First Affirmative Constructive Lecture
At the Riverside Community College Co-Op Professor Kasle was nice enough to video tape a bunch of the lectures. Here is my lecture on the first affirmative constructive. Thanks to all the participants for the lively discussion!
Part 1
NFA-LD First Affirmative Constructive Lecture 1/2 from Danny Cantrell on Vimeo.
Part 2
NFA-LD First Affirmative Constructive Lecture Part 2/2 from Danny Cantrell on Vimeo.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
Honestly, with the length of cards being used (as the ones in the sta act 1ac provided) it is more then possible to read 10 cards. With the length of cards that I use for my 1ac that you saw me run in front of you included 8 cards. I believe that the cards that I read were more in depth and explanatory then some that others may read but I am willing to read a longer card with a better picture.
Even though this is supposed to be reflected as an IE when it comes to judging this is still a debate event. I do not believe that it is fair to expect poetic at the cost of winning, or are you down for performance in LD now? 
I am rollan with dolan if so!
As I reviewed the video that question and answer stood out to me as well. While I gave a number (10 cards) I would certainly agree that it’s not a hard and fast rule. It’s not like a case with fewer than 10 cards or more than 10 cards always loses – it’s just that, if I had to picture the normal number of cards in a case I would say 10. If we think of the needs style case I’d picture 2 cards for Inherency, 3 cards for harms, 3 cards for solvency, and perhaps 2 cards for an advantage. Or maybe you have two harms scenarios with 3 cards each and no advantage. Or Maybe 4 cards for solvency. I am always a fan of having lots of solvency cards and reading them until you run out of time.
Part of saying 10 cards is also in line with the idea that you need to start the debate in the 1AC. The more evidence you can fit the less you have to read in the 2nd speech since you can use the evidence you used in the first speech. So if you had 5 solvency cards and some of them answered standard negative attacks you can then reference that evidence in responding to case.
But I certainly agree with everything Michael wrote in his first comment – just that I do not necessarily see 10 cards as not allowing you to be poetic. Like mat said 10 cards is not necessarily frenetic depending on the length. In a 6 minute speech you get 360 seconds to work with. So if each card takes 30 seconds to read that leaves you with a minute to do intros, transitions, etc…
Just to be clear Michael, you are not going to award speaker points on the number of cards in the 1AC right? Just by the idea that a frenetic 1AC would lose points… That’s something I would certainly weigh as well in assigning speaker points.
Danny: It seems to me that the ONLY things we ever disagree on are matters of nomenclature. You are a 21st Century Genius; I am a 20th Century Old Pfoof. I certainly have no “card limit” in what I am looking for in a speech – constructive or rebuttal. What I am saying that I intend to award speaker points more consistently (and certainly not exclusively) with what I preceive that NFA (and you, BTW) were attempting to laud when you referred to LD as a “communication event.”
As for poetry, that certainly is in the mind of the author and the ear of the judge. In the opening Affirmative speeches I write, I think in terms of Poe, Eliot, Tennyson, Bob Dylan, John Lennon, and/or the Boss. (When I was at UCLA, McInerney & Hornstein wrote an entire 10-minute 1AC – excluding the evidence – in Dr. Seuess.) Today others may be thinking in terms of Alternative or Rap or Technopop or Acid Jazz. It’s all good by me.
I just don’t want NFA-LD to be what almost all of the other HS and College debate formats have become, and I quote a current coach and dear friend to define this: “Michael, You’ve got to understand that debate isn’t concerned with public speaking skills anymore.”
I think logic, evidence, and oratory are not mutually exclusive but necessarily symbiotic.
IMHO, great evidence plus great rhetoric = great debate.
Depending upon your case, I can see 6-10 being a number. It obviously depends upon things like they type(s) of Inherency you have, the types(s) of harms, and the type(s) of solvency. It depends upon how long and involved your plan is and all that other stuff. But I’m old school and think you should have an Introduction, even if 2-3 sentences long, go into the Inherency (or Harm), then the other one, then the Plan, then the Solvency. There should be transitions (or rhetoric) in between each stock issue, and hopefully some kind of transition-like statement between cards that are within the same stock issue. It should be a narrative of sorts, evidence held together with rhetoric.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
With the greatest of respect and deference to Danny (for whom my admiration has no limits) , I have to assert my belief that 10 cards in a 6 minute Affirmative opening constructive is too many. I also wish to assert my firm belief that the only difference in overall style of an opening Affirmative constructive and a persuasive speech (under NFA rules) should be (“should” – “ought to, not necessarily will”) that the opening Affirmative speech has a SLIGHTLY more clearly defined substructure which addresses the Afffirmative’s prima facie burdens.
Hence, IF there is to be unequal time granted to the Affirmative in LD Debate, (which I don’t think there should be) it should be added to the Affirmative’s opening speech, NOT to the Affirmative’s first rebuttal.
The principle function of the opening Affirmative speech of any debate –
but especially NFA-LD Debate – should be inspiration, not perspiration. When a debate – any debate – opens with a ferocious flurry of hyperventilated sentence fragments, the tone is set.
My ideal (and perhaps mine alone – if so, so be it) is that the opening Affirmative constructive should be poetic, perhap prophetic, but NEVER frenetic (and I intend hereafter to award speaker points to reflect this view).