Monthly Archives
Like us a Facebook, Follow us on Twitter
We try to post links to topic-relevant articles to our Facebook and Twitter when we can. We are trying to reserve posts to this page for original content.
If you like us on facebook.com/victorybriefs or follow us on @vbdebate on Twitter, you’ll get updates when we post those articles.
If you’d like to be a contributor, drop a line to help@victorybriefs.com.
“Neg-Neg” in LD?
If you missed David Glass’ article “Neg Neg Policy Debate Theory” in February’s Rostrum, it’s worth a look.
Glass suggests that it may be legitimate for Affirmative teams to defend a policy that would ordinarily be described as Negative ground. In this world, the Negative team may then defend either a separate counter-plan or even the topic’s ostensible Affirmative ground (that, in this instance, the 1AC has abandoned).
The essential premise is that, “it would allow for competing reasons as to why the resolution should be rejected.”
Several of the arguments for such an arrangement would seemingly apply to Lincoln Douglas practice as well. In LD, Affirmative debaters often face the burden of defending unappealing ground, facing an uphill battle from the outset. When this responsibility is compounded by disadvantageous speech times, it may be very difficult to win Aff ballots on some topics. Read more →
Three Things You Can Do To Improve Your Cross-Examination by Adam Torson
Cross-examination is one of those debate skills that some people just have a knack for. Some struggle to fill the time with pointless clarification questions, while others lead their opponents down the primrose path only to pounce and exact a devastating concession. But don’t worry – you don’t have to be Clarence Darrow to make good use of your CX time. Here are three things you can do to make effective use of cross-examination without necessarily having to be a CX prodigy.
The Necessary but Insufficient Burdens of Self-Defense by Stephen Babb
The debate world’s head is exploding at the proposition of Affirmative debaters having to demonstrate that repeated domestic abuse meets the multiple conditions for qualification as “self-defense.” For deadly force to be justified as self-defense, the conventional logic is that certain requirements must be met, namely: the threat must be imminent, and deadly force (as opposed to less deadly alternatives) must be necessary for someone to prevent serious harm from being inflicted. Proportionality may also be considered a requirement insofar as it wouldn’t be acceptable to use deadly force to stop a minor affront or injury.
Judge Fatigue by Chris Theis
Read more →