 Just too much acting. Hi folks! Are you all flowing now? Can you all flow? Can you twirl there? Try it out. It's an important field. Yeah, this one. It's okay. It's that long that it sticks again. Alright, so... your last little seminar of the day is that we're going to talk about negative strategy and basics of being negative. And so we'll start off with the most basic thing that negative has to do, which is if affirmative, the most basic thing that they have to do is have the burden of proof that negative has the burden of reputation. So once affirmative has gotten up here and met those stock issues, they've done their shitsa, then we're now... they've met their burden of proof. So we're now going to accept the debate. So let me just kind of step back for a second. So this would never happen, but imagine you went into a debate round and affirmative got up and said nothing. And then negative got up and said nothing. And that was the whole round. And at the end of the round, the judge still has to decide who wins. So affirmative never said a word, negative never said a word. Who wins the debate? There are no ties in debate. It's like baseball, it's awesome. You cannot tie. There will be a winner, there will be a loser. So if no one says anything, then negative wins. Why? Affirmative didn't do what? They didn't meet their burden of proof. Affirmative did not meet their burden of proof, so negative wins. Negative has another vocabulary word that we use sometimes as presumption. We presume that before the debate ever starts, before anything, as ever said, negative is winning. Because, again, we're scared and lazy, and so our first instinct is do nothing. And if we just continue to decide do nothing, do nothing, do nothing, negative wins. Affirmative is saying do something, do something, do something. Now, on the other hand, affirmative gets up here and they meet their stock issues. And they say, you know, we're lonely, we're worried about security, and we are going to go get a dog and that's going to solve our loneliness and security. And we're going to have better mental health as a result of it. They did all that. They gave all of their stock issues. And now negative gets up and they say nothing. And then the debate ends. Who wins the debate? Affirmative. Because negative now has not met their burden. And their burden is reputation. They have to respond to what affirmative said. And at least create enough doubt with you that we should not do what affirmative said or we should do something else or doing what affirmative said is going to lead to so many bad things that it's not worth doing it. Affirmative, basic burden, burden of proof. Negative, burden of reputation. So then how do you do reputation? Well, I've given you, again, a lot more vocabulary that I will try to simplify for you. But there are some basic things. And we already, at the end of my last lecture, we said that the most basic thing that the negative can do is create a disadvantage. Bad things have happened as a result of the plan. Other things that they can do that we may or may not get to as much, but we'll definitely talk about disadvantages is case-attached. So they can just go directly after what the affirmative said and try to get rid of those harms or get rid of solvency or get rid of advantages. So we can go after the affirmative case. Another thing negative can do is they can offer a counterplan which are tricky but sometimes a great idea. With a counterplan, you're saying there is something wrong. Yes, we need to do something better than what affirmative is doing. Yes, I agree. We're not going to stick to the status quo. We're not just going to say do nothing. We're going to do something but I have a much better thing to do than affirmative says. And then the last thing is topicality which is where you can say, look, what affirmative says they're doing in their case actually doesn't support the resolution itself. So maybe this resolution says let's get the dog and we're going to get a stuffed animal and so you say like look, that's not really a dog. That's not topical. It doesn't actually fit the topic that we're talking about. So you should vote for a case that doesn't fit the topic and that's basically what topicality means. But we'll start at least with disadvantages. We're sticking with the same example that we did this morning. So you remember our case that we're getting a dog and now you're on the other side. You are negative. You think getting a dog is a terrible idea. So I would like you to the best of your ability and let me kind of walk you through these sub points to create a disadvantage. At least one disadvantage and then we'll share them as a group. So a tagline is just what do we call this disadvantage? That's a terrible tag. Usually the claim, the opinion that you're trying to prove true and it's a good idea if it's catchy because there are going to be lots of arguments eventually in this debate, especially as you move further in your debate career. So if we have a catchy name for each argument then we'll be able to remember what it was and keep organized. It'll