Welcome to the MVSD Debate Subpage!
Our most recent notable posts can be found below. Navigate to our other pages with the tabs in the upper right.
- October 30th, 2019
A lot of you weren’t here for the PF meeting, so here’s what happened (please note the IMPORTANT message at the end):
We went over cross fire, and drilled like we did last week. We also went more in depth for summary and final focus.
This is now a 3 min speech. The main focus is on collapsing and crystallizing your arguments. What does this mean? You should choose your strongest arguments within the round, and mainly talk about those. Otherwise, here’s a basic structure we gave:
Go over the standard you and your opponents have decided on for the debate, or argue why the judge should use your standard to weigh the round. Introduce the voter issues, or areas of clash where you and your opponent fought on. (30 sec)
Frontlining: The rebuttal to your opponent’s rebuttal. Address everything they said to you, and argue why your arguments are stronger or outweight. (~1 min)
Explain your strongest arguments. After all this is the “summary” speech. But then start weighing your impacts versus your opponents impacts. Here are some key weighing mechanisms:
Magnitude: The severity of your impact. (Ex. The US falling back to cyber operations saves x amount of money yearly)
Scope: The range of your impact. (Ex. X affects Y amount of people)
Timeframe: How long it takes for your impact to manifest. (Ex. X will happen in Y years)
Metaweighing (Probability): How likely your impact will happen. (Ex. X has a Y percent chance of occurring)
This speech should relate to what your partner said in summary. If your partner brings up something in summary, and you drop it (don’t mention it) in FF, then the judge might not account for this. Similarly, if your partner does not mention something in summary, but you mention it in FF, then the judge might not account for that as well.
This speech should really be pushing against the opponent’s arguments, addressing why you outweigh after summary. Although at first it will seem like a reiteration of what your partner said in summary, a good final focus builds upon what has already been said, and drives it home for the judge. Focus on weighing, showing the judge why your arguments matter or impact more than your opponents, and wrap everything up!
Please have a case (or two) written out by next meeting. If you do not have a case, we will drop you from the upcoming tournaments (SCU, CFL LD / PF, etc.)
- September 25th, 2019
Here’s a brief breakdown of what each branch did in the last meeting:
JV LD: Went over case structure, as well as how to cut / format cards
V LD: Had practice debates
JV Parli: Went over what plans and framework is, as well as how to flow
V Parli: Had practice debates, and also went over counterplans
PF: Debriefed the upcoming topic Resolved: The benefits of the United States federal government’s use of offensive cyber operations outweigh the harms.
Upcoming Tournament: Stephen Stewart is this weekend, Saturday & Sunday, September 28th – 29th. More information can be found below:
Where: Milpitas High School (1285 Escuela Pkwy, Milpitas, CA 95035)
Map: Milpitas High School Map
Tabroom Link: https://www.tabroom.com/index/tourn/index.mhtml?tourn_id=13151
Please refer to the Stephen Stewart email for more logistics on judging / check-in / advisor contact info.
Best of luck to all going!