Middle School Varsity Curriculum Guide

Multiple Worlds

Multiple Worlds as the NEgative

If you’re negative, you can read both the counterplan and the Kritik (advocacies) in the same round. You can also defend both a counterplan and the status quo as preferable options, or “worlds,” to the affirmative plan. The same goes for defending both a Kritik and the status quo.

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.

When you have decided which position/world you would like to defend in the 2NR, you should tell the judge you are “kicking”/not going for the world(s) you are no longer defending. Be careful to make sure if the affirmative made a turn argument against your kicked advocacy, you have answered it. Other arguments can be ignored once you kick the advocacy. You should kick positions you are not going for at the beginning of the 2NR, before going into detail about why you are winning whatever position you are defending.

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 do not occur in the same world. That means you aren’t necessarily tied to them for the whole debate round. The status quo and each advocacy are assumed to happen in a world where you are only defending one of them and not the contradictory positions. 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. If the other team asks for the status of the counterplan or kritik in cross-examination, you should say it is conditional unless you are going to commit to a specific world, in which case it would be unconditional (and means you MUST defend the unconditional position in the 2NR). It is the most strategic to run advocacies conditionally.

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). You should always ask for the status of any counterplans or kritiks that the negative introduces; while it will likely be conditional, it is useful to know if they are defending something unconditionally, because you’ll know which argument will be extended in the 2NR.

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.