make your flow better because you'll know what that argument is. The next step is uniqueness. And though that may sound like a term it's just what was happening before the plan. Tell me the story of the status quo. Before there was ever a plan and usually the disadvantage of uniqueness is there was something good. We had good things we were happy in the status quo before you foisted this horrible plan onto us. Then we have a link and the link is the plan changed something. In this case you forced us to get a dog right? You might then have an internal link and then that led to something else and then ultimately you have an impact which is in this case the bad thing that happened as a result of the plan the ultimate bad thing. Questions about that vocabulary? Yes? Something like how big or not impact? So it's a tactical and strategic question that you should ask yourself. This is a little more advanced than where we're going to talk about in here but there's something called impact calculus where we try to figure out how significant is an impact and so some things that we look at is one of the things we look at with impact is magnitude how big is it and so there's kind of a joke that in debate everything leads to nuclear war right? I got a dog and it disadvantages there was nuclear war which is a huge magnitude right? Nuclear annihilation terrible but another factor in impact calculus that we use is probability right? So I have this huge magnitude of nuclear war what is the probability that my dog is going to lead to nuclear war very very very very small so now I might have a huge magnitude but I have very low probability and then the last that we look at often is timeline like how soon is this going to happen so very very big magnitude but very low probability and probably way off on the timelines and not the greatest impact for this one. On the other hand if we're bombing ISIS there's probably a higher probability that that leads to nuclear war than me getting a dog leading to nuclear war so that I might want to go for a big magnitude when you're talking war and peace you're probably going to have big magnitude impacts. So you're negating, go ahead. So is this framework for account arguments would you use that for an advantage? You could use it for an advantage as well an advantage of a counterplan an advantage of a counterplan or if you're affirmative when I gave you the traditional model of a affirmative structure it has this exact for the advantages as well the more advantage based model incorporates harms and solvency into this substructure but this is the traditional model of either a disadvantage or an advantage the only difference is uniquely there was something wrong before the plan that led to something good and an advantage or uniquely there was something bad before the plan or we have something good before the plan that led to something bad and a disadvantage. So why don't you try this out why don't you talk to people and come up with your disadvantage what is the bad thing that's going to happen maybe even a disadvantage that outweighs our advantages of mental health and exercise or whatever they were okay you know what I have I have lots of money I have free time I can do whatever I want right so that's what you're going to do you're going to have a life and then the link is very simple what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad what was the bad Yeah, I'm going to go back to the schedule. I'm going to go back there. Yeah, yeah. Do you have an idea of what this band is doing? What do we call it? So far, we've been working with them. We've been working with them. We've been working with them. We've been working with them. So this is the hopelessness that's going to happen. So we get a few high-level jump tapping. We get a few high-level jump tapping. I'm just thinking about what ideas we should have. Just talking to you. So I think that it's really fun. There's one that you want to think about. You actually have about six internal lengths. Is that a story? If I can pull out the first internal length, does any of you ever get to your impact of something? You got it. Yeah. So you want to have it so you would turn a length. You say, I just meet you because you're a barge. Of course not. Because now you've got six different names. You can be called a barge. But then you sit with the idea that the last two lines are just actually on the front page. So maybe it's something that I think is a bit ominous and I'm experiencing it for my financial work at the end. Before I'm stressed out, because I'm always spending my time worrying about the first two years. You see the financial, what would we call it, real estate business, how do you figure it out? You need a proper one. Hi people. It's really good for us. I love the presentation. It's great to be here. I know that the dog will live more. It's just possible that it's more specific and it's not very intuitive. Well the length is good about the internal length. It's the dog's channel though. So the length is good. One internal length changes. It's one of those things where