The Emory Switch: An Introductory Guide
The Emory Switch: An Introductory Guide
“Judge in this speech I’ll just be simply going down the flow and responding to my opponent’s 1AC with some significance and solvency arguments and showing you why ultimately, at the end of the day, you should be voting for the negative team.”
Sound familiar? This overused 1NC intro isn’t just stale, it’s also indicative of a weak underlying negative strategy. In many mid-tier TP teams, the conventional 1NC just does line-by-line responses to the 1AC in the form of significance, inherency, or solvency arguments. Often thought up during prep time and often with little supporting evidence. This strategy lends itself to a somewhat frazzled first negative speech that fails to overcome the momentum of the 1AC and sets a tone of mediocrity for the rest of the round. But with the Emory Switch that all changes. In this blog post, we’ll discuss concepts like momentum, offensive versus defensive arguments, strategic division of labor, and advanced speaker roles and in-round time management.
What is the Emory Switch?
But first a bit of history. The Emory Switch is a negative strategy archetype in team policy debate that was developed in the early days of Stoa yet is still used rather conservatively. While many negative’s start off their speaking with direct refutation to the 1AC, an Emory Switch 1NC presents a negative case of its own that doesn’t directly clash with the 1AC but rather builds a case against the resolution. This encompasses arguments such as topicality, disadvantages, kritiks, and off-case solvency. In the 2NC, the speaker finally goes line by line through the 1AC and argues significance and solvency. That’s the Emory Switch in a nutshell, but how do you utilize it effectively and why is it better than what most debaters do now? I’m glad you asked.
Momentum
First, we need to understand the concept of persuasive momentum. When your opponents present their 1AC, it’s prepared, rehearsed, optimized, sometimes even memorized. It takes care to guide your judge through every basic piece of information necessary to justify an affirmative ballot. In short, it motivates and moves your judge. This puts the first negative speaker at an inherent disadvantage as they are forced to give an impromptu rebuttal to a highly refined case (assuming a traditional negative approach). At this point the round often turns into a snowball effect, the affirmative arguments keep rolling and growing in analysis, and nothing the negative does can stop them. The Emory Switch solves this problem. Rather than trying to overcome the 1AC momentum with a scantly prepared rebuttal, an Emory 1N presents an equally or more compelling case for the negative right off the bat. Not one with a plan or definitions, but one following a common theme of analyzing a post-aff world. Since the arguments contained in this 1N are more detached from the specific line-by-line of the 1AC, they can be prepared well in advance of the round. This means more preparation and thus more momentum for neg with this approach. But this momentum doesn’t just come from better preparation, the type of argumentation contained in an off-case 1NC is simply better suited for persuading your judge and setting a tone for the round than direct refutation. This brings us to the next concept we need to understand.
Offense Versus Defense
Offensive versus defensive arguments. Also known as off-case versus on-case. In short, an offensive negative argument is a reason to vote neg while a defensive argument is a reason not to vote aff. While the two may sound synonymous, one is actively gaining ground in a round while the other is purely mitigating. Offensive arguments include disadvantages, topicality, and kritiks. These are often referred to as off-case arguments because they don’t directly clash with any 1AC analysis but instead use the jist of the aff case as the premise for their argument. These arguments are potent, impactful, ideally well-planned, and well supported. Due to their persuasive nature and ability to be crafted into briefs in advance of rounds, these are the arguments the 1N should be making to combat the momentum of the 1AC. Defensive arguments include inherency, significance, solvency, and spec/vagueness presses. These are called the On-case arguments because they directly respond to analysis or evidence contained in the text of the 1AC. These arguments are important to any negative strategy because no 1AC can be left untouched and unquestioned, but they serve a fundamentally different role than offensive arguments; mitigation. These arguments are best run when they are best thought out, that’s why the Emory Switch saves them for the 2NC. This gives the negative speaker 30 minutes plus prep time to comb through every word of the 1AC and lay bare every assumption before they have to refute it. This makes the formerly airtight 1AC look as flimsy as a spaghetti noodle. This division of labor also provides each negative speaker a unique goal in the round that they can learn to use their speaking style to accomplish. For the 1N, this goal is to paint the post-aff world as the worst possible place to live in, or perhaps to show the aff has broken the rules (topicality), or expose an ethical flaw in the nature of Aff’s case (kritik). For the 2N, this goal is simply to dissect the 1AC on every level possible. A focused and consistent strategy like this will create more efficient speeches that Aff will have a harder time refuting. Now we understand the how and why, let’s discuss optimizing the Emory switch through time management.
Time Management
Time management. This isn’t referring to word economy/speaking efficiency. I’m talking about using all your non-speaking time effectively. What can you do to best use your time in-between cross-ex and speeches? We’ll examine each negative speaker separately. In the Emory Switch, the 1NC doesn’t directly clash with the contents of the 1AC which begs the question… What should they be doing during the 1AC and cross-x of the 1AC? Assuming this is a case the neg has briefed, the 1N should simply be preparing their notes, organizing their evidence, and pre-flowing the 1NC. During the 2AC, the 1N should be flowing carefully and writing down cross-x questions. During the 2NC and CX following, the 1N should be preparing and pre-flowing the 1NR, backing up arguments with second layer responses and backup evidence. The remainder of the round can be spent finding evidence for your partner as they prepare for the 2NR. You’ll notice that the only Aff speech critical for the 1N to flow following this strategy is the 2AC, this frees up large swathes of time for more thourough speech preparation. So what should the be doing? Since the 2N both cross-examines and directly clashes with the 1A, they should flow the 1A in as much detail as possible and also write down some CX questions. Then, for the remainder of the other constructives (1N, CX, 2AC, CX) the 2N should be meticulously dissecting the 1AC, scanning the evidence for conveniently uncited portions, etc. During this time they’ll pre-flow and gather evidence for all the on-case they plan to cover in the 2N. A well prepared 2N can be absolutely devastating, especially for a 1AR thats anything less than perfect. The 2N should flow the 1NR in order to see what the 1AR covers and what they don’t. Obviously, the 2NR needs to flow the 1AR very effectively. If the Emory switch has been followed well up to this point, neg shouldn’t have even needed any prep time yet. At this point, the 2NR has ample prep time to utilized to craft the best closing speech possible. Honing in on the winning offensive arguments and capitalizing on the 1ARs weaker responses to the 2NC.
There you have it, a basic comprehensive guide to using the emory switch. The benefits covered in this post are just scratching the service of this strategy’s full potential. For example, an offensive focused 1N also puts the 2AC in less familiar territory, their case reaffirming studies are rarely applicable to an external disadvantage, they have to think on their feet about arguments they may have never even heard. Hopefully after practicing with this method for a while, you can begin to craft your briefs and negative strategies accordingly and even start piecing in rhetoric to your briefs. The predictability the Emory Switch provides to rounds allows for even more comprehensive briefing than traditional TP.