Make your responses more efficient so you can get through them more quickly than the original point.
This is the key answer to Zealous' scenario: be really, really concise. Don't go into any more detail than you absolutely have to. If they want to contest the issue, you can always go into more detail later.
I'm a big advocate of conciseness anyway. It's not hard to learn, and there are so
many scenarios where being able to say something more quickly and cleanly than your opponent is a huge advantage. A drill I like is delivering responses in classical four-point structure
, deliberately using only one clear, simple sentence for each point. For example:
The Affirmative team claimed that John Smith had been indicted for corruption (link)
. However, this is simply not true (response)
. What really
happened was that a political opponent accused
John Doe of corruption, and the Affirmative's source misreported it as an actual indictment (warrants)
. Because there's no reason to believe that John Doe actually is
corrupt, voting for their plan doesn't actually make your life better (impact)
In an actual round, you might read a short card under the Warrants section. But again, this should be concise; keep your citation and underlining as brief as possible.
_________________Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe
- "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook
- NCFCA/Stoa (thread)Factsmith research software
- v1.4 currently available (thread)Loose Nukes debate blog
- stuff to read with your eyes.