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!
Working Through the Packet: Preparing Answers with EAR
Learning Objectives
Learn how to answer arguments using EAR
Explain reasoning in individual pieces of evidence from the first constructive
Understand how evidence from the first constructive already has answers to potential arguments
Time Needed
~30 minutes
Extra 15-20 minutes per additional set of responses if doing multiple
Teacher Preparation
Check the Evidence Cheat Sheet for whichever version of the packet you would like to use for this activity and identify a set of opposing evidence that goes together (it is easy to use the first row of arguments for the first advantage).
Read through the chosen 1NC card and corresponding piece of 1AC evidence that can be extended to answer it. Make sure you feel comfortable explaining how the 1AC evidence answers the argument made by the 1NC evidence.
Resources & Materials
Evidence Cheat Sheet (linked in “MS & HS Evidence Cheat Sheets” folder within evidence folder and accessible by scanning QR code in packets)
Note: Page numbers differ based on whether the packet is a workbook or only has evidence. Both versions are in the folder, and QR codes will automatically pull up the appropriate version for each packet.
Packets for each student (if using workbook version)
2AC Case Argument Template (either shared digitally for students to reference or printed out separately) for students using packets with evidence only
Students should have their own paper (or device) to write on if they will just be referencing the template
Lesson Outline
Have all students turn to the Line-by-Line/EAR blanks in their packet. This outline will use the first set of blanks in the 2024-2025 packet (“2AC (Democracy ADV – Inherency) – 1/3”). Explain to students that you will be going over how to answer arguments line-by-line (answering every argument in order).
Students may take notes separately, but the explanation included in the workbook also summarizes EAR
The affirmative/the 2AC will need to answer every negative case argument (1NC arguments against the advantage[s]) line-by-line, while the negative/2NC will need to answer every affirmative offcase argument (2AC arguments against the disadvantages). The affirmative does not need to worry about answering every part of the disadvantage, nor does the negative need to answer every part of the affirmative’s case/advantage.
Students can remember ways to answer arguments line-by-line using EAR (this is NOT the same as ARE/parts of an argument):
Extend - whenever a piece of evidence that was already read in a previous speech already says something that answers the argument, you can explain how (ex. in the 2AC, explain how a specific piece of evidence from the 1AC answers an argument made in the 1NC)
Analyze - you can always make up your own argument! Use logic to poke holes in the other team’s argument.
Read - sometimes you can read a new piece of evidence to answer the argument
Students should do as many of these as possible when answering arguments. Students should not skip filling in the blanks and just read new evidence or skip evidence and only read what they have in the blanks. Sometimes more than one piece of evidence can be extended, and students are free to have more than one analytic argument.
The workbook is set up so that students will have at least one extension, analytic, and sometimes a new piece of evidence when responding to arguments.
Project the chosen 1NC argument the group is answering if possible (have students flip to the argument in their packets if there is no way to display it for the group). Go over what the evidence says, making sure students are on the same page about the argument being made and the specific reasoning in the text of the card to support that argument.
In the 2AC template, have students fill in the “The Negative says…” blank with a brief summary of the argument being made in the 1NC evidence. This should be a quick phrase, absolutely no more than 1 sentence (ex. “The Negative says…the status quo solves” or “The Negative says…courts solve now”)
Project (or have students flip to) the 1AC evidence that answers the 1NC argument.
In the “our ___________ evidence answers this” blank, have students write the author name and date from the bold part of the cite
After “it says…” have students write out a brief explanation (1-2 sentences) of what the 1AC card says that answers the 1NC argument
You may want to spot check students’ explanations to make sure they only bring up the parts of the card that are relevant to answer the argument
Tell students that they have just completed an extension!
Tell students that you will be moving onto making an analytic argument which will be completely distinct from the extension they just made. Project (or have students flip to) the 1NC argument again. Take a moment to review it, then ask students to come up with any problems with this argument.
Examples of kinds of analytic arguments students could identify:
The card doesn’t use particularly strong reasoning to back up the tag (it just makes an assertion without explanation, it’s based on anecdotes instead of data, etc.)
The author is not particularly qualified (writer/blogger without expertise)
The evidence is outdated (a card from before 2020 makes a claim about pandemics, a card from before 2022 makes a prediction about the role of AI, etc.)
The evidence makes a claim about how things would work in the status quo/without accounting for the ways the plan would change things (a card about the fate of the journalism industry doesn’t account for the additional revenue stream created by the plan)
You can use guiding questions based on the above examples if students struggle to come up with anything on their own:
What reasoning does the card give for _________?
Do you think this author is qualified to talk about ________?
Has anything happened since [year] that would be relevant to this argument?
Would _________ still be true if we did the plan?
Be ready to remind students that they are trying to come up with their own arguments against the 1NC argument summarized in the first blank if their suggested arguments are unrelated or simply restate the argument from the extension or the piece of evidence they will read
After brainstorming as a group, identify a few strong arguments and have students write one down in the blank after “Second…(make up your own argument here)”
Flip to the next page in the case argument template to the piece of evidence starting with “Third…” (students working from evidence packets without templates should just make sure to flip to the same piece of evidence as everyone else; the evidence cheat sheet will help you identify the card everyone should be looking at based on the author name and date).
Go over the new piece of evidence together (optionally highlighting it). Make sure students understand how this new piece of evidence is responsive to the 1NC argument.
Tell students they would read this piece of evidence after their extension and analytic arguments. They now have 3 responses to this 1NC argument!
Repeat as desired with additional sets of arguments
Wrap up by reiterating to students that it’s important to understand what the evidence says, because they should be extending their own evidence and making analytic arguments against the other team’s evidence in every single debate round, and that they should be flowing so that they know what to answer
If the other team doesn’t make a specific argument, you shouldn’t read the answers you’ve prepared against that argument
If the 1NC makes up their own analytic argument against the case advantage, the 2AC should still try to answer it using EAR instead of just ignoring the argument
Points of Improvement
Students are unable to explain a piece of evidence even after going over it as a group and being told it is directly responsive to an argument
Analytic arguments are irrelevant, don’t make sense, or simply restate another part of the EAR block
Students explain pieces of evidence that are not directly responsive to the argument
Signs of Mastery
Students are able to explain how a given piece of evidence directly answers an argument
Analytic arguments are obviously responsive and distinct
Instructor Notes
The process for preparing answers with EAR is the same for negative answers to offcase arguments, just extending 1NC evidence to answer 2AC arguments
Depending on how well your students seem to understand the 1AC evidence, you may ask them if they can identify which piece of evidence is responsive to a given 1NC argument instead of immediately telling them which one to use
It may be worth reviewing particularly good analytic arguments at the end so students have a chance to copy them
It may be helpful to have students jot page numbers in the margins of their packets, especially for situations where they may not have Internet access to view the evidence cheat sheet
If you want students to work on preparing arguments using EAR on their own later, show them the evidence cheat sheet (have them scan the QR code in their own packet or go to the file from the website by going to the evidence folder) and explain that it will help them figure out which cards to extend and read to answer specific arguments
Students can use the general structure of EAR to answer arguments during rounds even if they haven’t filled out all the blanks in their packet before a tournament. This same structure can be used if the other team makes an unexpected analytic argument.