To steal a phrase from one of the nation’s best judges, far too many teams approach to debating on the Aff with only “one note”. Cases typically fall into one of a few categories ...
Choosing advantages plays an important role in affirmative kritik strategy, but too often debaters make these choices on the fly before debates trying to figure out what they need to take out of the 1AC instead of having reasons for why something is in the 1AC. When constructing a 1AC with some options against these kritiks ask yourself not only why we should do the plan but why we should advocate the plan for particular reasons.
Most teams, at least at the college level, are using a paperless system with Microsoft Word as the core technology. And why not? The software is ubiquitous, it is very easy to format text, and the macros represent a way to create custom commands necessary to build and execute a debate speech.
There are problems with using Microsoft Word as the primary method for storing and presenting evidence in debates. In my opinion, these problems are significant enough that further developing a paperless system without replacing Word represents a waste of valuable resources.
As part of UGA’s continuing writing on technology and debate, I intent to briefly take stock of where we (Georgia and the broader debate community) are with regards to paperless debate, now that the experiment is roughly two and a half years old. These observations should not be read as a critique of paperless debate per say --- but as suggestions for improvement and predictions of where technology and debate will “evolve”. I’ve intentionally chosen to omit a discussion of open source because of its coverage elsewhere and the general complexity of the subject.
Casey Harrigan, head coach of the Georgia Debate Union, recently recorded a podcast with Bob Jordan of PFDebate.com covering recent controversy in Public Forum debate in high school over the merits of switch side debating. Check it out here.