Advanced Aff Strategy

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:

• The “big stick”: plan that is central to the topic. Strengths: easy to research, lots of advantage diversity, few topicality problems. Weakness: widely varied / unpredictable specific Neg strategies, requires most substantial time investment in terms of research.
• The “small but topical”: a subset of a well-covered area (random Japanese base; SIVs on the immigration topic). Strengths: avoids a lot of Neg generics. Weakness: lack of advantage diversity without approaching stupidity, smaller literature base limits the amount of specific evidence to answer generics.
• The “squirrel”: questionably topical case on the fringe of the topic. Strength: Neg will have to go for T, K, a wholly-plan inclusive CP, or Politics and terminal impact defense. Weakness: Neg can probably win on any of the above. 
• The “pragmatic K Aff”: defends a plan with something like a biopower advantage. Strength: major parts of your case are probably true, has a decent angle against Neg Ks. Weakness: few good answers to CPs.
• The “wild K Aff”: you know it when you see it. Strength: Neg will be forced to debate whatever you want to talk about, catches people off guard. Weakness: judge dislike/pref sheet issues, if someone does specific work you’ll lose because whatever you’re saying isn’t that great.

I don’t think that any of this break-down is revolutionary. Most teams have made some of the above calculations and selected a genre of Aff that they think will suit them well.

This approach is generally fine. Many teams have adopted it and done well. They pick something and stick with it and make it work for them.

The problem, though, is that no single approach is right for all possible situations. For example: a big stick Aff is great when you debate teams that only go for generics because its literature base is big enough to have specific answers but not so great when you debate a well-prepared team that always goes for new specific strategies because they’ll be hard to predict.

Instead: treat the Aff like the Neg.

In that, I mean: make the choice about what Aff to read in the same manner as you decide what to read on the Neg. Choose the case that would be handle what you predict the Neg to do.

If they’re a team that cannot execute on T, read the “squirrel”.

If they’re a team that has a very predictable Neg against a portion of the topic, read that against them and plan for the 2AC (specific turns, add-ons that complicate their core DA, etc.).

If they’re a team that always reads the States CP, read your “big stick” Aff with decent “fed key” warrants.

This does not mean “do what they do”. A few teams like to adapt to their opponents by mimicking their strategies—i.e. reading a K Aff because they’re likely to go for a K. This may be the correct result, but the justification is backwards. You should do what they are least likely to handle effectively.

This requires scouting, a lot of hard work, and an effective understanding of debate psychology in order to predict how the Neg will react in certain situations. If executed correctly though, it’s the highest-level debating possible on the Aff.