Chris Burk's Answers to Your Questions

Read Chris' answers to these questions:

How do you start a debate team?

Is an affirmative case that decreases starvation in Sub-Saharan Africa topical?

How should affirmative teams respond to topicality attacks?

How can affirmative teams answer an agent counterplan?

Is there a term for the practice of distracting one's opponent by picking on a minor point of error?

What CX questions should the affirmative ask the negative?

Where can I find briefs for the UIL LD topic?

Where can I find information on how hepatitis impacts Sub-Saharan Africa?  

 QUESTION: How do you start a debate team? 

ANSWER:It definitely can be challenge to revive a debate team or start a new one. I strongly suggest that you examine the wide variety of resources available to you at the http://www.debate-central.org/ and http://www.cross-x.com/ websites. You might start with the two introductory essays provided by Debate Central on the Africa topic. You should also read some of the articles presented in the ‘research links' section of Debate Central. The ‘forums' section of both website are especially useful for contacting other debaters and communicating with them about all aspects of debate.

I also suggest that your school join the main speech & debate organizations and ask them for help in getting started. The National Forensics League (NFL) is the main national organization, and your school should definitely join immediately. Its website (http://www.nflonline.org/Main/HomePage) gives more information about the organization and how to join. The Rostrum, NFL's monthly publication, contains a ton of information regarding forensics activities, summer institutes, and much more. I also suggest that your team join the National Debate Coaches' Association (NDCA). It's a relatively new organization but it can provide some detailed information on tournaments in your area. The NDCA website is http://ndca.debateteams.net/ and it gives directions for accessing a massive amount of free files generated at summer debate institutes. It also might benefit you to join the main speech & debate organization in your state. Most are listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Forensics_League. Joining the one in your state will help you contact other teams and register for tournaments in your local area.

Some coaches and judges you encounter will definitely offer to assist you, your teammates, and your new advisor. While not every coach in your local area will have the expertise or the time to give advice on building your new team, just keep meeting new people and asking for help. If you are polite, respectful, and intellectually curious then many experienced coaches will definitely be willing to support the growth of a new program.

You can also investigate which colleges in your area support active debate teams. Some college debaters might be willing to volunteer to help a new team get started. Others might need a modest payment. Experienced college debaters might be the single best resources for a new debate team. Many successful high school teams receive significant support from former teammates who have continued debate in college and this type of assistance can be quite helpful. West Coasting Publishing has compiled basic information on most college teams into one comprehensive list. It can be found here: http://www.wcdebate.com/7others/colleges.htm

Finally, the best way to learn any form of debate is to compete at tournaments. Find a few tournaments in your area and compete in the novice division.  Don't give up!  And be sure to ask each of your judges for feedback (if this is allowed in your region). Do not leave the tournament immediately after you're done with your events; stay at the tournament so you can watch the later debate rounds in the varsity division. The esoteric terminology, the unusual speaking styles, and the reliance on prepared files of the varsity debaters will probably be rather surprising initially. But if you and your teammates devote some time and energy to learning debate then you will begin to absorb it quickly.  Debate evolves rapidly and even experienced college debaters and coaches are constantly learning about new issues. So embrace the thrill of learning something new and enjoy!

QUESTION: Would an affirmative case that decreases starvation in Sub-Saharan Africa be topical?

What if I limited U.S. cattle:

     1) Americans waste around 10% of beef.

     2) They emit gases that are killing our ozone

     3) Cut the amount of cattle one farmer can have by 5 percent

     4) Send the extra grain to sub-Saharan Africa. 

     5)This will ultimately lead to the end to starvation and other diseases caused by malnutrition.

ANSWER: There is little doubt that many people in Sub-Saharan Africa encounter episodic food shortages while other people suffer from chronic malnutrition. Lack of access to proper amount of nutritious food also undermines the general health, weakens the immune system, and therefore creates the conditions for the spread of communicable diseases. So some affirmative cases that take direct action to reduce malnutrition should be able to find arguments to prove that they address public health.

The crucial issue in many topicality debates, however, is not the nature of the harm addressed by the affirmative but the action taken by the affirmative plan. The plan should be the focus of any topicality argument.  So while malnutrition and famine might be a good area for affirmative advantages, the crucial issue must the text of the plan.

Unfortunately the plan outlined in the question (see above) is probably not topical for two main reasons. First, crucial portions of the plan involve action in the United States. Specifically the portions of the plan that affect the use and distribution of grain in the United States do not directly affect public health in sub-Saharan Africa. Consider that grain allocated to cattle in the United States could be reduced but not sent to anyone in Africa. That should be a big red flag regarding the topicality of presented plan.