you can't make the constant scale that it is, but it's really not that one constant scale. We've got the dog. And then the dog's induction. We've got to get the dog before we ever get the dog's induction. And then what's the impact of that? There you go. There's the dog's induction. You can come here. You can come here. You can come here. What's going on? What's going on? Are you having trouble? I'm having trouble. I'm having trouble. Why are you having trouble? The dog is alone. The dog's is a little older. I'm having trouble. The dog's is a little older. I'm having trouble. The dog is so old. It's about time. Okay, well, let's watch me for it. What's your, what's your, what's the, what's the time? Okay, well, let's pick one of those, like, I should say, like, too much time, right? Because I'll just waste too much time on this one. Okay, so taking my time, like, is wasting my time. Right, so, before we ever got the dog, did I have a lot of free time? Yes, I had a lot of free time. I had a lot of free time. I had a lot of free time. Then the link is, what happened? What's the plan? What's the simplest plan possible? What's the plan today? No, what was the mandate of the plan? No, what was the mandate of the plan? We got a dog, that's my life. Right, the link is the, oh, we're getting a dog. Then what happens? Then I lost all this free time, right? And then why is that bad? Yeah, so maybe I'm not as happy, right? Yeah, I'm not as happy as I'm stressed out. So the link is, what is the plan change? And then the internal link is what happens as a result of that change in the plan. So you can have, like, six different disadvantages which you want to do this whole structure for each one. Yeah, so you have a time limit, you have a deadline, they have to poop one over their hair, right? And now all of a sudden you have four disadvantages about why this is a bad thing, you know? So let me do a side of the thing. No, I'm not a person trying. I'm not a person trying. I guess we get a dog. Let's see if we can compare these and come up with one. Let's see if we can come up with one that we can use as a class example. So first out of the disadvantages they're willing to share. What's a bad thing that's going to happen as a result of this? Oh, you know I want to use this example. Yes. Dog equals shit. Oh, yeah. This is my favorite disadvantage. My timeline interest is poop. I just like to say the word poop. I think it's funny. My sister once challenged me when I was a kid, can you say poop without laughing? And I couldn't, you know. It just makes me laugh every time. All right, so that's my timeline. My timeline is poop. Okay, so before we ever got the dog, what's my uniqueness story? What was my life like in terms of dog poop? Don't exist. Don't poop. We had no poop. What happened? What did we change? What did we plan to do? We got a dog. We got a dog. What happened as a result of getting a dog? Lots of poop. Poop? Yeah. Dog equals poop. You can't have a dog without the poop. And what's the impact of that? Ultimately, why is that bad? What did it do to my life? Increase time cost. Okay, so I've spent a lot of time and money on poop. Nuclear war. No, we didn't get to nuclear war. Does that make me happy? No, traumatized. Let's go. My happiness went down. Increase in liability. Why? Tell me more. Glorious property value, because you now have a dirty house with filled with poop. Okay. And infections. Quarantine. We have the increase, likelihood of infections. Resentment towards the dog. Domestic violence. Resentment. There's probably more impacts than you need. I would choose maybe a couple of these. I wouldn't put all of these impacts here. But yeah, you're getting the idea, right? So, it looks kind of weird and clunky, but it makes sense, right? Like, what are we going to call it? What was going on before? What changed? Would that lead to? Why is it bad? Okay. We're going to call this poop. Before we had a dog, we didn't have to worry about at least dog poop in our life. Then we got a dog. That dog started pooping, and now because of that, we spent time and money to clean it up. I'm not as happy, because every time I pick up a fresh, steaming dog poop, it makes me unhappy, which makes me resent the dog and my house is dirty and maybe I'm going to get sick because of it. We have one more. We're going to want to do this one more time and walk through it. Someone else has a different disadvantage that maybe we can walk through. Waste of time. Okay. We have tagline, waste of time, weakness. More free time. I used to have free time. What's the link? Got a dog. Each disadvantage should be its own separate argument focused on one particular bad thing that happens. But you can have lots of disadvantages. In fact, as a negative, you should have a lot of disadvantages. There are these other types of arguments that we'll spend a little time talking about. Disadvantages are your bread and butter for a negative. This is your go-to argument, is that we're not going to do the plan because it causes bad things. So internal link. Then what happened? That's a result of getting a