We’ve posted CMSDL Core Files pre-flows, incorporated into the CMSDL flow sheet by King Lab debate coach Robbie Romano, who offered to share these with the league.
Pre-flows can be used to make flowing easier for your debaters, as they provide complete the first speech or two speeches of argumentation on a given issue. With copies of the pre-flows, prepared in advance and printed and copied for practice and tournament use, your debaters can (a) see how flowing is properly done, and (b) follow this model for the remaining speeches. You should feel encouraged to adapt King Lab’s pre-flows for your squad’s use, and to prepare your own pre-flows on other CMSDL Core Files issues not included on King Lab’s list.
Spending Disadvantage (against the Lunar Mining Case)
Debris Disadvantage (against the Lunar Mining Case)
Note that for the affirmative, you’d want to delete the text in the 1NC column on the case flow sheets, and likewise for the negative you’d want to delete the text in the 2AC column on the disad flow sheets. Why? Because you don’t know what arguments your opponent is going to get to in the 1NC on the case (if you’re aff) or in the 2AC off the case (if you’re neg).
As always, let us know if you have questions.
One of the schools has asked us to clarify the CMSDL policy on running new arguments in the 2NC.
The 2NC is a constructive speech and as such can be used to run new arguments. So, for example, if the negative plans to run Harms attacks, Solvency attacks, a topicality violation, and a disadvantage, and the 1NC doesn’t get to the disadvantage, the 2NC can run it, in addition to extending one (or possibly two) of the issues introduced in the 1NC. Similarly, the negative can plan this introduction of their issues in their constructives.
However, the negative cannot deliberately hold back a significant portion of its strategy against an affirmative until the 2NC, in an attempt to overwhelm the 1AR and get her to drop arguments. Doing this is considered abusive since it attempts to obtain a victory based solely on the technical mistakes of the other side, even at the knowing cost of opportunities for refutation and the development of arguments presented earlier in the debate.
Affirmatives who believe the negative is employing this strategy should make an argument about its abusive and uneducational effect in the debate round, with the impact either that the negative should lose the debate as a consequence, or that the affirmative should be given substantial leniency in answering the onslaught from the 2NC (perhaps over the course of both affirmative rebuttals).
So the rule is: 2NCs can make new arguments, but must not make too many so as to avoid the appearance or actual condition of diminishing the educational value and fairness of the debate.
Please let us know this week if you’d like a Mentor Coach. We’ve begun making these matches with middle schools.