Second, shipping grain (or any other type of food) to sub-Saharan Africa is closer to being topical but does not fall within most definitions of public health assistance. The term ‘public health' typically has a specific meaning and food aid is typically considered a separate category. A debater might be able to find a very broad definition of public health that does include actions designed to reduce malnutrition. However, most of those definitions would necessarily be too broad and too general. Such definitions would, in other words, be not place a good limit on the topic and therefore would generate a topic that would be too large. A topic that is too large would lead to debates that are shallow and not educational. A topic that is too large is also unfair to negative teams since they would repeatedly encounter small affirmatives for which they have no good negative arguments. This would be unfair to the negative and bad for debate as a competitive activity designed to offer an equal opportunity for both affirmative and negatives team to win debates.

QUESTION: I am looking for a template for a 2A to respond to a negative topicality attack.  Do you have something that could be used as a block or response?

ANSWER: The best answers to topicality arguments hinge on two main considerations: (a) the specifics of the topicality argument, and (b) the plan text. Generic topicality answers that neither refute the specific topicality attack nor directly relate to the plan might be able to defeat weak topicality arguments but they will almost never defeat high quality ones.

However, the affirmative team can follow a basic outline when answering topicality and fill in the details.  The first answer to any topicality argument should almost always be "we meet."  The aff team should claim that the action specified by the plan text does meet the specific violation presented by the negative. Even if the affirmative answer is a stretch, the affirmative should absolutely try to find some way that the plan really does meet the violation. Second, the affirmative should present a counter-interpretation. This counter-interpretation should include a counter-definition of a word or phrase in the resolution that the neg has mentioned. The counter-interpretation should, however, not stop there. It should continue with arguments that this interpretation would create a better overall understanding of the topic, that it is superior to the negative's interpretation. Perhaps it would be more limited. Perhaps it would be more predictable. Perhaps the counter-definition comes from a source that is superior in some way. The affirmative should prepare counter-interpretations for each word or phrase of the resolution for their own particular plan text. Third, the affirmative should always remember to argue that the plan does meet this counter-interpretation. Fourth, the affirmative should present a variety of arguments against the negative interpretation. Perhaps it would be over-limiting and only allow a handful of affirmative cases. There are many other possible arguments against the neg interpretation.

Affirmative teams should take special note of any ‘hidden' violations or additional voting issues. Some negative teams are sneaky with their topicality arguments and embedded more than one violation or more than one voting issue in what seems to be one plain topicality argument. Affirmative teams that suspect that the negative team might be doing something sneaky should ask questions in cross-examination about the exact number of violations and the exact number of voting issues presented by the negative team.

Affirmatives teams should prepare for topicality arguments in advantage and write sets of arguments for any possible topicality argument. A well-prepared affirmative team should never be completely surprised by any topicality argument. The resolution is already known and the affirmative team gets to write their own plan.  So any affirmative team can prepare some good topicality answers if they take the time to prepare.

QUESTION: How can affirmatives answer agent counterplans?

ANSWER: Soft Power is a rather generic argument that can be used by almost any affirmative on this year's topic. "Soft Power" is definitely one line of argument that can help affirmative teams when debating agent or actor counterplans. Debate-Central already has a pretty good file on this in the ‘evidence' section and it's available for free. Many other "Soft Power" files were generated at many summer camps and those files can be accessed through the file-sharing project of the National Debate Coaches Association (NDCA). Please the new NDCA for more information about that.

Soft Power argues that the affirmative's increase in public health assistance to sub-Saharan Africa would improve the global image of the United States. Currently the U.S. has a rather poor image around the world. People and governments around the world have become angry with the U.S. government because of the invasion of Iraq and other U.S. actions that seem to be unilateral, selfish, and aggressive. Foreign assistance for public health to sub-Saharan Africa would help to reserve that poor image and increase positive feelings toward the U.S. This increase in American ‘soft power' could bring many positive impacts.

More specific answers to agent or actor counterplans will depend upon the exact nature of the affirmative plan and the affirmative advantages. The aff team can make arguments that the counterplan cannot solve the advantages as well as the aff since the U.S. could provide some specific expertise or some specific type of technology that no other agent could provide. And the affirmative can also run disadvantages the agent or actor of the counterplan. Just as the negative can run a U.S politics disadvantage or a U.S. spending disadvantage against the aff since the aff team uses the U.S Federal Government as the actor, the aff can run politics or spending or other disadvantages to the counterplan agent. So if the counterplan has the Japanese government act, then the aff team could run a Japanese politics disadvantage that links to the counterplan.