dog. My life sucks. Okay, but before I never got it, that's probably going to be an impact. So if it's wasted time and I had free time and now I got a dog, then what happened? My time has taken up. Yeah, I lost a bunch of free time. Which led to what sort of impacts? Maybe I'm less happy? Yeah. Anything else? There's not a dog. Maybe I lost friends because they all hate my dog too. All right. I'll be free time. Yeah. Okay. That's time to clean up poop. That might be good. I might turn that around. Okay. So then, here's the next thing. It's case attacks. And so you might want to, in fact, you do want to leave yourself some time, not just to talk about your negative arguments. Sometimes these are called off-case arguments, right? Affirmative made a case and we call all the affirmative arguments the on-case arguments. And then when negative comes up with their own arguments, we call those off-case arguments. You might want to attack the case, right? You may want to go after their advantages and disadvantages. And also, when you're affirmative, you're going to want to attack these disadvantages, right? You don't want to let these stand. So what was our, did anyone remember what our advantage was? The one of our advantages was when we were poor at the dock? Security. Okay. So let's just quickly do a full advantage. So we have a tagline of like security, right? So before our harm scenario was we live in a bad neighborhood rate, because we've got a dog, the internal length is the dog, makes us feel more secure. The impact is that maybe I feel safe and be one of our advantages. So now, I'm negative. I don't want this advantage to stand. I don't want affirmative to win this argument. So I have there under case attacks, you can take up stock issue, like an advantage. And there are kind of four levels of things that you can do to this. Each one is better. So the first one is you can just ask a question about it, right? Maybe I can say, are you really going to feel safe with that dog? Which is better than saying nothing about this advantage. But it's not that strong of an argument, right? I'm just questioning it. The next thing I can do is I can try to mitigate it, right? And I can try to lessen it as another word for mitigate. So I can say, you're going to get a dog, but it's still a bad neighborhood. So you're not going to feel that safe. You're only going to feel a little bit safer. So now this is not quite as strong, but I haven't destroyed it. But still, better than just questioning it, better than saying nothing is to kind of lessen the impact. You're only going to feel a little bit happier. The next thing I can do is I can try to take it out. I can try to show that something in here doesn't happen, right? So maybe I can show that the impact never happens. That the dog you've got was a Chihuahua. That doesn't make you feel any safer. And you're not going to be happy because they are ugly, yippy little... I'm sorry. And so it doesn't lead to any safetyness or happiness. So if there is no impact to the argument, why am I going to do it, right? And then the last thing I can do, and the best thing that you can do to an argument is you can turn it, right? And so if you can show that something in here, either the link actually goes the other way or the impact actually goes the other way, then I can take this advantage and literally turn it into a disadvantage, right? Because I can take your logic and show it actually supports the other side. And I can say, so I can try to turn this impact. So actually by getting this dog, maybe you've got like a dog that is so awesome that everyone's going to want to steal it now that because your dog is so awesome, you're actually less safe because now criminals are breaking down your door to steal your dog. Or your dog might really get the people. Or your dog is so untrained that it starts attacking you so you don't feel safe. So actually now this is a disadvantage, right? Because the exact opposite of what you said was going to happen is going to happen. I turned this advantage into a disadvantage. As a permanent, you can try to do the same thing to the disadvantages, right? You can try to turn them over into advantages. And that's the best thing to do because you're not just questioning it. You're not just saying it's a little bit less good of an argument for the affirmative. You're not saying it's not true. You're actually saying it's true and it's for me now. So now this argument, this advantage instead of being plus one for the affirmative, is minus one for the affirmative, plus one for the negative. If you just take it out, it becomes zero, right? Not doing anything for the affirmative, not doing anything for the negative. If you turn it, now negative one for affirmative plus one for negative. So that's what you're trying to do when you start refuting these is can you steal their argument? Try to take them out at least. Never just be silent about them. Nothing else, ask a question about them. But best is if you can steal it and take it for your own. So I have you work a little bit on your own again. I kind of tried