The Atlanta Urban Debate League is committed to providing excellent debate education programs, services, and opportunities to diverse students, educators, and members of the community!
High School Open Curriculum Guide
Asking (and Answering) Questions
If you’ve mastered the art of asking questions to set up arguments, then you’re in a pretty good position to conduct Varsity-level cross examination. However, now that you’ll be using Kritiks and counterplans, you should know about some of the ways these arguments interact with each other.
Multiple Worlds as the NEgative
If you’re negative, you can read both the counterplan and the Kritik in the same round. You can also defend both a counterplan and the status quo as preferable options, or “worlds,” to the affirmative plan.
These are inherently contradictory. Your counterplan isn’t the status quo, and neither is your Kritik – and your counterplan may make the same assumptions that your Kritik, well, critiques. That said, you can still advocate these different positions at the same time until the 2NR, when you must pick one of your multiple worlds to pursue.
In cross-examination, if someone points out the contradictions between your different worlds in cross-examination, you can explain to the judge that they are conditional advocacies. That means you will only support them if a given set of conditions is met, and that you aren’t necessarily tied to them for the whole debate round. This strategy is most compelling to judges who have debate experience, so be careful when presenting multiple worlds in front of a judge with less experience.
For example, if the negative argues that the plan harms the American economy, but also reads a Kritik that argues the American economy is inherently unethical, then the negative has taken a contradictory stance.
Multiple Worlds as the Affirmative
So, if you’re affirmative, while it might be strategic to point out that the negative’s counterplan is at odds with their Kritik, that likely won’t matter unless they decide to advocate for both in the 2NR (which, mind you, is a mistake).
However, judges who may not have a lot of debate experience may not sympathize with the negative’s arguments about conditional advocacies. As a result, you can use the contradictions within the 1NC to your advantage in those situations. It’s up to the negative team to choose their arguments based on their audience, and while they are technically allowed to support conditional worlds in whatever round they choose, not every judge will find that argument compelling.
So, in cross-examination, you should still ask the other team about the potential contradictions between their advocacies. Some teams may not have recognized them, and they could change their strategy as a result of your questioning. If they respond with something about conditional worlds, however, and the judge nods along with their explanation, try asking about something else.