QUESTION:  Is there a term for the practice of distracting, confusing or otherwise belittling one's opponent by picking on some obvious, yet minor point of error?

ANSWER: I suggest that you try "irrelevant" when confronted with such a situation.  If the error involves an issue that is relatively minor, then you could concede the point and then point out that the entire issue is relatively minor. Make arguments why the point is minor and don't dwell on it. And then shift your focus to an issue that is very important in the round and make arguments why this second issue is much more important to determining the outcome of the entire round.  Hopefully your judge will see it your way, even if your opponents continue to harp on the little mistake.

QUESTION:  What CX questions should the affirmative ask the negative?

ANSWER: Cross-examination of the 1NC should almost always begin with a few basic questions. If a counterplan or a kritik alternative has been presented by the Negative, then the first question should be to determine the status of the counterplan. Simply, the question can be "What is the status of the counterplan?"  The negative team should give a relatively direct answer. They typically will say "unconditional," or "conditional" or "dispositional." If you need more clarification beyond that, then you can ask what he/she means by that term. If a counterplan has been presented, then the aff should also be sure to ask which of the other negatives arguments are "net benefits" to the counterplan.

The aff can also ask for clarification of particular negative arguments. You might ask about the nature of each link and internal link of each disadvantage. How does this argument link to the affirmative plan?  And how does that link lead to the impact? The aff can also ask questions regarding the dates of the negative evidence, especially any brink or uniqueness arguments.

Finally, the aff should be sure to understand the negative arguments in general. Obviously it is much more difficult to generate effective answers when negatives arguments are too complex or were presented too quickly. Cross-examination is crucial for breaking down the most complex arguments or clarifying arguments of speakers who were unclear.

QUESTION: Where can I find briefs for the UIL LD topic?

ANSWER: Debate Central posts resources on each NFL and UIL LD topic.  In our Research Topics section (http://www.debate-central.org/research/) we provide links to articles that will help you gain a deeper understanding of the topic.  We post a topic background paper that discusses the major issues you are likely to debate and also post a "Card of the Week" on the LD topic.  The "Card of the Week" focuses on a specific argument and gives you suggestions on how to use it in a debate round.  All of these resources can be found in our Research Topics section (http://www.debate-central.org/research).  The Baylor Briefs also provide UIL LD resources for a fee.   

QUESTION: I am writing an affirmative case on hepatitis, but it is difficult to find information about how hepatitis impacts Sub-Saharan Africa enough to increase aid.

ANSWER: Crafting a successful affirmative case around hepatitis will be extremely difficult in most circuits for many reasons. First, the harms of hepatitis are relatively small compared to other potential impacts. The viruses which cause hepatitis are communicable but not especially lethal in the short term. A person may become infected and experience chronic liver problems but still survive for many decades. Hepatitis does affect millions of people in Sub-Saharan Africa, but other infectious diseases are definitely more harmful. The risk of the negative's disadvantage impacts could easily outweigh the harms of hepatitis in most rounds. Second, the solvency for hepatitis is limited and expensive. Many people who become infected with hepatitis demonstrate few or no obvious symptoms. Some do not even feel ill despite being infected. The testing necessary to verify hepatitis infection can be expensive. And those who test positive will face treatments that are lengthy and expensive.  Thus the entire process of detecting possible infections and treating those infections is a difficult, lengthy, and expensive process for public health programs. That's not favorable ground for affirmative teams. Third, affirmatives that focus on hepatitis are vulnerable to most agent counterplans. Other countries that provide public health assistance could provide the foreign aid necessary for hepatitis treatment.  The United States does not really have any especially advanced anti-hepatitis technology.  In other words, the counterplan would solve all or nearly all of the affirmative case. Finally, I do not know of any unexpected advantages that could be claimed by an affirmative case that focuses on hepatitis.

This question about hepatitis provides a great example of how to best begin the construction of an affirmative case. Those who wish to begin writing a new affirmative case should always ask themselves a few key questions from the very start of the process:

1. Will the harms of the case be large enough and occur quickly enough to outweigh negative disadvantages?
2. Will the solvency of the case be clear, convincing, and quick?
3. Will the affirmative have good, offensive answers to most agent counterplans such as a specific reason why only the United States can solve?
4. Will the affirmative have any special or unusual tricks to answer common disadvantages and critique arguments?

If debaters answer ‘yes' to all five of those questions soon after beginning to research a new affirmative case then that case probably can be successful in actual debate rounds. If debaters discover through early research that ‘no' is the clear answer to one or more of these questions then the case probably will not be viable.