to walk through and turn this advantage, or at least try to take it out. Can you, you're now back on the affirmative, right? Can you take one of these and try to respond to it, to refute it as if you were affirmative? What do you say? What do you go after? Do you go after the uniqueness? Do you go after the link? The impact? And how can you take it and either take it out or maybe even turn it to work for your assignment? Talk about it for a little while, see what's come up with. I mean, you could just take all the food and make it first. Tell them it's very rich. We never had it. It's very rich. It's very rich. It's very rich. It's very rich. It's very rich. It's very rich. It's very rich. It's very rich. It's very rich. It's very rich. It's very rich. It's very rich. It's very rich. It's very rich. It's very rich. It's very rich. It's very rich. It's very rich. It's very rich. It's very rich. How do you dog poop you at work? And your production is more or not? Because you're not allowed to do that. So what if you like to dog poop and sell you turtles? Maybe. So ultimately, the impact of the money, the impact is I make money off of my plummeters. But if it's dog poop, you sit in dog poop markets and I have no idea that this is shit. Okay, that's great if I like it. For a term, you would have what we call an impact term, right? I said we're going to lead to bad impacts. It actually leads to a good impact. If you were to argue that it's not a waste of time because that's a certain amount of money and it helps you get your future needs. Because you're very able to search for it. Maybe. Or maybe you could just say like, you know what, having less free time is actually good. I was so bored with all of my free time and now I'm being productive and I'm actually happier because I'm not just sitting on my couch and you know watching the movies or you're here. What's fine exactly. So it's actually like a lot of free time all of these school hours the actual lots of free time actually makes me happier. It's not taking away time to do it. It's not taking away time to do it. It's not taking away time to do it. It's not taking away time to do it. Yeah, the timing to press the one great classic round of the day is it possible to do it? It's not important. I think if you go, turn around at any of these arguments and how you have the policy how you have a policy that doesn't interfere with your mind. Actually, the timing does, but anyway, it's ok. It's not your best free time So maybe people will say, yes it's true I had free time before, yes it's true I got a dog, yes it's true I had lots of free time, but actually the impact of that is that it made me happier because now I'm more productive, I'm now doing things, and so I'm enjoying that life, and maybe really when I had free time I wasn't doing my level up. So what you're doing now is you're turning the impact around, right? I said, lots of free time, and maybe it makes me feel less happy. I could say no, but actually lots of things for the impact of that is what it's for kids. So they're actually the first people to go in and it's the argument you can say, but what we still do is a left turn, a good turn, maybe it's for a lane, right? So you're gonna make it, you're gonna have to spend 20 to 29 hours in the water, so in this case you're gonna have to spend 30, 40 minutes in the water. Okay, so you're gonna have to spend 30 minutes in the water and then you're gonna have to spend 30 minutes in the water. I'm not a fan of the show, but I did the three times. I'm saying that's true. But what I'm saying is the impact on that is even better. I'm saying that it's a lot better. So this is going to come in a few months. I don't think that's going to happen. We're going to talk about the next issue. We're going to talk about the next issue. Controls, minds, dogs. We have lots of dogs. And if you get a dog, you're going to get to taste it. Sit. Sit. Sit. Sit. Sit. Sit. Sit. All right. I let you go and I only have 10 minutes left and then you get lunch while you get to get yourself. Yes. So, talk to some of you. What are we going to do? What can we... What's our commitment? Can we go after? Where is it vulnerable? Yes. Ways of time it could be vulnerable on the impact. Yes. Tell me why. You can actually be using your time more productively and be exercising and in like 101 donations you can potentially find love. Yeah, so what I'm doing is I'm accepting the entire premise up until the impact. Yes, that I had free time before. Yes, I got a dog. Yes, it led me to a lot of free time. But that didn't make me less happy, it made me happier. Now I'm using my time and I'm out having great times and I go to the dog party and I meet friends and I get the love of my life. So actually this is the impact is for the affirmative, not for the negative. And so I have turned this all around and now the affirmative is going to have to come back and prove why this actually makes me unhappy and not happy. But for the moment I have turned this around to the other side. And you can do that in many different ways, right? You can try to turn the