Debate things I learned

case construction:

harms

model/principle

advantages.

leave one harm for the next speaker and one advantage.

ARGUE both ways.

example--they say access is required for farmers to reach market.
you say a.

there are roads in place that allow access.

and you say b

access is not required because the farmers do not produce commercial crops, but they produce crops only for sustenance.

that way if they don't buy a, you are covered with b.

government--your case has to be something that can work in the real world. that's how you win. it's something the current govt will not do at all.

poi's are not important whatsoever--taking them are unnecessary. i took none, and got best speaker of the round.

definitional challenge

a. you challenge the definition
b. you argue the case under the appropriate definition
c. you argue the opposition case against that case under the appropriate definition
d. you argue the case under their crazy definition.

therefore you are arguing three cases at the same time. this must be done by the LO

opposition case construction
present harms of the current system under the resolution--you're guessing where they are going.

you present two arguments in the first LO and give two arguments to the DLO

you refute the govt case--if you have to do the definitional challenge you do so.

if not, you rebut the govt case, and present your arguments against the resolution.

giving the split of what your second speaker will say.

BE SURE TO ALWAYS PRESENT YOUR OPTION--COUNTER MODEL COUNTER PRINCIPLE.
so you attack the govt case and build your status quo case
two separate situations in your speech at all times.

argue both ways as we suggested earlier.

govt proposed that voting in a flawed system is worthwhile
a. you state that voting in a flawed system such as thailand which has a weak democracy accomplishes nothing, when the ruling power are corrupt--buying votes, manipulating the system--voting accomplishes nothing at the end of the day, except costing money in setting up the vote, regulating/security for the fascade of the vote.
b. even if you vote in honesty, your vote is not heard as it is buried under the dominant power's heel.
c. you don't vote, and nothing happens anyway--you're not involved in the democracy and thus, eliminates your voice.
d. option is opposition solution, revolution because by erasing the flawed system, you accomplish a true democracy. yes, there are disadvantages, but then your vote will count for something, it's a true mechanism of change.

so in A--we accept the voting in a flawed system--means nothing. system never changes.
in B, we vote honestly, yet our vote is countered by bought votes, corruption. system never changes.
in C, we despair and don't vote, thus the system never changes.
in D, the system changes. there will be short term disadvantages, but there will be change. moving to a true democracy.

you cover all your bases in an opposition type argumentation and create massive linking.