I’m not familiar with IE judges though. Should I treat them the way I would treat a lay judge? When I say that I mean I talk slow, persuasively, avoid jargon and “big stick” nuke war impacts, be less evidence-centric, etc. I’m actually fairly experienced with debating in front of lays since my high school league used parents for judges almost exclusively, and I also qualified/went to the CHSSA state tournament which predominantly uses inexperienced (or in many cases, no-experience-whatsoever) judges.

For the speeches, you have the Affirmative Constructive, then the Negative Constructive, then the first Affirmative Rebuttal, then the Negative Rebuttal, and then the second Affirmative Rebuttal.

If you are planning to rework theory/procedural blocks, I’d not spend too much time on that until you get to know the judges and figure out which tournaments you’re going to. It could be the case that it is a waste of your time because the judges will not be able to empathize with your position. But on basics stuff like Topicality, of course you can work on that…but keep in mind that even that is not debated very well around here. There is a likely schedule, but it won’t be set until we meet.

As far as new impact stories, that would depend upon the judge. Though I see heg. being tied to nuke war etc., I’d view that as a separate impact not allowed in the 1NR. I guess it depends upon who is nuking whom and whose heg. is lost etc. I can see it introduced in the 2NC, but not the 1NR (if it is a separate impact). But that is just my perspective, so lucky for you I wasn’t your judge in H.S.

For LD there is only one NEG rebuttal. I would coach my student to run all impacts in the constructive, and extend in the rebuttal. But that isn’t something you are likely to hear from all judges. So, either some other judges can chime in here, or I’d basically see what happens and what you can get away with and what wins, etc. The rules in Parli are so different that it is possible that you could get away with just about anything. My debater once won by saying the CP could be permed with the plan. Now the plan was to vacate Guantanamo and give the land back to Cuba, and the CP was to invade Cuba. Of course it is possible to do both, but ideologically it makes no sense. The whole reason we gave back the land was to give Cuba their sovereignty; so going back and invading them was the opposite. My new debater ran a perm (not as a test of ME but actually saying do the perm), and the judge voted on it. So…yeah…you can win on things that make no sense at all.

For textbook approaches to LD, see sample debates on YouTube from teams like Western Kentucky, University of the Pacific, Air Force, and Truman State, to name a few. But for PSCFA LD, consider the field filled more with Parli and IE judges and competitors instead of policy. There are some, but not many.

I hope this helps put things into perspective for you. Of course I am generalizing and there are exceptions to most of what I’ve said here.

The reason I’m asking these questions is I’m trying to rewrite my theory/procedural blocks to reflect the LD format which is (obviously) different than the one I’m used to.

Oh, and can the negative rebuttal read new impact modules to argument shells that were in the neg constructive? Lets say I run a disad with a global econ collapse = nuke war impact, could I read a new impact addon in the neg rebuttal that says econ collapse kills hege + kzad 95? In high school it’s generally accepted that the 1NR (which is part of the negative block) can do this, but I’m not sure how legitimate it is in LD.

Thanks for helping me get up to speed. Transitioning to LD might be problematic for me at first but hopefully the SoCal clinic can help smooth it out a bit.

Plans and solvency are related. Plans and Topicality are related. This is nothing new to any of us. There is no way to truly separate a plan text from a DA debate. The act of the plan, as the negative will argue, will cause the DA to occur. Sometimes an effect of the plan can result in a DA. It is the Neg’s choice whether to argue T, XT, AT, PMN, Minor Repair, CP, etc. One debate coach may see the issues related in one way, another coach may see it differently. I hope we hear a variety of perspectives at the RCC camp, so the debaters know what’s out there by way of judge philosophy (all legitimate) and can adapt accordingly.

On that note, judges see the Neg. burdens related to running DAs differently. Some judges want that link card, others will accept an assertion. Some judges want the internal link card, others will accept an assertion. Some judges won’t look at the impact until the link is won, others won’t care so much about the link and only weigh the impact. Many DAs are slippery slope arguments, but the onus is on the Aff to demonstrate that the AFF plan is not significant enough to cause the DA, or that there are alt. causalities, or that the DA is non-unique, and so on. And after the AFF does make those arguments, he/she will hope/pray/whatever that the judge in the back of the room is on the same page when it comes to the Neg. burdens.

I encourage debaters to remember they are debating for judges and not for themselves. Part of the problem we all run into is failing to adapt to the audience, and in this case it could result in a losing ballot. There’s being “right” and then there’s being “effective”. You may have to sacrifice the former (in your mind) in order to achieve the latter (a win).

Again, I repeat… “Teams need to make sure the impacts are proportional to where they should be.” A $1 billion plan text will not be the end all be all of transportation infrastructure. At best it will do 1 major project and that won’t be “destructive to hegemony” as a disad, which is what i was talking about… were talking about a country with a 14 trillion dollar GDP, $1 billion dollars is a drop in the bucket. Now, a HSR case that will cost $500 billion ok, I can dig it, but there is no way you can honestly tell me that taking $1 billion dollars from “normal means” leads to WW3. Even in debate land that is a stretch.

However, if any new spending will cause WW3 means your disad is nonunique. Then, if your card is right and transit programs increase economy then (X) plan text increases the economy, too. So, link turn. I control the impact, if I save money and create new investment/economic possibilities I allow for future economic investment which is key to heg, aka I solve for part of your disad and decrease the uniqueness in the future.

Think again!

Highways key to hegemony

Cox and Love 96 (Wendell, L.A. County Transportation Commission member and chair of national committees on energy conservation and urban transit planning; Jean, editor of comprehensive public policy manual,“40 Years of the US Interstate Highway System,” http://www.publicpurpose.com/freeway1.htm#intro )//shree

One of the principal reasons for building the interstate highway system was to support national defense. When the system was approved — during one of the most instable periods of the Cold War, national security dictated development of an efficient national highway system that could move large numbers of military personnel and huge quantities of military equipment and supplies. The interstate highway system effectively performs that function, but perhaps more importantly, its availability provides the nation with a potential resource that could have been reliably called upon if greater military conflict had arisen. Throughout the Cold War (and even to today), America’s strategic advantage in effective surface transportation was unchallenged. Even today, no constituent nation of the late Soviet Union has begun to develop such a comprehensive surface transportation system. In the post-communist world, it may be tempting to underestimate the role of the interstate highway system in national defense. But the interstate highway system continues to play a critical role. The U.S. military’s Strategic Highway Corridor Network (STAHNET) relies primarily on the interstate highway network, which represents 75 percent of network mileage. The U.S. Army cited the that system as being critical to the success of the 1990-1991 “Desert Shield-Desert Storm operation (the U.S. led operation to free Kuwait from Iraq): Much of the success of the operation was due to our logistical ability to rapidly move troops to the theater. The capacity of the U.S. highway system to support the mobilization of troops and to move equipment and forces to U.S. ports of embarkation was key to successful deployment. The Army also noted the “modal redundancy” of the highway system, which provided rapid and effective movements of a military division when difficulties with a rail line precluded the planned transport by rail. This illustrates the fact that the interstate highway system continues to play an important role in national defense, even in the post-Cold War era.

Read the rest of the article–you’ll find plenty of other highways internal links to other advantage areas like disease, pollution, oil consumption, the economy, etc