How do you beat pirates? By thinking like a pirate. This is much the same mindset that expert debaters utilize in bringing affirmative cases down. Rob Parks continues his advice on how to be strong negative debaters.

Not all policy cases follow the traditional “harms-solvency” structure. In this camp session, “Coach Vance” Trefethen explains other case formats that help make stronger winning cases.

Cross-examination is a favorite skill for debaters, but the hardest for debaters to master. Vance Trefethen explains how to ask good questions and avoid bad ones, particularly for policy debate.

The traditional “harms-solvency” case is the most basic and arguably most successful debate case format in policy debate. “Coach Vance” Trefethen explains how this case format is structured and how it is used to win debates.

Evidence is the best way to provide support to policy debaters’ claims they make in a debate round. “Coach Vance” Trefethen explains the purpose and applicability of evidence in debate rounds.

The “Harms-Solvency” case is the traditional policy debate case where the problems are defined and a plan is proposed to solve them. “Coach Vance” Trefethen explains how to build the strongest harms-solvency case.

Affirmatives have a definite starting and ending point, a predetermined course to follow. Negatives, however, have to adapt to every possible affirmative case out there. Vance Trefethen explains how to think like Affirmatives to best attack them for the win.

Supply and demand is the basic principle to all economics. “Coach Vance” Trefethen explains how this basic principle can (and should!) be used to win policy debate rounds.

After establishing how a negative debater should be thinking (like a pirate!), “Coach Vance” Trefethen explains how negative debaters can strategically and tactically blow up the affirmative case.