links or the internal link. You can try to show that this was never true to begin with, that the uniqueness story is not true. And that regardless of whether I get a dog or not, the same thing is going to happen. So there are many ways to turn these around but you should be thinking about can I take the other team's arguments and steal them for myself. In the last 10 minutes and counter plants get a little bit complicated and do you want to just give you a little tiny itsy bitsy bit about a counter plant because maybe you accept the harms, right? So maybe you agree there is a problem with the status quo. And so you're negative and you're like, how do we do have to do something? We can't just say do nothing, like negative instinct always is to do. We have to do something, there are significant harms. The first SH is true. The SH and SHTSA, there are significant harms. But you can say the plan is no good. We should do something else. The risk in that is that you accept the harms. Once you say we should do something else, you no longer get to say do nothing, right? So you give up that ground. But maybe do nothing is a really bad ground to be standing on. And so you want to do something, you just want to do something other than a plan. So what can negative do different? So a plan is get a dog. What does negative say? Get a cat. Get a cat. Always the first counter plan. So there are good things and bad things about that potential as a counter plan. And if you look towards the bottom of counter plan, it has all those little things that a plan has that we skipped over. But look at F and G. You want to show competition and or a net benefit. In other words, the best kind of counter plan is one that is mutually exclusive from the plan. That you cannot do both the plan and the counter plan. So can I get a dog and a cat? Yeah. Yes. So there is no direct competition between those two. They are not mutually exclusive. And so by saying get a cat, you have given me no particular reason why not to get a dog. So guess what the affirmative will say? Do both. Do both. Let's get a dog and a cat. Right? And so the affirmative can then steal your counter plan. But you could still do the cat counter plan because what you might say is that there is a benefit to doing the counter plan alone. That the counter plan and the plan don't get. In other words, give me one second and I'll let you ask your question. In other words, you can say plan, get a dog. Counter plan, get a cat. Now the affirmative says do both. And the negatives response is there are reasons why it's better to get a cat than to get a cat and a dog. And if the reasons to get a cat alone are better than to get a cat and a dog, then the counter plan can still win. But ideally you want the best kind of counter plans are ones that are mutually exclusive. In other words, let me talk about a different resolution. If my plan is let's raise taxes. Maybe we're going to raise taxes to fund schools. And the counter plan is let's lower taxes. Can I raise taxes and lower taxes at the same time? No. So those two are mutually exclusive. Right? So those two compete without me ever. There's no way the affirmative can get up here back and say let's do both. Let's raise and lower taxes. Yeah. You can't do that, right? So they're mutually exclusive so they directly compete. But even ones that aren't mutually exclusive might compete on net benefits. There might be something more beneficial to just getting a cat than getting a cat and a dog. You have your hand up first. I was just trying to think of names. Maybe, again, they're not necessarily mutually exclusive. I can get a dog and volunteer at a shelter. But again, there might be some unique benefits to volunteering at a shelter by itself that I wouldn't get by getting a dog and volunteering at a shelter. Here's your hand up and then here. In the back and then up here. If you're problem with your school example there, you said to raise revenue for schools. Would you then have to prove why lowering taxes would raise revenue for schools if that was your counterplan? Perhaps, yeah. But you want, well, maybe raising revenue. Maybe let's just get rid of schools. The reason I wanted to show that is just that it's, yeah. So the counterplan should still address the harms, whatever the harms are. But it should also not do, ideally it doesn't do something that can be done at the same time as a plan. And actually, if you look at your schedule, there's an entire advanced session on advanced counterplan theory because it gets really into the weeds. So I'm just giving you the very basics on it. Yes? I was going to say, so a counterplan could be, for instance, a security system. Yes. But then I can get a security system and a dog, but maybe there are reasons why getting a security system alone is better than getting a dog and a security system. That's where you assert them. Because somebody's strong, right? Yeah. What? That would have to be really strong because it sounds kind of hard to do. Yeah. Well, you could have a motion asserted. Which is why counterplants are risky, right? Sometimes