Argument Interaction

6/25/12

Give analysis of argument interaction after every argument on the flow. How do responses function in
the round? Explain how arguments interact at ALL points during debate.

Standards.

- impact inclusive and impact exclusive standards- the debater running the criteria can decide
whether to relate it back to the ethical theory it’s usually linked to. Resolve whether the impacts
are relevant whether or not they link to the original phrasing of the standard.

If they win their standard, they still don’t win their full impact into the framework. Refute
criteria as an additional link in a normal link chain.

The size of the link determines the size of the impact. (small link=small impact)

- prerequisite- when one thing must be accomplished before another thing can occur. (a state is a
prereq to due process rights).
1. State how much the standard should be accepted
2. Show how affirming or negating helps get to w/e you want.

If both you and your opponent claim your standard is a pre req to their’s… one of you or
both of you are wrong

autonomy w/o security but if increasing security increases autonomy, security enables
autonomy.. but it isn’t a pre req

in round pre requisite- something that must be proven true before the debate can
continue. (aff must prove that morality exists in order to make args about health care)

out of round pre requisite- actions or impacts that must happen before actions or
impacts can occur. (this cure has to be found before blah blah blah)

- If one person has a vague standard, the other has a standard that can be used to de-vague their
standard. If they leave their standard wide open, say yours clarifies their one.
- Questioning link b/w standard and value.

WARRANTS

a. In statistics the part can apply to the whole, but the whole can’t apply to the part.
b. analytics < imperics . 1. imperics show how things function in the real world. 2. Analytics can
only explain a portion of the ways of how or why people act. 3. Imperics show everything.
4. Question lack of imperics.
c. Use extentions of warrants in your cards to answer back opponents’ responses to your
cards.
 d. Don’t let your opponent indite something that you aren’t advocating.
e. Evidence comparison is very important. Why is your evidence> opponent’s. (recency, author
qualification, depth of research in the study)

IMPACTS

a. If a debater wins that they have a burden and they have an impact to that burden, then that
impact comes before all impacts in the round. If both debaters have burdens they meet,
remember framework arguments from before and show how your burden outweighs theirs or
how you’re more important.
b. An impact that’s really big doesn’t come before all others in the round… it might have more
weight but there’s no reason why it’s more important.
c. Don’t let opponents overclaim their impacts. Winning that something will happen doesn’t mean
that it will completely happen. (just cuz she wins that there will be a decrease in autonomy
doesn’t mean that autonomy is gone altogether.. it’s just down a bit). If they make huge
argument chains, each time they add to the chain, the probability of it actually happening
DECREASES.
d. Non-body count impacts vs body count impacts. Death outweighs a lot. But you can beat it with
stuff like…. Strength of link. If they drop your weak arg and you try to attack their super strong
one, say that theirs may be untrue but yours must be 100% true, cuz tehyt didn’t refute it.
Probability. If there’s a higher chance of what you say happening than there is of like 38234
people dying, you win. Active vs passive harm: passive harms are less severe or less permissible
than active harms. (if people die cuz govt didn’t save them OR if the govt is actively oppressing
people, then the 2nd is worse cuz the govt is actively harming people)
e. Floating away analysis: if your opponent’s standard is death but their standard is autonomy..
there’s no link so the death impact doesn’t matter.

UNUSUAL POSITIONS AND THEORY

a. If a debater runs a dis ad or a plan, ask if they’re willing to accept links to other instances of this
situation.
b. If a debater runs a counterplan, question the status of the CP and how it’s competitive with the
aff.
c. These issues have to be clarified. Clarify whether impacts of one thing matter to something
specific or to everything.
d. Make kritik links as specific as possible.

DECISION CALCULUS

a. Give summary of how all arguments in the round interact and how the args benig extended
affect everything else in the round.
b. Clarify how standards interact. Is there a burden? Has it been met? Is one criterion a pre req to
another or does it enable another?
c. Isolate (in 1-2 sentences) what each debater is advocating.
d. Identify an impacts that are actual pre reqs to other impacts and identify/call opp out on false
pre req arguments. Identify any other issues in the round
e. Identify largest impact in the round and explain how you win that argument. (doesn’t have to be
your arg)
f. Explain any of your extentions can answer back your opponent’s arguments.