2. MOTION
THIS HOUSE SUPPORTS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
A BLACK SECESSIONARY STATE WITHIN THE
TERRITORY OF THE US, THE FOUNDING OF
WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY THE AMERICAN
GOVERNMENT
6. - Context, definition and Model
- Principal reasons behind the motion
- Benefits of enacting the motion
- Harms of continuing the status quo
OG Role Fullfillment
7. OO Role Fullfillment or lack there
off
- Only provided mechanistic refutation
- Did not disprove OG principle
- Attacked OG examples but not the Analysis
8. What OO should have done
- Given alternate solutions to OG problems or
a stronger defense of why status quo will work
- Should have spent more time either attacking
OG principle or creating an equally strong
opposing principle
9. CG Role Fullfillment
- Smooth transition of OG premise ( did not
knife or contradict)
- Relatively Original Extension Material
- Quality of extension not as high as OG
material
- Strong response to OO but weaker response
to CO
- OO was already well responded by OG. CO
needed to be responded to
10. CO Role Fullfillment
- Took advantage of OO’s failures to be the first
to establish a strong opposition principle.
- Prioritized OG as the primary threat and
focused their rebuttals at OG arguments
- Provided alternate solutions and analyzed
them well
11. Comparatives
- Why context is important?
Policies involve a lot of shift in resources and
opportunity costs, so proper justification is required.
(The justification is provided by showing that there is
a current injustice or harm occurring that is even
greater than the injustice caused by the policy)
12. Comparatives
• Context, Definition and Model
-Who are the actors and what are their roles
-Who are the stakeholders and how are they
impacted
-What should a judge expect from a model?
13. Comparatives
• Evaluating Strength of an argument
- Relevance to the motion
- Positive impact created/ harms avoided
- Best result for the largest amount of
stakeholoders
- Lowest opportunity cost incurred
14. Comparatives
• Evaluating Strength of a Rebuttal
- Does it attack the core part of the opponent’s
case
- What does it disprove?
- Does it make the opponent less persuasive in the
eyes of the judge
- (How much damage control does it require from
the oppositions side)
15. Comparatives
Whip speeches
• How well does it frame the clashes
• Does it convince the judges to view the debate
differently
• Does it make your ideas and contribution
seem more important