*Forensics-y Title Here*

A few days ago I walked past a group of people in matching forensics shirts outside of the Capitol building and remembered that I have something to say to y’all! If any of you (I know my followers are 97% forensics nerds) are in DC or want to be, feel free to shoot me a message! 

I think you can, but you have to be careful. I’m a serious political theory nerd and I know I had at least one case that depended on it pretty heavily. The things to keep in mind are that it has to be simple and it has to be very relevant. If you cannot explain it in 20 seconds or less, probably don’t use it. If you use it, make sure to really clearly explain where it falls in the resolution, how it will help the judge figure out who won, and what it means for both your case and your opponent’s. You just need to make sure that stays part of the discussion. 

Really, you can. But you need to treat it as you would any other part of a traditional PF case. Identify, explain, maintain. 

Alright, let’s think back to December 2014 when I said that.. Okay here we go.

The cover everything point is essentially saying that when you have a judge unaccustomed to (traditional) PF, or someone judging just from the flow, you want to make sure that you have addressed all of your opponent’s contentions (and sub-points). In your rebuttal, try to rebut each of them specifically and directly. And in the summary speech do it again. Mention the contentions specifically and in a way that the judge has to recognize that you have addressed all of them. (For more on that, see my summary speech structure here.) You don’t have to go into much detail, and usually you can do this by emphasizing clash, which also builds your case. (i.e. Their second contention that cheese is the only food we need is in direct conflict with our first, which explains how dairy can be damaging to the left leg.) You have already explained your argument in detail, as have they, so some shorthand is not unreasonable. Assume your judge remembers the basics of what just happened.

I tend to think of it like this:

First speech: Take the time to really explain your case clearly, letting it be at its best, uncorrupted by the debate about to ensue.

Second speech: Cover it all at least a little. The rest of the debate is when you clean up this speech. Just make sure you say the rebuttals that need said.

Third speech: Boil down the debate. This is your time to frame what will be the voting issues and create that shorthand you will use.

Fourth Speech: Voters. Focus on voters. Just voters.

In terms of rebutting evidence, just do your best. You won’t always be able to win the fight, but if they’re saying something incorrect or in a misleading context, tell the judge plainly why that is the case. Provide the context and hope the judge buys it. When your opponent continues to use the evidence, continue to mention that it doesn’t work. You don’t need a deep explanation each time, just once is fine. You might not convince your judge, but you will make sure they remember both the statistic and that it might not be accurate. 

I will freely admit that I... have never done LD or really taught it. I’ve basically always had someone else deal with it because while I understand the basics, I feel unqualified to really help with it. There are lots of people on here though that I’d refer you to, and your parenthetical actually reminds me a lot of this post from @hungoverjudge, who would also be one of the aforementioned blogs to check out for LD. 

So, Tumblr I guess doesn’t give me notifications for asks now? Anyway, I’m on this. Give me a few minutes and I’m sorry to those of you who have been waiting especially because I have no idea how long ago y’all sent these.

Congratulations! That’s really exciting.

While most of my tips for debate apply pretty broadly, I have two main pieces of advice for this. (But as always, if you have more questions you know where to find me!)

The first is to communicate. In any partnered event this is vital, but in parli it is especially so because you have to really trust each other with almost no time to discuss your plans. It can be helpful to make plans about how to use your prep time, to discuss ahead what things each of you have special knowledge of, and to figure out how you want to communicate in round. Every topic and round will be different, but it can be useful to have a base framework to relieve some of the pressure. The more conversations you can have before rounds, the less of your prep time you need to use for it.

The other thing is pretty obvious, but just keep learning. Prep a little bit every day. Put NPR on as you get ready in the morning. Listen to interesting podcasts. Read. Get lost in Wikipedia holes and learn everything there is to know about the paneling at Independence Hall. You never know what is going to come in handy. Don’t disregard the things you learn in other contexts, or in classes. When I was doing BP in one round knowing a lot about homeschooling through my best friend turned out to be incredibly useful and in the next I needed the information I’d just read for class. Get interested in things and develop areas of comfortable expertise. 

Yes! I’ve written about this a lot, so I’m going to link you to my previous posts, but if you have any other questions let me know!

How To: PF First Speaker and more summary speeches

How To: PF Second Speaker and more rebuttal advice

How To: Crossfire and more crossfire

Working with judges

Yes, I love this. Also, congratulations! That’s seriously awesome. Looking forward to all your future successes!

This is a really normal question. I have made many a presentation/handout about this very issue. (I could also make those into a post if people are actually interested?)

The main thing is that you look neat and clean. Everything beyond that is extra. But standards for debate (unless you’re doing college debate which is a horrifying void of customs) are business/business casual dress. This varies from area to area, and on the formality of the tournament you are at (A weeknight local congress will probably have more leeway than Nationals for example.)

In terms of my area, most younger men wore slacks, dress shoes, a button up shirt tucked in, and a tie. Most of them adopt the suit jacket within their first year. 

Most women wore some combination of nice (typically black) skirt/pants + blouse + blazer/cardigan or professional looking dress +blazer/cardigan +solid colored heels or flats. 

I bought this black blazer after my first month or two, and basically wore it for four years with a bunch of different shirts and a few different black skirts and pants, plus these incredibly comfortable heels. (Fun fact: I probably wear either this blazer or the other two colors I have it in on a bi-weekly basis and the heels in the 3 colors I have nearly every day. So helpful during my internship too.)

Ultimately, pick something you feel confident in, and that gives the impression that what you are doing is important to you, and you’re making an effort. There is a lot of room for flexibility and personality, just try to stay professional and you’ll be fine. 

Thank you! (Honestly an anonymous birthday message really makes me feel like I’ve finally made it as a person who talks too much on the internet.)