Archive for the 'Coaches' Category

Sign up for the Coquille HS Cross-X tournament here!

Join us for our free tournament at Coquille High School to get some practice in CX debate! Join us January 7th from 9:30 am to 6 pm. We’ll be providing lunch and three rounds of competition, plus finals and cool awards for teams and top speakers.

Anyone who would like to give debate a try is welcome to attend, even if you haven’t been to one of our workshops. A free evidence set will be available here for download on December 23rd.

Teams: Please send an email to odef.directors@gmail.com with your team info. Send us a list of entries with your school and first and last names. If you are interested in using your own researched evidence at the tournament, please let us know so we can prepare accordingly. Entries are due by January 4th, 2011.

Judges: Anyone interested in judging novice to intermediate CX debate please send your name and availability to odef.directors@gmail.com.

Continue reading ‘Sign up for the Coquille HS Cross-X tournament here!’

How to research a disadvantage: Part four – Impact

In preparation for our January tournament, here’s a brief post a series of four posts on the basics of researching and debating a disadvantage.

Part one: Intro to disadvantages

Part two: Uniqueness research

Part three: Link research

Part four: Impact research

Finally, impacts.

Now that we’ve proven that we’re driving along a cliff now, and the affirmative will swerve us off that cliff, we have to do the part that seems most unnecessary: why is driving off a cliff bad?

Seriously, though, impact research can be really tough. Not only are you trying to find evidence to support arguments that are (sometimes) totally intuitive, you also want them to quantify how bad the problem is. How fast will we drive off the cliff, how deep is the chasm, and what else will be affected by the crash?

There’s a few ways to research impacts, and you should probably use a mixture of all of them. Key steps:

Continue reading ‘How to research a disadvantage: Part four – Impact’

How to research a disadvantage: Part three – Link

In preparation for our January tournament, here’s a brief post a series of four posts on the basics of researching and debating a disadvantage.

Part one: Intro to disadvantages

Part two: Uniqueness research

Part three: Link research

Part four: Impact research

Second, Links.

I think links are the easiest thing to research on a disadvantage. You usually know just what you’re looking for, and the evidence doesn’t change all that often. That being said, you have to know what you’re looking for and what your disadvantage needs.

To be a really good disad, you want link evidence to every possible affirmative. Given that this isn’t possible, you usually want to research a couple specific links and one good general one. For our example, I’ll try to find specific evidence against 1) ballistic missile defense, 2) solar power satellites, and 3) a general link.

Continue reading ‘How to research a disadvantage: Part three – Link’

How to research a disadvantage: Part two – Uniqueness

In preparation for our January tournament, here’s a brief post a series of four posts on the basics of researching and debating a disadvantage.

Part one: Intro to disadvantages

Part two: Uniqueness research

Part three: Link research

Part four: Impact research

First, uniqueness:

For a spending disadvantage, we’ll need to find an argument that the government is controlled in its spending now. Not easily done, if you’ve been reading the news lately. Good uniqueness research takes a bit of craftmanship and lots of searching for the right words.

Google is an indispensable research tool, but you have to learn to use it right. If we just google “spending uniqueness” or “spending is low” you will come up with no relevant hits. For uniqueness, I usually like to start by looking on Google News. Click on “News” on the top bar of Google.com and you’ll be able to search recent articles from all over the world. Beware of non-reputable news sources; Google news also usually displays articles from blogs and regional newspapers that might be of no help to you.

Continue reading ‘How to research a disadvantage: Part two – Uniqueness’

How to research a disadvantage – Part one: intro to DAs

In preparation for our January tournament, here’s a brief post a series of four posts on the basics of researching and debating a disadvantage.

Part one: Intro to disadvantages

Part two: Uniqueness research

Part three: Link research

Part four: Impact research

Intro to disadvantages:

Disadvantages (or disads, or DAs) are a negative’s bread and butter. They are the most common type of negative argument, and before you get too far into your debate career, you probably ought to have a couple in your arsenal that you know backward and forward, almost like your affirmative.

Today we are going to discuss a specific brand of disadvantage: a generic disadvantage. These types of disadvantages, as the name implies, have a wide applicability, in order to cut down on the uncertainty of the affirmative’s plan. More specific disadvantages are often preferable, but it’s best to learn from a general standpoint to get the basics down. Today, we’ll be discussing these issues from an example called a “Spending Disadvantage” the general thesis of which is that the affirmative plan spends so much money that it will tank the economy.

Continue reading ‘How to research a disadvantage – Part one: intro to DAs’

How to research an affirmative case

Researching your own aff is an incredibly fun part of debate, but if you don’t know what to look for, it can also be very time consuming and difficult. With ODEF’s easy guide to researching an affirmative case, you can limit your frustration and maximize your time spent creating winning arguments!

First, find out what topical cases interest you!

Limit your possible topics to a list of things that interest you. They can be from your own imagination, from articles you’ve read, or things you’ve learned about in class. You want to make sure

1) they’re defensible- think about what your opponents would say. Does your idea fit under the topic? Is it totally unfeasible in the near future? Does it cause problems that you don’t want to have to argue about?

2) it’s interesting and has lots of literature about it. If you get bored reading one article about your case, that’s not a good sign. If you can only find one crazy ranting blog post that supports your idea, also not a feasible topic.

Continue reading ‘How to research an affirmative case’