it's better to just say, let's do nothing. Right? That's always negative. Let's do nothing. There are too many disadvantages. Let's just keep the way the things they are. But sometimes keeping the way the things they are is riskier than doing something. And then in those cases, you want to think about maybe doing a counterplan. If you were to propose a counterplaner like getting a cat and the first place they would tell you, well, let's get both a cat and a dog. When does the negative have the opportunity to tell them that we can get the cats, like getting a cat alone is better? Okay. So here's what happened, right? The first speech of the debate is the Prime Minister's speech. Prime Minister's plan is get a dog. Then the leader of opposition speaks, right? And the leader of opposition says, get a cat. Then the member of opposition gets up and says, let's get a cat and a dog. And then the member of government, excuse me, the member of government gets up and says, let's get a cat and a dog. Then the member of opposition gets up and says, ah, ha, ha. No, getting a cat alone is better than getting a cat and a dog. So in words of the fourth speech before we ever get to why getting a cat alone is the best option, but that would be the natural progression through those plans and counter plans. Yeah. Well, the affirmative is, instead of saying let's get both, can we just go straight to like, no, cat or dog? Yep. Yeah. Yeah. So it's the easiest thing that they can do is say, let's do both. But if they want strategically to decide, like, screw that, I can just win. The dogs are better than cats. Then it's just plan versus counter plan. That's when it addressed the security problem. There you go. And that's maybe why the plan is better, right, than the counter plan. That's okay. Make sure that. So like I said, we could spend an entire 45 minutes just on the intricacies of counter plans and in some of the more advanced sessions they did, because it gets really complicated, right, because going through just four speeches to get to the point where I get to say, you know, cats are better than a cat and a dog. It gets really complicated. But just know that that is another option that you have as a negative is that you can say, let's do something else. It's risky, but sometimes worth the risk. The last thing that's there is topicality, which is if you feel like the B affirmative has said something that doesn't actually support the resolution. If the resolution is let's attack ISIS and they bomb Ukraine, it's their plan. You can say like, look, you're not even supporting the resolution. You are not topical. And one of the things in the shits up, topical plan says that your plan must support the topic of the resolution. And so I won't, again, there was a whole advanced session on topicality. But if you can just say like, look, you're not actually supporting the resolution. That's a reason alone not to vote affirmative. Affirmative must, has a burden of proof, has a proof that we should accept the resolution. If their plan doesn't support the resolution, they haven't met that burden of proof. Go get lunch. Thank you. For lunch, and then you come back and you debate. So when you're in the anti-trade size of the desk, it's up to you to vote. Yeah, but certainly, like if someone, if the other team has set the date for your advantage, or if there's an advantage, your next speech, you want to tell us, you know, that's not true here, why you haven't actually voted. Because if you never respond to it, then I'm going to assume it's true. Yeah, so you can play later. And it does one thing, just put it in your plan. Yeah, that's all over. After lunch, where are you going? After lunch, you go back to the auditorium, and that's where they will tell you where the debates are going to be. Did you read through the video? Nah, I don't know. That's my bra, snicker bar. Snicker bar? Are you going to pop tartars? No, and pop tartars. Who actually did it? Someone who did it? Shitsa? Yeah. And then for the opposing, then you have your tagline, and you have this, and so forth. When you flow it, is it going to be break up your shitsa across and then be very interesting? So usually what I do is I put the different speeches across and then the arguments down. And usually I put affirmative on its own piece of paper, maybe multiple pieces of papers, and then all the negative arguments on another piece of paper. Some people put every single argument on its own piece of paper, one paper for harms, one paper for advantages, one paper for disadvantages, one for counter-plan. And then as those arguments happen in time across each speech, then you flow them across the piece of paper. So this is something I have to do to get my, because I know there's like recommendations that help. Yeah, yeah. And it's okay to fail. That's what today is all about. Oh, and it's so hard when your nature is like to get it as right as you can. Yeah. The only way you learn how to swim is by swallowing some water. Swallow lots of water. See, you might swallow some water today. Okay. That's all I found out. Thank you. Sure.