stop the genocide, correct?” Then say, “Isn’t it true that you didn’t read any evidence in support of this response? Isn’t it also true that my evidence stated the U.S. could have 1) created a no fly zone, 2) provided tactical support to opposition forces 6 months sooner, and 3) protected refugee camps in the lower Southern region?” Regardless of what they say in response to these questions ,you’ve gotten facts out that will save you time in the 1AR.
When you get to this response in the 1AR, briefly point out that they admitted in CX that in this case they read no evidence (regardless of whether they have any or not the fact is they didn’t read it). Say “As they admitted in CX they have read no evidence, whereas I did. In addition, they further conceded that my evidence pointed out three specific actions the U.S. could have taken: no fly zone, support the opposition and protect refugees. For all these reasons, vote Affirmative.”
6) Allocation Rule: A good general rule is never spend more time on an argument than your opponent spent. Sometimes opponents purposely try to bait you into spending more time on an argument they have no intention of going for, so don’t take the bait. Decide how much time to invest in defending or attacking an argument based on how important it is (See #7 on yield).
7) Yield: Yield is your time invested versus what you get out of it. Ask yourself: how important is the argument for me to win? Do I need it to win my case? Do I need it to beat my opponent’s case? A good rule to follow is that the more important the argument is to either my case or my opponent’s, the more time I need to allocate to refute it.
8) Adapt: If I think my opponent is making an important argument, I try to watch my judge like a hawk to see how they react to it. If they shake to signify they’re not buying it, then I may be able to just quickly dismiss it and move on. However, if I see the judge nodding in approval then I know I need to hit that argument hard, as the round may be determined by it. Thus, my yield changes based on how I see my judge react.
9) Create a Budget: Putting the above 6, 7 and 8 together, divide up your time and write it out on your flow sheets. During your prep time, divide out your 4 minutes (5 mins for TP) by writing in a different color ink how much time you want to spend on the different arguments. For example, a budget may look something like this: you have just one response on contention one, so write next to it “4mins to 3:30,” on contention two: “3:30 to 3mins,” on contention three say there are a couple of responses so “3mins to 2mins,” and on my opponent’s value “2mins to 1:30,” on their contention two “1:30 to 1min,” and their contention 3 “1min to 0.” Of course, the above budget is just an example, and my time allocation depends on my yield.
*Remember that time is your cash in a debate. You can spend it any way you want, but you can only spend it once, so invest wisely.
10) Three Point Refutation: For this speech only, I would recommend that you switch from Four Point Refutation to Three Point Refutation by dropping the fourth point of impacting your argument. In other words, still 1) point out what your opponent said (and where they said it - i.e. under their second application of contention two they said...), 2) what you say, 3) give a reason or read evidence (how the argument happens), but then don’t impact it out and explain why it matters. Then, if it is an important argument, you can still explain why it matters in your 2AR.
*I would switch only at times that it is absolutely necessary, and I would still impact my best arguments if time permits. Okay, I know I said 10, but here is an 11th tip that encompasses all 10 of the above techniques.
11) Practice: It takes real practice to perfect your time allocation. The only way to add the above skills to your repertoire is if you practice each of them. So, print out this post and bust out your old flows. Try giving your 1AR at least 5 times, each time adding two more techniques until you can do all 10 efficiently.
I guarantee if you practice 5 times a day, 3 days a week from now until Nationals, your efficiency will improve.